From A Former Law Enforcement Officer in Montgomery County, Maryland.
I hope you really did not tweet that there should be “justice” for the family of Berhe? If you did, shame on you.
The call went out as a burglary in progress and the subject was armed with a knife. How the heck is a social worker supposed to handle that? Even if the call was merely a mentally ill person brandishing a knife, no mobile crisis team, psychologist, or psychiatrist would dare go near the scene until it was rendered safe and secure.
Even on those mental health calls where there is a potential for violence and the Mobile Crisis Team is responding, they will have the officers there as back ups. They cannot confront violent and armed people in a non-controlled environment.
Officers must live with their split second decisions. They have to decide in mere fractions of a second how to react to a deadly threat. That difference means the ability to go home in one piece to your family or suffer life changing injuries or death. Likewise, failure of the officer to take action with an armed, emotionally disturbed individual creates a danger to the community members as well.
I personally know this officer, as well as others who have had to use deadly force to protect themselves and the community. Several never recovered from the trauma of taking a human life and had to leave the department. Universally, those officers are forever changed. I have never met a police officer yet that thought, “Tonight I am going to kill someone.” In fact, the opposite is true.
I have seen my share, me included, of those who did some dangerous and stupid things to avoid shooting someone despite the deadly threat. But, when that trigger is pulled and it is a justifiable shooting, the community should be there to support the officer, not to second guess them. That includes the elected officials that have an obligation to know the facts and circumstances and educate themselves on the realities of police use of force.
Having the council members not recognize that the actions of the officer are also predicated on the actions of the assailant and shift blame to the system, the officer, training, or lack of a 24/7, fully staffed crisis team does a disservice to every officer out there. It is unrealistic and just plain foolish to believe that mental health professionals will be the panacea to fix the problem.
The problem with dealing with the mentally ill goes far beyond community crisis team response. Our mental health system has been insurance driven for 40 years. We went from almost 4,000 beds at Springfield State Hospital to less than 300. Hospitalization is a joke. They stabilize them and kick them out because that is all insurance carriers will pay for. I could speak for hours regarding the mental health systems in place or lacking. I will leave that to a later discussion.
The fact is out of the nearly 1 million law enforcement officers serving today and the millions of contacts and arrests made, the numbers of people shot by officers every year has remained constant for decades or decreased despite huge increases in population. The Montgomery County Police Department provides some of the best training in Crisis Intervention. I was one of the first to go through the training. Now, all MCPD officers must complete the 40 hour course in crisis intervention.
In this case, honestly tell me that if a knife wielding individual attacked you and you were a police officer that you would not protect yourself. Tell me you would take one for the team and hope your family could do without you. If you say you would not have fired, I challenge you to do some shoot don’t shoot scenarios. Many people change their opinion after experiencing that training. And, that is still make believe where they know they are not going to get hurt.
We are bringing awareness to the unjust and unfair treatment our nation’s children are experiencing due to state-sanctioned indoctrination and certain schools not reopening in the DC Metro Area.
I wanted to share something that ties into Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), black lives matter (BLM), and Law Enforcement (LE).
Recently I saw my son’s high school teacher wearing a BLM shirt on their zoom meeting for class. We addressed it by expressing our concern with the principal, informing him of my husband’s service and how my entire career has been in support of all levels of LE in many different ways throughout the years.
Today we received a response.
“MCPS does not recognize Black Lives Matter as political speech. It is recognized as an advocacy group started as a response to police shootings, as you can read on their website. The organization’s mission is aligned with the MCPS core values, and it is representative of our inclusive environment. That said, I did discuss the shirt with the teacher and let her know that one of her student’s families took offense to her wearing of the shirt so she was aware of the possible impact on some of her students and community members.”
The first issue is the principal speaking for the district. The second is the BLM site. Their political advocacy isn’t listed on the “About” page but it is listed on the “What’s Next” portion of their site.
My question is why is this acceptable? They are saying that the district’s core values align with civil unrest and the targeting of LE? MCPS is the largest school district in MD.
THIS is what our kids are seeing and secretly learning? I’m utterly speechless right now.
Written by a former educator and a retired teacher of the Montgomery County, Maryland Public School System (MCPS).
What’s really being taught?
As a former educator I have a deep appreciation for education. What’s happening in the Montgomery County School System and systems across our nation is not education- it’s indoctrination. The children of Montgomery County are being programmed to accept the Marxist ideology by teachers whose jobs are at risk if they challenge the system. This is happening under the watchwords: equity, 1619 project, social justice, racism, police brutality, cancel culture, and social reform.
“We want our sons and daughters to know the truth.”
“Our country wasn’t built on cancel culture, speech codes, and crushing conformity; we are not a nation of timid spirits.”
My wife, who is a retired teacher from MCPS, recently contacted several of her conservative friends still teaching in the system. She asked them how the current cancel culture environment is affecting their teaching. Here are some of the responses:
“I was given the book ‘White Fragility’ and was told we’d be discussing it during staff development. We also received an email after the George Floyd incident that expressed the administration’s white guilt we all should feel. It was re-sent at the beginning of the school year. Conservative teachers are frustrated and many are ready to retire.“
“Teachers and para educators are required by the county to view 10 videos redefining race, sexual orientation, and inappropriate words considered politically and socially incorrect. Teachers and paras must adhere to these new standards or risk disciplinary actions or termination. Many of these new guidelines conflict with the moral and ethical values that Judeo-Christian teachers hold.“
“I assisted in a classroom where the teacher had a large picture of president Obama on the wall with the caption under it that read, ‘Greatest President Ever.’ The flag was placed next to the American flag so children were forced to view this every morning as the pledge was recited.”
“I recently posted a clip on my personal Facebook page following the attempted police assassination in Los Angeles that read Police Lives Matter. I was told by the administration that I must remove it or face disciplinary action.“
“As a history teacher I’m expected to teach the narrative, ‘It’s not a black fight but rather a human fight.’ Every teacher in every context is expected to teach something regarding it. It’s also taught in homeroom.”
“I see bias. When the kids go to a source to site examples during an assignment MCPS always uses very liberal news outlets like CNN, New York Times, Vox, etc.“
Another testimonial we got was from a Montgomery County police officer who shared that the police had been called because a teacher was offended during her zoom class because a student had a “Trump 2020” poster on his bedroom wall. She reported she was subject to cyber bullying and wanted the police to investigate. As it turns out, the student was suspended for two days. Sadly, we don’t hear this on the nightly news.
Another testimony quoted from The MoCo Conservative blog from a 1st grade mother was that her child was read to from a book entitled, Antiracist Baby, by Ibram X. Kendi. Another junior from Rockville High School had to write a report on the black lives matter (BLM) movement.
Another student at Montgomery College wrote a paper on anti-abortion. Her teacher told her the paper was written extremely well and would have received an “A,” but because of the content she would only receive a “C.”
Conservative teachers in Montgomery County are being bullied, intimidated, disciplined, and reprimanded for their conservative beliefs. They are mandated to teach using the new narrative. As a result, we see middle school and high school students standing on street corners holding up signs which support BLM, “social justice,” and de-funding the police. They are clueless and naïve relative to the history of Marxism and Communism.
Middle school and high school students are the product of our failed school system that devotes more time to social reform than teaching basic curriculum.
So, what are the solutions?
Remove the Marxist leaders governing Montgomery County, most of whom live in Takoma Park, Maryland, and replace them with conservative leaders who appreciate patriotism and embrace our historical past embedded in Judeo-Christian values;
Elect a school board that is willing to take a stand to resist the liberal teacher unions and Marxist leadership of Montgomery County;
Campaign for school vouchers so that those who cannot afford private schools can have the right to have their children receive a non-biased, normal education;
Place your children in private schools that reflect your moral and ethical values;
Move to a state or county that has a more conservative agenda; and
Accept that a do-nothing attitude will result in your child’s indoctrination and acceptance into the new narrative of Marxism.
As the debate regarding police reform grows in intensity, we must consider the legislation Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) are being asked to enforce.
More importantly, what is the governing philosophy to which the legislators must hold LEOs and citizens accountable?
I recently became aware of an individual in Los Angeles, California who was allegedly unarmed at the time of being shot by local law enforcement; while I do not wish to take the tragedy of a life lost and turn it into a mere political discussion, further reflection may – in fact – save lives. Furthermore, it is worth noting that all of the information about the Dijon Kizzee case has likely not been made public, and this discussion must be tempered with the understanding that more information could, in fact, nullify or modulate aspects of my opinion. Nonetheless, I believe it is important to examine why law enforcement began interacting with Mr. Kizzee.
What law was Mr. Kizzee breaking which initiated LEO contact?
According to the article, Mr. Kizzee was stopped while riding his bicycle for vehicle code violations. Permit me, for a moment, to frame the criminal activity like this: Mr. Kizzee was engaged by LEOs for operating the same instrument of transportation that my two year-old son is currently learning to master. Should we now pause and consider what principles of government would lend itself to such legislation, and require armed officials to police such behavior?
To answer this question, I would submit that there are two fundamental philosophies of government in modern American politics.
One philosophy, as evidenced by a tweet from U.S. Representative Jennifer Wexton (VA-10), suggests that the function of government is to create laws that would progress society toward a better future – according to the government’s relative understanding of betterment at the time – and the popular election is the primary source of justification needed for subsequent legislation. The other philosophy would espouse a view concluding that the primary role of government is to protect the individual liberty of citizens. In the case of Dijon Kizzee, Eric Gardner, and others, these two perspectives proved immeasurably consequential.
As ambiguity has no friendship with good intentions, I will clearly state that it is my belief that a governing body, no matter how well-intentioned, will often subject the governed to unforeseen and unintended consequences of laws which go beyond the intent of protecting individuals to an encroachment on their civil rights and personal liberties.
From A Very Concerned Citizen In Montgomery County, Maryland.
When does the emphasis on community activism end and real governing begin?
Apparently not any time soon in Montgomery County, Maryland. As long as the seats on our county council are primarily filled with community organizers and political activists, we will continue to see Montgomery County become more like Takoma Park and Berkeley, California. Unfortunately, five of the nine council members are from either liberal Takoma Park or Silver Spring.
Sadly, Jawando, along with most of the other Council persons in Montgomery County, have no business or work experience. Consequently, their total focus while on the council is on community activism.
When Will Jawando joined the council as one of the At-Large Council members in 2018 he immediately began inserting his agenda into legislation. He had now found a new platform for his lifelong passion. Jawando immediately introduced legislation for hair discrimination in the workplace; his ultimate passion was to reform the police department of Montgomery County. In an article published by dcist on August 26, Jawando tells a story of how he was arrested in the mid 2000’s while riding in a car with several law school friends. They were admittedly shouting obscenities at an undercover female police officer. Apparently, his parents did not teach him manners or respect for fellow human beings. Instead of recognizing his fault for his misconduct, he chose to process the incident as police harassment and developed a victim mentality. Sadly, this happens all too often. It’s sad when people do not accept responsibility for their actions. His concern was how this arrest would affect his future career. Today, he counts himself as a victim because of his race. He sees himself as a statistic rather than a foul-mouthed young man who got caught for his poor behavior.
Today, because of his victim mentality, Jawando is on a mission to reshape policing in Montgomery County. Along with Hans Reimer, a Marxist from California, they are proposing that police no longer make traffic stops and issue traffic citations. They would like to use the Berkeley model, utilizing the department of transportation as traffic enforcers. They are also suggesting more traffic cameras.
By Will’s own admission and his distrust of police he is suggesting we throw out the baby with the bath water. Again, it’s legislating to the lowest common denominator.
In a lengthy conversation with a Montgomery County police officer over the Labor Day weekend, he and I discussed policing in Montgomery County. He shared with me that morale on the force is at its lowest point. I asked him if he had been given stand down orders.
He acknowledged most officers are reluctant to make arrests because of fear of reprisal and lack of support from the County Executive, Marc Elrich.
He also shared that many activists purposely provoke police hoping for a negative response while they stand by with their cell phones filming the event. I asked him to tell me how the police would respond if I was a victim of black lives matter (BLM) harassment or if my business was threatened or looted or burned. He sadly responded they would most likely stand down. He shared that the risk of losing his job or being sued or jailed for doing his job caused him to think differently on how he performed his work.
So, I ask you, Mr. Jawando:
1. How do you propose protecting the law-abiding citizens of Montgomery County who are at risk of the anarchists, rioters, and criminals?
2. Do you propose protecting the rioters over the law abiding taxpayers of Montgomery County?
3. Why do you allow your poor, disrespectful behavior as a student shape your policy-making for this county?
“Racism” and “racist” are two of the most overused words in the English language.
Today the word “racist” is used to define any person, black or white, who makes a public statement that could be construed to be anything but complimentary. Loosely translated, if I disagree with you or your politics, I’m considered a racist.
Human beings are now afraid to speak for fear of being labeled a racist.
One could potentially label me a racist for speaking out against these two men and organizations.
If one would ask my view on racial equality, I would begin by sharing my family history. My ancestors were in fact abolitionists and members of the underground railroad. My grandfather, several generations removed, was in fact a defendant in a year-long trial because of his involvement in harboring a fugitive slave. He lost the case and was forced to pay punitive damages to the slave holder. This case, which took place in Philadelphia in 1823, became one of the many legal cases used to determine the right to own a slave. Later in January 1863, another grandfather of mine fought for the Union Army. He was captured at the Battle of Murphysboro, Tennessee and incarcerated at the Libby prison, a confederate prison located in Richmond, Virginia. The hardships he endured in this deplorable prison were inhumane and cruel. Mind you, he fought and suffered greatly so black men could be free and equal.
My past is deeply rooted in the advocacy of civil rights. I should not have to apologize for having white skin.
My ancestors would be saddened to learn how civil rights and equality are defined today. The term racism and racist have been cheapened to reflect political rhetoric without true meaning. Sadly, I see reverse discrimination in today’s society.
It’s politically incorrect for me to say this, but it is the elephant in the room. Why do we have a NAACP and not a NAAWP? Why do we have negro college funds and not white college funds? Why do we have Black Entertainment Network and not White Entertainment? Why do we have black history month and not white history month? Why do we have black Miss America and not White Miss America? Why aren’t professional sports teams more racially balanced? Why are 90% of the players on men’s basketball teams black? Does affirmative action only apply to black?
I just said what most white Americans think but are too afraid to say publicly for fear of being called a racist.
I had a dear neighbor who is black tell me she is fearful of police. She is fearful of being singled out because of her skin color. She has never personally been arrested or detained. Her husband and children are very successful and hold prominent positions in the government and academic world. She is very down on America even though America gave her husband and children opportunities for success. I fail to see the logic in her fear and hatred, but it is impossible to have an honest, open conversation with her when it comes to this subject. Sadly, I believe she has bought into the leftist narrative of oppression and truly believes what she hears on the news.
The reality is her family was successful not because of their skin color, but because of hard work and determination in an America that provides this opportunity for ALL.
This article will explore my theory on how cancel culture’s ultimate goal is that of a civil war in the United States, and how certain spending habits of Americans, particularly involving firearms, will help determine the outcome.
I’ve always started papers and articles with a specific quote in mind. For this particular topic, the quote comes easily:
We live in an age of technological advancement that is not only rapidly advancing our quality of life, but is also rapidly deteriorating our peace of mind. As a certain three-star General once stated, “[w]e live in a digital battlefield.”
Going on Twitter and, to a lesser degree, Facebook, you can clearly see that humanity is already at war in a battle hosted by servers, where the opposition (a small but loud and dangerous army) is aided by tyrants like Zuckerberg (Facebook) and Dorsey (Twitter), who brazenly carry an unlimited supply of artillery and ammunition (e.g., angry liberals, bots, shadow banning, blacklisting, blocking, suppression algorithms, etc.).
Digital warriors consist of conservative-leaning individuals who fight against left-leaning radicals online with memes and rhetoric intentionally mischaracterized by the Left as “divisive.” Both sides are pawns in the clash of ideas and morals; where one side’s sole intent is on damaging a person’s livelihood no matter the cost, the other side is fighting a behemoth of rage and idiocy funded by billionaires with a twisted agenda.
This is cancel culture.
Where just one “errant” or unpopular opinion psychologically triggers the snowflake social justice warriors and causes an avalanche of action to destroy reputations, families, and livelihoods, causing irreparable damage to those without job protection.
Cancel culture is, at first glance, an exercise of power to prevent the open debate of ideas. But I see its goal as more violently oppressive.
Journalist Jonathan Rauch recently created a “Cancel Culture Checklist” containing six warning signs explaining how to determine if you are an impending victim of cancel culture. The warning signs include: punitiveness, deplatforming, organization, secondary boycotts, moral grandstanding, and truthiness. It’s a good read for those who wish to learn more about specific actions being taken against those who refuse to adhere to the tenets set forth by the marxist mob of the Democrat party.
Below are the different phases of how cancel culture’s movement and its operatives work, based on my observations and research:
Utilize sleeper cells in all institutions to shove the same agenda down the throat of every student, customer, and viewer to increase reach;
Force defectors to apologize in order to create a feeling of shame for others who wish to do the same;
Dox and “swat” famous and well-known conservatives as a tool to prevent naturally-occurring, and at this point, increasing defection;
Slowly and consistently introduce radical, marxist ideas that your loyal followers must now obey in order to remain compliant and in the “popular” clique; this includes sanctioning murder of those who disagree with you;
Take the agenda out in the streets when an event (staged or not, but usually with a preventable casualty) provides the perfect opportunity to further divide based on issue/label of the day;
Declare war on anyone who lives in the suburbs, no matter what their political affiliation, because they are all selfish and evil; and
Stage a physical, tangible war between law abiding citizens and brainwashed, paid, and “zombified” communists of the Democrat party.
I believe we are currently, as a nation, somewhere between numbers 11/12 and 12/13 (depending where you live). Before we go into what needs to happen to get to the last two, however, let’s take a step back and talk about the types of behavior that allow cancel culture to flourish in our society.
The types of behavior that allow cancel culture to permeate in our society:
Apologetic/no backbone. When someone in the public eye takes a stand on an issue and provides a counter argument to the ideas put forth by the leaders of the radical, progressive Left, they are usually pressured to issue a public apology. When the apology is made public and shared, the Left has once again controlled opposition through their cancel culture agenda. So, what happens when that person does NOT apologize? Apart from clearly becoming persona non grata, something shifts in the narrative; since the Left can no longer control the individual, they employ tactics to make sure that the resistance to their ideals does not reach many people. Since they control the news and social media (to a certain extent), this is easy to do.
False sense of moral superiority. How many times have conservatives heard that we are selfish for putting our needs and our children’s needs above other’s needs? How many times have conservatives and to a lesser extent, moderate liberals, been told they need to “check their privilege”? The Left strategically brainwashes its loyal followers to believe that what they are espousing, the public shaming they are doing, is for “the greater good” of humanity. Don’t have kids! It’s bad for the environment. Don’t start learning pods! Your kids will have a higher chance to succeed later in life than others. Don’t go outside with your mask off! You can kill someone. The list is never-ending.
Overly emotional. Leftist liberals are the most hyper emotional people I have ever met. They rely on their emotions to guide their decision-making skills, thereby prioritizing goals and actions that make them feel good, instead of focusing on long-term, realistic, and pragmatic solutions that will do good. Is there a middle ground? Absolutely! But not for the cancel culture mob, which brings us to #4.
Refusal to compromise. Time and time again, the cancel culture mob’s devoted followers have stated that they refuse to listen to the “other side” and refuse to compromise. This means that it’s basically their way or the “highway.” No wonder they sound like they’re little children throwing a tantrum- would you teach your children to never compromise? I didn’t think so.
Will the suburbanites fight back?
At this point, I am confident that we can follow specific consumer spending trends of American citizens to find a solution/deterrent to cancel culture’s ultimate goal of instigating a civil war.
There is no doubt in my mind, and in the minds of millions of first-time gun owners, that there is a shift happening based on the number of firearm-related purchases by law-abiding citizens.
In case you weren’t paying attention, that is a HUGE number. You can clearly identify consumer spending habits with how safe a consumer is feeling at that time. Based on the number of gun sales alone within such a short time frame, it’s clear that personal, physical safety is being prioritized by many citizens living in the cities and suburbs.
“Gun sales have skyrocketed during the past three months, and a record-breaking 80.2 percent increase in sales was reported in May compared to last year, according to the shooting foundation. April’s data showed a 71.3 percent increase from 2019, and there was an 85.3 percent increase in March, according to information previously released by Small Arms Analytics and Forecasting.”
So, what is the point of showing you this data? It’s clear that more and more people are preparing to have to defend themselves, their families, their homes, and their businesses.
Firearms are the most effective threat deterrent.
You will kill cancel culture’s main, long-term goal of destroying and wreaking havoc on suburbia when you: legally buy at least one firearm (per adult); learn how to use that firearm; and practice self-defense techniques (with a trained professional) that will help you and your family stay safe and eventually escape from immediate danger when (not if) the mob comes for your community.
P.S. Did you think that I would tell you to “fight back” with words and feelings? We are way past that stage, don’t you think?
I spent some time this morning listening to an interview on “Fox and Friends” of Congressman Jim Clyburn, regarding the first night of the virtual Democrat National Convention. The interviewer, Brian Kilmeade, seemed to be lobbing softball questions at first, but when he changed the subject to the rioting in the streets across America, the tone of the interview shifted.
It was clear that the Congressman did not like being questioned about defunding the police, looting in Chicago, and the rioting in Portland and Seattle.
When pressed on the lack of response to these matters, the Congressman dodged the question by stating that neither he nor Congressman Lewis (now deceased) supported such actions. But when pressed again by the interviewer, however, Congressman Clyburn launched into a response about his Civil Rights fight of the 1960’s and how that was “hijacked” by desperate groups who rioted in the streets, chanting “Burn Baby Burn.” Kilmeade, to his credit, then asked, “[W]hy are you allowing them [Black Lives Matter/BLM] to hijack this movement?”
At this point, the Congressman got visibly angry and refused to condemn the rioting being conducted in the name of Black Lives Matter.
What is most interesting, is that throughout the entire discussion and constant references to the 1960’s Civil Rights struggle that Congressman Clyburn defaults to on every question – not once in the discussion is the name of Martin Luther King, Jr. mentioned. Now, I am old enough to have lived through the 1960’s and remember the Civil Rights movement very well. As I recall the man who led that movement was not Jim Clyburn or John Lewis, although they were involved.
It was Martin Luther King, Jr. who preached non-violence and had the courage of his own convictions to act in a non-violent manner.
It was King who was on the television many nights and it is King whose statue stands in Washington, D.C. I find it curious that in the year 2020 it seems that the history of the Civil Rights movement of old is being rewritten by the likes of Congressman Jim Clyburn, who now claims “first rights” to the activities and outcome, especially as he is called to task on the behavior of leaders in his party in response to the BLM movement, Antifa, and the actions of those who loot in the name of reparations.
I also find it completely disingenuous on Congressman Clyburn’s part when he supports the anti-Semitic diatribe that is often spewed on the floor of the House of Representatives by Representatives Omar, Tlaib and other members of “the Squad;” seems to me that the Congressman forgot about the “Freedom Riders,” some of whom were Jewish and gave their lives in support of the Civil Rights movement.
The remains of three civil rights workers whose disappearance on June 21, 1964 garnered national attention, were found buried in an earthen dam near Philadelphia, Mississippi. Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman, both Jewish white New Yorkers, had traveled to heavily segregated Mississippi in 1964 to help organize Civil Rights efforts on behalf of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). The third man, James Chaney, was a local African American man who had joined CORE in 1963. The disappearance of these three young men led to a massive FBI investigation that was code-named MIBURN, which stood for “Mississippi Burning.”
Congressman Clyburn seemingly reverts to this era every time he does not wish to answer particularly probing questions focused on the differences between both movements; you would think that he would be appalled and ashamed to know that “the Squad” denigrates the very people who helped him with his struggle, died for his cause and, to this day, remain staunch supporters of the Democrat Party. You would think that, but that is not the case at all.
This man feigns all knowledge of what is happening on the streets of America today because he thinks this approach will help defeat Donald Trump and return his party to power.
He will look, as is evidenced in the most recent interview on Fox, right into the camera and lie to the American public. As Conservatives we must be sure to defeat this “Democrat” ideology and its political platform and return Donald J. Trump to the White House for a second term. If we fail, this country will be heading toward a very dark place with only people like Clyburn left, who lack the courage of their own convictions to lead the way.
The most obvious reform I hope to see is a mandate for all uniformed officers to have body cameras, in addition to dashboard cameras for all law enforcement vehicles.
I believe this will serve a variety of parties. First, it will help serve the citizens, as the knowledge that their engagement with law enforcement is being recorded should help provide peace of mind. Second, it will help protect our law enforcement officers from fraudulent claims of civil disobedience and conduct unbecoming of an officer. Finally, these recorded interactions can, and should, be used for training purposes. Having academy students watch real interactions will help them see how to appropriately respond to challenging situations.
I also believe there is wisdom in removing qualified immunity for law enforcement officials. This is not because most officers abuse their authority, but because the principle of checks and balances in government have served us well.
Officers who cannot be easily held accountable could abuse authority and create a sense of micro-tyranny for communities.
Furthermore, before an experienced law enforcement officer is hired into another department or jurisdiction, I believe state law should require the professional file of that individual be sent from their old office to their new one, prior to hire. Officers who are commonly and formally rebuked should not be hired by another department.
Finally, I believe it would benefit officers to receive training on how traumatic experiences can affect an individual’s brain. When officers enter potentially dangerous situations, they often interact with traumatized individuals, many of whom have had early and/or frequent exposure to violence, drug use, etc. The late Karyn Purvis conducted remarkable research on the effects of trauma on the brain, how it governs an individual’s actions, and most importantly, how to appropriately address it. Admittedly, her research is geared for foster and adopted parents, which is not the responsibility of the police; however, the principle of knowing how a traumatized individual may behave, and how to counteract the potential for escalation, is noteworthy.
Richmond should not denigrate an officer’s ability for self-preservation.
We trust law enforcement officers to be wise stewards of lethal weapons, so how would legislation be consistent if it took away options and tactics that may lead to the prevention of lethal force? Rather, Richmond should seek to give officers as many non-lethal options as possible to avoid chaos and protect innocent life. Furthermore, officers should retain the ability to serve no-knock warrants; knocking on the door of an alleged weapons trafficker places a tactical disadvantage on law enforcement, benefits the alleged criminal, and unnecessarily increases risk.
In this debate, police officers are not adversaries, nor are concerned citizens antagonists.
May the passions of the day give way to temperance, and perhaps subsequent legislation will further protect the citizenry without sacrificing protections for law enforcement.