The Election

First, let me apologize for even weighing in on the Presidential election. It won't change anybody's vote, but it may change someone's blood pressure. Secondly, let me say that this is the most embarrassing display of electoral choices in my lifetime. Thirdly, whomever you support or reject: I get it. I'm not mad at anybody (other than the candidates) either way. Please extend the same openness to me. 

Several years ago I was driving our Chevy Astro Van on a snow-slicked two-lane road in Arizona high country with the fam. I was on a downhill path approaching an intersection when a tractor trailer unit turned onto our highway. The box trailer didn't follow the truck as the driver intended due to the snow and filled both lanes coming at us sideways presenting potential decapitation. It was too slick and too late to stop, so I had the choice of taking my chances with a collision or veering off of the road into unknown turf. I chose the latter, not knowing if there was a ditch or culvert or other obstruction that would have traded one collision with another. By the grace of God, it was the right decision and we bounced back onto the intended roadway and paused to let our hearts and stomachs catch up. I feel very much the same way about this election as I did about deciding which crash would be worse.

The trivialization of the contest that I hear and read is like annoying sniggering at a funeral, or reading the funniest last words of people on death row. I'm sick of hearing about cat ladies and annoying cackling. It's the future of the free world, people! I know I'm not alone when I fear that a large number of voters are using the same standards they did to select their homecoming royalty. I don't LIKE either candidate, and the so-called debate was a lost game of Wack-A-Mole where all the moles dodged the mallet and we ran out of quarters. 

As a Bible believer, I see that God watches nations. Read Genesis 10 and 11. Read Exodus. Read Revelation. Note that "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people." While Jesus proclaimed that His kingdom was not of this world, the rise and fall of nations, boundaries, and kings is entertwined with His plan to redeem mankind. We are urged to be good citizens, and the Apostle Paul exercised his rights as a Roman citizen on more than one occasion. I reject the idea of a Christian nation and embrace the hope of a nation of Christians. Theocracy is not the believer's goal in participating in government, but justice is. Therefore we must vote with our best intellect, not our feelings.

One candidate is narcissistic, crude, bellicose, and bombastic and that, unfortunately and reluctanty is the one I'm going to vote for. The historic Chamberlain-like appeasement in foreign policy is a legacy of Democrat Presidents at least since Carter (and not a few Republican policymakers, I must add). While DJT will not likely listen to any advisors, he will be able to make decisions and stick with them and adversaries and allies alike will listen. I don't see any evidence that KH can make a decision on her own, and I fear that she's at the opposite end of taking advice in that she seems not to be her own person. Which will start a nuclear war is 60/40. DJT's handlers quiver every time he opens his mouth, I'm sure. But KH's handlers can be sure she'll never make a spontaneous statement at all.  

I believe the Abrahamic promise that God will bless those who bless (Abraham's seed) and curse those who curse, so I favor supporting Israel in more than rhetoric tempered to appease those who want the destruction of Israel. I know - it's complicated, but pro-Israel is best for America.

I miss the days when Bill Clinton said of abortion that it should be "safe, legal, and rare", rather than celebrating abortion as evidenced by the poster saying "BEEP BEEP" announceing the arrival of portable abortions van (they did 22 the first day - yay!) like the circus was coming to town. Hear me, I get the exceptions, I get the autonomy argument, I get the dangers of extreme prohibition, I get it. There will never be a national abortion ban even if DJT wanted one. He could have done it in his first term but didn't. The reversion to the states is messy, but SCOTUS didn't prohibit abortions it just said "We're not seeing this in the Constitution, and we're not seeing it as a federal issue" (paraphrased rendition) and with that, I agree. Hello 10th amendment.

As a criminal justice researcher, writer, and practitioner, I declare that KH has zero credibility on that issue (not that she's mentioned it as an issue - but then.... oh nvm) for reasons I can cite if asked, or you can see my video blog post nearby. But, but, but....DJH is a felon! Rest assured, he won't be after all the appeals. Would he weaponize the DOJ if elected? He didn't last time with HRC. 

Economic policy? Who we elect and what we demand from Congress is more important that who is in the Oval Office. We've created a FrankenPresidency that has unbalanced the founder's intent. Enough Executive Orders already. I'll let the stock brokers and billionaires argue that out, but I'll just say this - don't believe any statement about how much money is going to be put in your pocket. No President can do that, they can only take it out. 

We all think that others do or should think the way we do and are, inexcusably, disappointed when they don't. I suspect a lot of other voters are deciding who to vote against, too. But, if you are really a flag waving Trump or Harris cheerleader then thank you for being part of the show. As for me, I am taking the Trump ditch and its bumpy ride instead of crashing into the Harris truck. Let's still love and respect each other and pray for America. Seriously.

 

Beyond Defunding: Abolition and Federalization

The terms “socialist” and “leftist” used to send shudders through most of the American population but given poll numbers of support for the current crop of Presidential candidates these terms are no longer offensive or frightening to about half of the adult population.

Let me say at the outset here that for policy analysis purposes an informed voter should try to be as objective as possible. The ideological divide in our current political climate seems to have boiled down to two major social theories, even though there are, of course, many other flavors of thought. Reasonable people can argue for less government as well as for more government. We can toss around various ideas about the economy and have different views on abortion. All of these topics are defined differently by our Presidential team candidates.

A leftist or socialist oriented criminal justice policy, as currently focused by the Harris/Walz team, is defined by leveling as opposed to equality. I use the word leveling as opposed to the rhetorically proffered label of equity as a refinement of the concept of equality because equality of opportunity and inherent value of personhood is different from the equity concept that says everyone should be the same, have the same, and be given the same. The fear of the right’s use of law enforcement is oppression in favor of the privileged class, the fear of the left and law enforcement is the brutality of enforcing censored speech and politically correct behavior.

Given this philosophical foundation, the idea is that anything that causes one person to be at a higher or lower level than another is inherently morally wrong and must be subject to social adjustment. Further, the fact that one person seems to have fared better than another, since equity is the natural and proper state of things, that person must somehow be the direct or indirect cause of the person of lesser economic privilege.

For example, if we find that the prison population does not reflect an equal representation of citizens, then it is an inequity to be corrected. How does that happen? Get rid of the police (let’s not forget that defunding rose from the concept of abolition of police completely), or at least weaken them. Develop prosecutors who are reluctant to prosecute. Reduce criminal penalties. Release people from prison. Eliminate bail for violent offenders. Eliminate harmful labels like “terrorist” and “illegals”, and broadly define “hate speech” to include anything that does not promote diversity and inclusion.

The essential flaw in such a system is the assumption that equity is the natural order of things. Competition and achieving goals, however low or high, is the natural order of things. Debate that proposition if you want to, but enforcing socialism necessarily leads to centralized power which is antithetical to our Constitutional democratic republic.

Since abolishing local police is an idea whose time has not come, and defunding has become unpopular and disastrous in many places, what is the next best thing to do for leftist ideology to degrade the influence of the oppressive local armed government agent? What if we demonstrated to the police that they face likely criminal prosecution in the course of their duties? What if we eliminated qualified immunity in complex, unique cases where split-second, unprecedented decisions are made? What if we made law enforcement so tainted and unappealing that fewer young people would choose that career? What if we dramatically reduced or eliminated pedestrian contacts, traffic contacts, and policing in schools where positive interactions between civilians and police happen thousands of times a day?

What if we had a Presidential candidate team who endorsed defunding the LAPD? Or a candidate who suggested that the Border Patrol is like the KKK and eliminating it might be good? What if we had a candidate who encouraged violent protests by raising funds to bail out violent suspects, endorsed reduced penalties for shoplifting and drug offenses, who claimed that more police has nothing to do with public safety, and chose a Governor who delayed National Guard resources for Minneapolis as it burned, and encouraged unlawful entry into the U.S.?

What if we had an administration that dangled offers of federal grant money to local police agencies but only if they followed the restrictions in Executive Order 14074 that were handed down when the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act failed (but will likely rise again if Harris is elected)? What if increasing restrictions of local law enforcement gradually but inevitably shifted police power to the federal government where rule by Executive Order reigned?

It seems clear that policies of a Harris Presidency would be a downward spiral from even the Biden administration. Under Biden the FBI, IRS, and now the Secret Service and TSA have all accumulated credible claims of political influence in their enforcement activities. The first argument against a Trump Presidency from a public safety perspective would be that he’s a felon and an insurrectionist and therefore too morally vacuous to speak on justice. It is doubtful that his felony conviction will stand up to an appeal, as we see the other cases piled on him unraveling, and the insurrection claim hasn’t been sustained. Neither of those arguments address what policies would be in place during a second term. Whether it seems hypocritical or not, he is demonstrably pro-law enforcement.

 

 

Being Your Own First Responder

 Being Your Own First Responder

JFShults

When seconds count, the police will be there in minutes, goes the old funny/not funny saying. While police officers are fully ready to respond to calls, as a profession we pay little attention to helping people prepare for events that prompt that 911 call.

Using the emergency medical response model we note that there is wide advocacy for self-care with first aid and CPR training and other educational opportunities. Aside from reasonably robust crime-prevention efforts, few police agencies offer advice on dealing with threats that citizens may face in public or at home.

Emergency service communication personnel would be a good source for material and what citizens should know when calling 911. Citizens in crisis can’t be expected to always be level-headed on the worst day of their lives, but knowing something about the system can help them convey critical information more effectively. Callers won’t know unless peremptorily informed that services are on their way while the dispatcher is getting additional information from them. Critical seconds can be lost by callers arguing about the process.

Many citizens have not given much thought to their right to protect themselves. We obviously want them to avoid getting into legal trouble, but they have a right and responsibility to know what the law is in their jurisdiction regarding the use of force in self-defense. The same verbal de-escalation skills that we want police officers to know is good information for the citizen confronted with an angry person or one experiencing a mental health crisis or under the influence of an intoxicant. Helping citizens understand their rights, responsibilities, and liability under each jurisdiction’s prevailing statutes would be a great public service.

Overuse of 911 is problematic, but so is the number of times a call should have been made but wasn’t. Recognizing suspicious activity and reporting crime are important public safety skills. Citizens should not be reluctant to call 911 (or other non-emergency number) to help police agencies get a better picture of criminal activity. When citizens think they don’t want to bother the police or think they should call their insurance agent or Aunt Martha first, public safety suffers. Sadly, there are agencies that are so overwhelmed with priority calls that minor events add to the strain, but citizens should never be discouraged from calling anyway.

About 40% of homes have a gun in the house. There are nearly 23 million concealed carry permit holders, not counting the 44% of the population living in states where no permit is required, or open carry is mostly legal. The possession and use of a firearm carries with it great responsibility while providing a potentially life-saving tool properly utilized. Law enforcement can provide a useful resource in understanding the laws and best practices regarding firearms ownership.

Estimates vary on how frequently firearms are used in lawful self-defense depending on whether surveys count only fatal justifiable killing or include the mere presentation or threat of a firearm to stop an attack. The number could be in excess of 3 million times per year. Those who are against firearms ownership will cite murder and suicide statistics. Those concerns are good arguments for knowledge about safe firearm handling and storage, but no consolation to the car-jacking victim with no means of defense.

Traditional crime prevention efforts may suffer during police staffing shortages, but those efforts can pay dividends in the long run. Citizens can be encouraged to mark their property, take inventory, and install security hardware. Those efforts should be facilitated by local law enforcement, particularly in light of the increasing use of security cameras. Some areas offer homeowners the option of registering their cameras with their police department to expedite the discovery of evidence when crime hits their neighborhood.

Sir Robert Peel, the founder of London’s “bobbies”, famously stated that “The people are the police and the police are the people.” It has been a foundational principle often lost in modern policing. After all, it takes a village.

Evaluate Self Before Evaluating Uvalde

 As an academy and in-service instructor, I have noticed how often cadets and seasoned officers can divorce themselves from the reality of the experience of others. I remember specifically a colleague who was a firearms instructor conducting a range day that included some dash-cam videos of officers being assaulted. We watched a horrific replay of an officer on a traffic stop being brutally beaten in a blitz attack, then murdered before our eyes. The instructor’s comment was “She didn’t have the will to live”. I don’t know whether she had the mythical warrior mindset or not, but I do know I had stood in her shoes, in proximity to a traffic offender, and had been knocked unconscious on the pavement. Was it because I lacked the tactical knowledge or the will to live? Of course not. But I did put myself in a vulnerable position on that night on that stop, trying to deal with a carload of characters. By the grace of God and a backup officer, I was not killed. 

We imagine ourselves as our fictional heroes, making all the right moves in the glorious fog of battle because we’ve poked holes in paper targets and run through some scenarios at the shoot house. All good, but as anyone who had been the target of someone actively trying to make you die can testify, training is vital, but reality is terrifying. Officers who should be moving tactically sometimes look like a squirrel in the road not sure which direction to go. I remember asking the occupant I had arrested after a pursuit and crash what happened. He replied that he wasn’t sure but all of the sudden this lady cop was yelling at him to get out of the car. We had no women on duty that night, so apparently, my voice went up a few octaves under stress.

Experiencing shock and pain is not pretty. Indecision is awkward. Obeying orders that are bad ideas is cognitively torturous. Wanting to charge in is natural for most cops because we’re used to being independent decision-makers, but we also are trained to coordinate when in teams and follow the chain of command. Who wants to pick up the dropped battle flag unless we know the platoon will follow us? Self-doubt under duress sometimes masquerades as self-assessment. One is unhelpful, the other essential. So, before we join the chorus of condemnation, let’s humble ourselves for a minute, and put our feet in the boots of the officers that day.

The interim legislative report wisely states: “Based on the experiences of past mass-shooting events, we understand some aspects of these interim findings may be disputed or disproven in the future.” We also know that if something new and positive eventually surfaces it will not see the light of day in the media. If some new damning information arises, it will be in the mouths of every network anchor.

Would police leaders who respond and advance toward shots fired always have the immediate thought of getting out of there and setting up a command post? There’s always criticism of chiefs who forget that they are still cops. What about the cops that forget they are chiefs? I’m certain that among the dozens and dozens of officers present, the vast majority were willing to march into the danger zone and die for the kids. But at what point does heroism become strategically foolish? At what point is survival to continue the mission more important than proving you care enough to generate a grand police funeral?

With the unfixed locks and the lax adherence to routine safety policy and confusion of multiple crimes being reported and the failure of radios and alerts, can we crush that last domino that fell in the series and think we’ve addressed the tragedy enough that we can walk away with confidence saying “things would have been different if I’d been there”? I’m not an apologist for what happened or should have happened on May 24th at Robb Elementary, but context here is critical.

Should we analyze the hell out of this thing? There is no question that we must. The dead deserve it. The community deserves it. The cops deserve it. Every nervous teacher and scared student in the country deserves it. But let’s do this with humility. If you haven’t read the latest evidence and reports from credible investigative bodies, then you are relying on the same media you criticize for the false narratives about policing that are so pervasive. Maybe no comment until you know as much as you can. No eye rolling, no shoot-from-the-hip second-guessing, no denial that you might have done the same thing in the same circumstances. The tragic deficiencies overshadow the notion that there were heroes on that day, but there were many.

Welcome Back to the Constitution

 Welcome Back to the Constitution

Whether we agree or not on recent U. S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions, one thing seems to be certain – the majority of Justices are putting the brakes on MSU (making stuff up). Hot button issues like abortion, guns, and police conduct are being viewed through the lens of what the Constitution says instead of what judges and politicians want it to say.

Without commenting on the merits of any of the case decisions, the trend toward originalism – interpreting the Constitution in the context of the authors’ intent – does seem to be gaining preeminence in this season’s SCOTUS opinions.

The Supreme Court is often accused of being politicized and the truth of the matter is that it has always been so. The recent but quickly discarded idea of adding to the number of justices so that Biden could make additional appointments of presumably liberal members. Until settling on the number nine for the court in 1869 there were several changes and attempts to change from the original number of six Justices at the Court’s invention in 1790. The notorious effort by President Franklin Roosevelt to “pack the court” after several of his New Deal plans were ruled unconstitutional was unsuccessful. Roosevelt did, however, due to his long Presidential tenure, end up choosing eight of the nine justices by the end of his term.

With lifetime appointments and no history of any Justice being impeached, the consistency of the Supreme Court’s power has been proven through the years. The process of selecting what cases get to be heard at this highest level provides the opportunity for the Court to decide what issues will be addressed. Earl Warren, serving as Chief Justice from 1953 to 1969, was a notable activist in selecting cases that had a tremendous impact on the civil rights movement of the era, including many landmark cases in criminal justice including granting lawyers to poor defendants, requiring a rights warning before police interrogations, allowing stop and frisk searches, extended fourth amendment requirements to state and local law enforcement, expanded availability of federal lawsuits against police, restricted the use of deadly force, and others.

SCOTUS 2022 has determined that the 2nd amendment prohibits the restrictive New York requirements to obtain a handgun, the regulations for which were intentionally cumbersome to limit the availability of concealed weapons permits. The decision relied on a broad reading of the right to bear arms in an originalist sense and cast a shadow on the gun control advocacy statutes and regulations in local legislative bodies. The majority of states have loosed concealed carry restrictions, and many have eliminated the need to obtain a permit in “Constitutional carry” states. In contrast, many local governments have attempted to enact restrictions within their boundaries.

In a win for effective law enforcement, the Court has recently upheld cases that maintain the concept of qualified immunity. While the doctrine is one that was made by court rulings when it comes to use of force its definitions rely on the 4th amendment understanding of reasonableness, the standard that has prevailed rather than a standard for perfection and prognostication.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade indicates another turn toward the Constitution’s framers for interpreting what the document means. Again, regardless of one’s opinion about the issue of abortion, critics of the decision have long held that intense scrutiny of the Constitution finds no explicit right to any medical procedure. Had the Justices wanted to make a statement on moral or scientific grounds, they would have looked at the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” rights in our founding documents which inform originalism interpretation. The original Roe case found an unspoken right to privacy which the Court then extended to medical decisions. The right to privacy, like other implied rights that had no ink in the original documents, has long been recognized, but the link to abortion laws, says today’s SCOTUS, was too weak to be legitimate.

The ruling does not prohibit abortion, as is being portrayed by many observers, but rather says that it, as with all matters not covered in the U.S. Constitution and left to the 10th amendment, is a matter left to the states to regulate or not as they see fit.

The good news for the citizenry, whether these decisions are celebrated or decried, is that there is one governmental body that remains mostly shielded against the knee-jerk politics of the day. Having at least one branch of the government not subject to the fickle winds of opinion polls is a good thing.

Who will want to be a peace officer now?

 If you are interested in a career in law enforcement, don’t do it. If you are in it, get out. In my forty years of teaching, practicing, writing, and training in police matters I never thought I would give that advice, but if Colorado Senate Bill 20-217 passes, that advice could not be wiser.

Colorado’s citizens should know that the bill requires all officers to have body worn cameras (BWC) on during all contacts. Police officers do not widely object to BWCs, as they have consistently been to officers’ benefit. But SB20-217 requires the camera on when you call about your suicidal brother, your drug dealing neighbor, or when you want to confidentially report information about a potential school shooter. If the officer fails to turn on their BWC for any contact, even in the case of a sudden ambush, the law presumes that there is police misconduct absent any other evidence.

To ensure that no criminals get hurt during their violent crimes, the bill specifically eliminates the part of the law allowing deadly force when a suspect “Has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon”. The officer must use their telepathic powers of prophecy to know whether an offender will use the next .25 seconds to make their threat “imminent”. The bill also removes a peace officer’s ability to use deadly force “to prevent the escape of a prisoner convicted of, charged with, or held for a felony or confined under the maximum  security rules of any detention facility” unless there is “likely endangerment of human life or inflection of serious bodily injury”, again calling on the officers’ psychic ability which the sponsors of the bill apparently think is taught in the police academy.

The bill severely limits qualified immunity (remaining for all other government actors, just not the police), which has been a well-established protection for reasonable mistakes made in good faith for any government official. Officers are not only disallowed from human error, unlike doctors, lawyers, and accountants, but if they are civilly sued they must be fired as though they had been found guilty of a crime. 

To add to assurance that officers will be uniquely, severely punished, they will not have the benefit of their agency’s insurance coverage and will be personally financially responsible in addition to their loss of career. And, of course, any complaints in the officer will be required to remain anonymous so that the accountability is always a one-way street. Never mind that officers already are subject to federal and state criminal charges, federal and state civil lawsuits, department discipline, and financial disaster as a result of misconduct accusations, even those which ultimately find the officer vindicated.

The bill additionally burdens your local officers and agencies with added paperwork and data reporting that, while possibly beneficial (though by no means certainly beneficial) duplicates much of what is already being reported. You’ll be glad to know as the minutes tick away after your 911 call that your officer is filling out their surveys and will be with you when the mandated paperwork is done. Even with public funds looking dismal,  you’ll be glad to know that the legislator is directing how your police leaders must divert their budgets from crime fighting to managing the new mandates.

Under the guise of reform, the bill’s sponsors are attempting to punish all of Colorado’s 13,000 peace officers for police misconduct everywhere at the cost of the privacy and safety of all citizens.