City of Houston Police Officer
Photo Credit: Bokashi of officialbokashi@gmail.com
What more can we really say and or ask for when it comes to police reform. In all honesty, whether you're for it or not is totally up to you. However, there are some people out there who hold the position that neither side is listening to each other and both sides are right. You heard right - neither side is listening to the other side and yet both sides are right. During a conversation that was off the record with a source, it is common knowledge that police are right in their authority to do what they do when it comes to administering lawful municipal, county, state, and federal actions. However, citizens also have a perspective
that should not be overlooked as they tend to view police through a social lens rather than a legal one. And honestly what makes the citizens blood itch is the fact that the law tends to grossly trump over their view of “how things should be” with “how things are going to work”. When this happens more often than not, this is when both the police and citizens stop listening to each other.
So, what’s the solution to this problem? Well, I can provide at least three and the police are not going to like it and the citizens won't like what they might receive on the back end. Keep in mind that life is about relationships, compromises and outcomes - nothing more. The first solution is that we must get rid of Qualified Immunity and replace it with police officers being individually bonded and insured. The reason for this is because police will think about the outcomes of their actions more rather than strictly going with an Aristotelian Logic of if “A” happens then “B” must happen. Operating like this is what got countless people including George Floyd and Freddy Gray killed by police.
City of Houston Police Officer
Photo Credit: Bokashi of officialbokashi@gmail.com for VEDA Magazine
In addition, in order for citizens to view police as “legitimate” for lack of better terms, we must get rid of “reasonable suspicion” which more often than not leads to police officers “stopping and frisking/patting down” a person. This action is paramount because it comes from the Supreme Court case “Terry vs Ohio” which actually has roots in racism. Lastly, we must replace the practice of electing Police Chief’s to govern police officers and replace them with a board of civilians. The reason why this concept is important is because Police Chiefs answer directly to the City Council; and the City Council oftentimes have their fair share of Attorneys that actually sit on the board.
However, citizens must consider if these measures were to be implemented, then Police Officers may hesitate to answer certain kinds of calls, especially calls involving domestic violence. The position can also be held that maybe we need reasonable suspicion which often applies to motor vehicles stops in which “pat downs” tend to occur under the guise of officer safety. In maintaining this practice maybe, we can get dangerous criminals off the streets that may have illegal weapons on their person. But we all know that in the “land of the free” if you want a gun, you're going to get a gun (criminal or otherwise). When it's all said and done, I think that many citizens just may be willing to give the solutions presented a try.
Commenti