I had lunch recently with a good friend who is a retired police officer. He had a long and satisfying career with the police department of a major American city, with his last assignment before normal retirement as a member of its Internal Affairs (IAD) unit. He started, naturally, as a uniformed patrol officer and was promoted along the way to Detective in the criminal investigations division and sexual assault unit before finishing with a few years in IAD. Over the years of our friendship, he's told me a few stories about his experiences in the various phases of his career and all have been interesting but not extremely out of the ordinary, I suppose, for a big city cop. This story was different.
Let me give you a little bit of my perspective on law enforcement in general before I tell you this story. I neither love nor hate cops. I believe that the vast majority of LEOs diligently follow the rules and ethics of their profession and well serve the communities in which they are employed. I believe that almost all of the deficiencies we see in police activities these days are rooted in the system under which LEOs work; not in their individual demeanor. In other words, we "citizens/voters/taxpayers" have not demanded (and agreed to pay for) that our police departments operate under the best possible protocols. We taxpayers are therefore at fault, in my opinion, for almost all of the things we dislike about our law enforcement agencies. Meanwhile, the things we most admire about the system result mostly from talented individuals making "silk purses" out of the "sow's ears" we give them to work with.
That being said, I believe there are basically three kinds of cops. One kind is the "bad cop" who performs criminal acts and gets away with them because of his position, who covers up for his bad cop buddy out of a misguided sense of loyalty, or the overzealous cop who mistreats citizens because of his "us vs. them" mentality. Another kind of cop is the guy who is completely honest and ethical, does his job exactly as he's been trained and adheres to the letter AND spirit of all the department's rules. He believes that serving the community is "Job 1." The third kind of cop is a True American Hero. He goes beyond the requirements of the job in every facet - work ethic, attitude, selflessness, and maintenance of a higher set of standards than is required. His morality and honesty are beyond reproach.
On any given police force there are very few, in my opinion, of the bad cops and even fewer True American Heros. The vast majority of LEOs are the "regular joes" who earn every dollar of their pay and deserve our gratitude for a job well done. They deserve our support and every piece of help we can give them to succeed in their mission. This story is about one of the third group, whom we cannot possibly reward adequately for their service.
Out of modesty, my friend would shun any notoriety this story might bring, so I'll assign a fictitious name. Let's call him Chad.
During his time as a Detective in the sexual assault unit, Chad once investigated a rape case. The victim identified a perpetrator who was then arrested and indicted for the crime. During preparation for the trial, Chad interviewed the victim again to confirm the details of the crime for use by the prosecutor in presenting the case in court. During this routine interview, Chad almost passed over but did come to notice one minor discrepancy in the victim's recollection of the events. He didn't doubt the sincerity nor veracity of the victim, nor the pertinent facts she had provided about the case, but her demeanor left him with a very slight, nagging doubt about whether she had made a positively correct identification of the perpetrator.
In the normal course of events, Chad revealed his doubts to the prosecutor and suggested further investigation into the identity of the perpetrator. He was told that a suspect was in custody, had been indicted, and would stand trial on schedule based on the information already assembled unless a more positive different identity could be established. Chad then requested from his supervisor assignment to pursue the identity question and was told that the department was satisfied with the information on hand and that he was free to investigate further but it would have to be "on his own time."
Chad's sense of justice could not let the possibility of a mistaken identity go unchallenged, so he dedicated his off duty hours to further investigation. Eventually, another suspect was revealed and the victim confirmed the second person as the correct assailant. She had made an honest mistake in her first identification and, when presented with the second option, readily affirmed the correct choice. With this new information, the prosecutor changed the case and the real bad guy went to prison.
Chad did not pack up his briefcase and head home when told that the case was "good enough" against the innocent man. Chad continued to look for justice even though he had to spend his own off-duty time to find it. Chad corrected a mistake in the system by applying his expertise in evaluating the validity of a seemingly credible identification and then pursuing his uncertainty without a preconceived conclusion. He found the real bad guy.
It's not enough that we credit Chad for preventing the conviction of an innocent man, although that is obviously of enormous importance; for it is our society in general, and the taxpayers of the city he worked for, that benefits from Chad's insistence that justice prevails instead of injustice being inflicted. What's more important to society is that, once brought to light, the true perpetrator was found to be a serial rapist who had victimized several women in the past, and probably would have continued his reign of terror had not Chad persisted in his quest for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way." When the system makes an error, it is compounded by leaving the real "bad guy" on the streets.
These days Chad's enjoying his retirement, spending time with his family and friends, living a mundane life pursuing his hobbies, and complaining about aches, pains, and politics. If you pass him in the aisle of the sporting good store you won't notice the big red S on his T-shirt and his cape will be well hidden. He is, nevertheless, the modern incarnation of Superman and I just wish there were more like him among us. Thank you for your service, Chad.
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
Monday, August 19, 2019
The Battle of Athens
Some politicians blatantly advocate the elimination of our freedom to keep and bear arms. Others obfuscate this desire by framing their arguments to ignore the overarching reason our forefathers installed the Second Amendment in the first place - preserving our ability to resist government tyranny. Some Second Amendment supporters may even question the probability that modern American government could become tyrannical enough to require armed disobedience. We don’t have to turn back all that many pages in the history books, however, to learn just how prescient our forefathers really were.
On the heels of World War II America enjoyed its victory over tyranny in Europe and the Far East while preparing itself for a long cold war against Communism. The lives of its people began to transition back from wartime to peacetime and they celebrated liberty and freedom. Most of them did, anyway, but In 1946 tyranny had become rampant in McMinn County, Tennessee. It had taken hold despite the cries for help of its citizens to the State of Tennessee and the Federal Government. Eventually, the tyrants went too far and armed citizens were able to restore liberty with the help of veterans just returned from the war.
Read the facts about The Battle of Athens for yourself.
Wikipedia - Battle of Athens
On the heels of World War II America enjoyed its victory over tyranny in Europe and the Far East while preparing itself for a long cold war against Communism. The lives of its people began to transition back from wartime to peacetime and they celebrated liberty and freedom. Most of them did, anyway, but In 1946 tyranny had become rampant in McMinn County, Tennessee. It had taken hold despite the cries for help of its citizens to the State of Tennessee and the Federal Government. Eventually, the tyrants went too far and armed citizens were able to restore liberty with the help of veterans just returned from the war.
Read the facts about The Battle of Athens for yourself.
Wikipedia - Battle of Athens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
https://www.americanheritage.com/battle-athens
Those who would give up liberty in search of security shall have neither.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting.
Those who would give up liberty in search of security shall have neither.
Enforce Existing Laws
Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney was recently quoted on CNN: "Our officers deserve to be protected and they don't deserve to be shot at by a guy for hours with an unlimited supply of weapons and an unlimited supply of bullets. It's disgusting and we got to do something about it ... quickly."
He’s right on that point, but that isn’t all the Mayor had to say about the recent shooting. He went on to blame the NRA, among others, for the situation where a convicted bad guy was able to literally wage war against local police. The Mayor failed to recognize that this particular alleged perpetrator is a convicted felon who possessed weapons illegally and who already could (should) have been incarcerated for numerous weapons violations - laws already on the books. The Mayor didn’t want to take responsibility for any part of the government’s failure to enforce existing law. He doesn’t seem to understand that the enactment of more laws for criminals to ignore won’t keep his police officers, or the public, safe.
The Mayor wants me to give up my ability to defend myself and my family in exchange for some more “feel-good legislation” that probably won’t even be enforced anyway. We have plenty of reasonable gun laws on the books already. Aggressive enforcement of those laws might even make a difference in reducing gun violence. Let’s enforce the laws we already have to the extent possible before we determine that more are necessary.
Those who would give up liberty in search of security shall have neither.
He’s right on that point, but that isn’t all the Mayor had to say about the recent shooting. He went on to blame the NRA, among others, for the situation where a convicted bad guy was able to literally wage war against local police. The Mayor failed to recognize that this particular alleged perpetrator is a convicted felon who possessed weapons illegally and who already could (should) have been incarcerated for numerous weapons violations - laws already on the books. The Mayor didn’t want to take responsibility for any part of the government’s failure to enforce existing law. He doesn’t seem to understand that the enactment of more laws for criminals to ignore won’t keep his police officers, or the public, safe.
The Mayor wants me to give up my ability to defend myself and my family in exchange for some more “feel-good legislation” that probably won’t even be enforced anyway. We have plenty of reasonable gun laws on the books already. Aggressive enforcement of those laws might even make a difference in reducing gun violence. Let’s enforce the laws we already have to the extent possible before we determine that more are necessary.
Those who would give up liberty in search of security shall have neither.
Knee-Jerk Legislation
And so it begins … In the wake of recent violence, politicians have renewed their predictable hue and cry: “We must do something about gun violence.” Instead of proposing meaningful solutions to the problem, however, the tired old notion of disarming law-abiding citizens is once again trotted forth. Somehow, they reason, despite all the historical statistics to the contrary and all the unenthusiastically enforced laws already on the books, this disarmament will save lives. Never mind those lives lost due to an inability to legitimately defend hearth and home.
We are told that “if we save just one innocent child’s life in the process” it is justifiable that the rest of us give up our rights. As superficially alluring as that argument is, it is flawed. Our history records a plethora of conflicts in which American blood was shed in the effort to preserve our freedom. American blood was shed to ensure freedom from slavery. American blood was shed to stop Nazi genocide. American blood was shed in the preservation of our rights as guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. Should we now repudiate the validity of all that bloodshed by passing laws forged solely from knee-jerk emotions; laws that are predictably ineffective?
When laws are enacted that everyone knows have little or no chance of being meaningful, the politicians are not only inflicting a horrible hoax on their constituents but are disrespecting the lives given by countless American soldiers throughout our history; lives given to protect our liberty and way of life. The misguided process also distracts us from finding meaningful solutions.
Those who would give up liberty in search of security shall have neither.
KingRAT
We are told that “if we save just one innocent child’s life in the process” it is justifiable that the rest of us give up our rights. As superficially alluring as that argument is, it is flawed. Our history records a plethora of conflicts in which American blood was shed in the effort to preserve our freedom. American blood was shed to ensure freedom from slavery. American blood was shed to stop Nazi genocide. American blood was shed in the preservation of our rights as guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. Should we now repudiate the validity of all that bloodshed by passing laws forged solely from knee-jerk emotions; laws that are predictably ineffective?
When laws are enacted that everyone knows have little or no chance of being meaningful, the politicians are not only inflicting a horrible hoax on their constituents but are disrespecting the lives given by countless American soldiers throughout our history; lives given to protect our liberty and way of life. The misguided process also distracts us from finding meaningful solutions.
Those who would give up liberty in search of security shall have neither.
KingRAT
Yellow Journalism
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “Yellow journalism is the use of lurid features and sensationalized news in newspaper publishing to attract readers and increase circulation.” When the title of an article bears little connection to its content or when exaggeration colors the facts, readers can be tempted to consume bovine excrement veiled (sometimes even thinly) as legitimate items of interest.
In our complex society, where media competes fiercely for the limited attention of its consumers, yellow journalism enhances the possibility that an article will get some attention. Writers frequently expound on subjects about which they have little or no knowledge and masquerade as experts when they are little more than charismatic idiots. Even when they are not purposefully trying to deceive readers they succumb to the temptation of trying to build their reputation into something undeserved. There was once a time when journalists adhered to a professional standard that abhorred yellow journalism. Sadly, that time seems to have passed.
Also, consumers are not entirely blameless victims of this sad state of affairs. The timeless Latin phrase, Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware) applies to media consumption more so these days than ever. We readily drink the Koolaid of fake and/or sensationalized news with a penchant and participate in its spread with enthusiasm. Who hasn’t “shared,” “retweeted” or otherwise repeated a sensational story only to find out that it is false or extremely loosely based in fact.
The “Fourth Estate” was once a powerful leg in the foundation of our freedom by standing ready to expose inappropriate behavior in government and society. Editorial opinions were once labeled clearly as such but today are paraded as front-page news even when facts need to be twisted to support the contrived opinion. With the demise of professional integrity among the media, however, whether perpetrated by its insiders or encouraged by an apathetic consumer, our society suffers and we lose the ability to retain the moral fiber that made America great. If we recognize that we cannot legislate morality amongst media players, we can at least become more informed and responsible consumers. In the words of the immortal Pogo; “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
KingRAT
In our complex society, where media competes fiercely for the limited attention of its consumers, yellow journalism enhances the possibility that an article will get some attention. Writers frequently expound on subjects about which they have little or no knowledge and masquerade as experts when they are little more than charismatic idiots. Even when they are not purposefully trying to deceive readers they succumb to the temptation of trying to build their reputation into something undeserved. There was once a time when journalists adhered to a professional standard that abhorred yellow journalism. Sadly, that time seems to have passed.
Also, consumers are not entirely blameless victims of this sad state of affairs. The timeless Latin phrase, Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware) applies to media consumption more so these days than ever. We readily drink the Koolaid of fake and/or sensationalized news with a penchant and participate in its spread with enthusiasm. Who hasn’t “shared,” “retweeted” or otherwise repeated a sensational story only to find out that it is false or extremely loosely based in fact.
The “Fourth Estate” was once a powerful leg in the foundation of our freedom by standing ready to expose inappropriate behavior in government and society. Editorial opinions were once labeled clearly as such but today are paraded as front-page news even when facts need to be twisted to support the contrived opinion. With the demise of professional integrity among the media, however, whether perpetrated by its insiders or encouraged by an apathetic consumer, our society suffers and we lose the ability to retain the moral fiber that made America great. If we recognize that we cannot legislate morality amongst media players, we can at least become more informed and responsible consumers. In the words of the immortal Pogo; “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
KingRAT
The U. S. Constitution
The United States Constitution is a document that spells out how our Federal government should operate and the rules by which the various States are bound together. Each state has agreed to this arrangement, under which some of its own rules of governance are superseded by those spelled out in the U. S. Constitution. The U. S. Constitution enumerates those powers bestowed on the Federal Government and further states that all rights not specifically enumerated shall remain within the purview of the States.
Over the years some have come to view the U. S. Constitution as a document that bestows rights on the people. Instead, however, it, more importantly, serves to limit the power of the Federal Government; a distinction which is subtle but very important. These rights were never the property of the Federal Government to bestow but were the birthright of every American - dating back to the Magna Carta - and memorialized in the Declaration of Independence as our rights to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
An individual’s right to self-defense - his right to life - is nowhere denied nor abridged by the U. S. Constitution and, in fact, the U. S. Constitution specifically prohibits the government from acting so as to limit, undermine, or encroach upon (infringe) the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. Together, the individual right of Americans to self-defense (inalienable) and the prohibition of government interference with keeping and bearing arms are concepts important enough for all of us to take very seriously.
Even if “gun control” is the wish of the majority, these basic tenents override those wishes when it is recognized that the rights of a minority must be preserved. Self-defense is a basic human right. “Shall not be infringed” gives an individual the right to exercise that right with a semi-automatic, high capacity, firearm.
Over the years some have come to view the U. S. Constitution as a document that bestows rights on the people. Instead, however, it, more importantly, serves to limit the power of the Federal Government; a distinction which is subtle but very important. These rights were never the property of the Federal Government to bestow but were the birthright of every American - dating back to the Magna Carta - and memorialized in the Declaration of Independence as our rights to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
An individual’s right to self-defense - his right to life - is nowhere denied nor abridged by the U. S. Constitution and, in fact, the U. S. Constitution specifically prohibits the government from acting so as to limit, undermine, or encroach upon (infringe) the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. Together, the individual right of Americans to self-defense (inalienable) and the prohibition of government interference with keeping and bearing arms are concepts important enough for all of us to take very seriously.
Even if “gun control” is the wish of the majority, these basic tenents override those wishes when it is recognized that the rights of a minority must be preserved. Self-defense is a basic human right. “Shall not be infringed” gives an individual the right to exercise that right with a semi-automatic, high capacity, firearm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)