William J. Lewinski is a professor of psychology, so he is qualified to testify as an expert in legal cases. He has an unwavering defense for officers that shoot citizens under questionable circumstances. Recently, the New York Times did a story on his stance: that officers act as they must, even when shooting unarmed people.
Police are under a lot of scrutiny today. It is not my intent to vilify them in any way, or disrespect what they do. Rather, I would like to discuss the radical idea that we should respect our police, as keepers of the peace, more than nearly anyone else in our society.
Yet we don't.
Instead, people are afraid of police. Whether or not that is statistically justifiable. We are becoming more and more afraid as the media continues to lacerate our officers with stories of brutality. Dr. Lewinski then comes to their defense.
In order for us to look up to our officers as they deserve, we need to find a beautiful middle ground. One where we don't blame them for firing on civilians. To do that, we must not have leniency in using violence. Rather, police should be held to a higher standard. It isn't fair, no; but no one is forces a person (I hope) to become a police officer. It is undeniably a choice.
Getting pulled over by a cop, or stopped and questioned is not a choice. Never should a civilian feel they are in danger because they are talking to an officer. Even if they have behavior which is worrisome. It is the officer's job to brave that danger, like a hero in a storybook. If it is not clear that these are the requirements, it must be made clear. Being a police officer is dangerous, and very often thankless work. It is hard. It is treacherous. It is necessary. And the primary mission is not to serve and protect yourself, but to serve and protect the public.
Dr. Lewinski's says his science is designed to keep officers safe. yes, what he says is often true: if an officers sees the gun, it could be too late. They might be shot before they can adequately respond. Yet still, that is part of the rick assumed by swearing in as an officer. The name of the game isn't: keep our officers safe. It is keep our society safe and lay down your life first. If officers are encouraged against force, more may die, which is sad and unfortunate, and should be minimized -- but not at the expense of shooting any innocent or unarmed civilians. That is unacceptable. It is not to be tolerated. No one is above the law, especially not the kings, or their enforcers. A pre-emptive strike cannot be levied against our own citizenry (it should not be levied against anyone; for then you become the villain).
What it comes down to is choice. Hikers who climb Mt. Everest, choose to go. Their death on a hike that claims the life of about 1 out of every 50 people who try, isn't that surprising. Their death is to be mourned, but not lamented. It was at least partially expected. Chris McCandless knew that too.
I would also suggest that Dr. Lewinski should be viewed as an inadequate witness. Doctor or not, why the hell are we tolerating such obviously biased and unlistening nonsense? According to the Times, he doesn't budge in his assertions. He is unwavering. Which is the definition of unreasonable. Thus, should not be admissible in a court trying to measure justice wisely. Anyone with a mindset so rigid that it cannot be accept another's process and wisdom is too arrogant to be humored.
Discussion and listening are keys to a great society.
No comments:
Post a Comment