I'd rather take my chances with criminals than with the police. For one thing, criminals usually want your property, not control over your life.

Policemen will angrily assure me that they are the barrier between civilians and a world of random violence. This was a common theme in the flood of hate mail I received from policemen who responded to a column I wrote "Prevent Violence: Disarm the Police." (That article is appended to this one. See below in extended text.) Many officers provided the further assurance that - given my bad attitude - I had best not count on their assistance against a rapist. (Rape was the assault consistently mentioned, perhaps because the e-mails were all from men.) Well, years ago, I was raped and the police weren't there. So it will be difficult to tell the difference.

The police e-mails that disturbed me were not the threatening or abusive ones. These merely confirmed my opinion: the police are the enemies of anyone who holds a 'wrong' idea or takes a 'wrong' action, however peaceful that action may be. I was disturbed by the few written by officers who were clearly decent and reflective human beings. Of course, they disagreed with my contention that the current police system is just one more layer of State abuse which must be abolished and rebuilt along entirely different principles. (The first principle being to protect the persons and property of those who are peaceful. The second one being to leave everyone else alone.) These officers believed they could change the system from within.

I don't believe reform is possible. Consider an analogy: A man goes to work in a factory that produces cardboard boxes. Taking his place on the assembly line, he announces an intention to produce envelopes instead. As long as that man uses the factory's materials and complies with its procedures, his intention will be irrelevant. He will produce cardboard boxes because that is what the institution/factory is designed to manufacture.

'The police' is an institution designed to enforce the law, whatever the law may be, and to process those suspected of violating it. Only if the law is just does an individual policeman stand any chance of 'producing' justice. To a large degree, current law is designed to produce morality (e.g. enforcing victimless crimes), social 'ideals' (affirmative action) or the protection of political power (gun control). As long as the well-intentioned policeman uses the institution's materials - the law - and complies with its procedures, he will not produce justice. All he can do is to minimize the viciousness with which unjust laws are enforced.

I do not belittle the importance of reducing police brutality. Yet I believe attempts to reform this aspect of the problem are doomed as well. I do not use 'bad apples' like Officer Justin Volpe, who sodomized suspect Louima with a broom, as a paradigm around which to level criticism. I am willing to believe that Volpe's sort is as unusual as the idealistic policeman who treats suspects with real compassion. The vast majority of people in any profession fall in the middle of the bell curve, not at either end. I think most officers simply wish to process the goods - that is, the suspects - with as little trouble as possible. When the goods resist processing, the police respond with the same frustration anyone would feel. Only police carry guns. They often view suspects as less than human. And, as with domestic violence, their brutality has the protection of occurring behind a closed door.

The example I use to argue that a few well-intention officers will not reduce brutality is Sgt. Michael Bellomo. He is one of the other four defendants in the Louima matter and the only one not charged with some form of assault. Bellomo went on trial for lying to the FBI about Louima. He is, more credibly, the typical policeman. He protected the unbelievable brutality of a fellow-officer rather than tell the truth. I believe Bellomo is the norm that good intentions will not overcome.

Many, if not most policemen lie. They lie all the time. I remember when my husband lost all faith in the average policeman. At meeting him, I was surprised to learn that he, a civil rights zealot, had preserved a positive image of the 'cop on the beat.' About two months later, he contested a rather trivial speeding ticket in court. The officer involved repeatedly lied under oath. "If the police lie about something that matters so little," he asked me, "how can I believe what they say about anything important?" From that moment, he has never accepted a policeman's statement at face value.

I am a peace-loving, middle-class white woman who does not have so much as a traffic violation on my record. My husband and I should be the rock-solid strata of support upon which the police can draw. They can't because we know they don't protect us. We know they do not produce justice. And the best intentions of the most honorable officers will be lost in the willingness of most policemen to lie to protect the abuses of the worst of their kind. I'll take my chances with the criminals.

ARTICLE REFERENCED:

Prevent Violence: Disarm the Police

Gun opponents who argue "the police will protect you" are a menace to your safety. They are also flat wrong. I am not referring to the overwhelming inability of police to combat crime. Why state the obvious? I am referring to the fact that the police have no duty whatsoever to protect you against criminals. That's not in the job description of 'police officer.' The courts have recognized this fact for over a century.

In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no duty to protect any individual. Their duty is to enforce the law in general. More recently, in 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents... but it does not violate... the Constitution." Later court decisions concurred: the police have no duty to protect you.



Police vehicles routinely sport decals proclaiming sentiments such as
'Proud to Serve!' If they aren't there to protect you, the question becomes, "Who are they serving?" The answer is clear: the police department exists to enforce the law. Policemen serve the government, not the people. And uphold the law with total disregard for whether their actions create or prevent violence. For example, if government decides that certain forms of adult consensual crimes must not be tolerated, then the police will draw their guns and barge into otherwise peaceful bedrooms. To uphold an unjust law, they will create violence and victims.

Those who blithely reassure you about police protection are doubly wrong. Not only is protection not the officers' job, they may well be the ones who victimize you. Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, correctly observes that the American legal system is based on the English Common Law. The modern American policeman dates back centuries to the role of the English Sheriff, who was paid by and accountable to the government, not the community. As the JPFO states, the main purpose of the Sheriff was the "enforcement of government decisions," such as seizing property. "Maintenance of public order" was of secondary concern. Indeed, if the two concerns collided - as in the enforcement of victimless crime
laws - the government invariably won.

Americans revere the romantic Western notion of Marshall Dillon defending the schoolmarm against the Bang-'em-Up gang who swoop down like wolves on the prairie town. But, often, these sheriffs were hired by the communities and were responsible to the people there. Moreover, the townsfolk themselves routinely owned guns. What Americans are actually revering is an example of a quasi-private police force functioning within an armed society. Unfortunately, this image still benefits the modern state policeman who is routinely glorified by television programs like Cops! Yet these state-employees are the antithesis of the Western sheriff. They are modeled after the British Sheriff - they are responsible only to enforce government policy and they often are the wolves.

If policy makers want to prevent violence, they should consider disarming the police and encouraging gun ownership within the citizenry. There is historical precedent. In his book Frontier Justice, Wayne Gard describes the rampant corruption of politics and police in 1850's San Francisco. Violence soared until the SF vigilante committee revived (1856). Within three months, Gard explains, "San Francisco had only two murders, compared with more than a hundred in the six months before the committee was formed."

At least until erring policemen acknowledge a duty to protect the life and property of individuals, 'the people' en masse ought to say 'no more donuts for you!'