LEO's have created their own untenable position and they are not trusted by large portions of the general public any longer. Perhaps not a majority,
YET, but still having large numbers concentrated heavily among those under 40 years of age. Also, even, IF, the under 40 crowd does not believe that
LEO's are dangerously lethal to civilians (which they do), this under 40 cohort, ABSOLUTELY believes that LEO's are, primarily, "revenue collectors".
LEO's MUST learn to live with the LONG TERM consequence of these actions, which they, as a group, have taken, while in the field and has been
compounding all the issues surrounding their increasingly negative public image. Over the last 25 years, contemporary LEOs have proven, through their
actions, that they are in place to do the following and NOTHING MORE:
1. Protect themselves.
2. Maximize their total compensation.
3. Act as a source of revenue generation for the department currently employing them, the union they belong to and the local governments authorizing
4. Protecting the commercial interests of national corporations (with PAC's lobbying on the behalf of the big corporations)
5. Protecting the private property and political interests of large, influential, land & business owners, residing within their jurisdiction, that
also contribute to and participate in local politics (i.e. campaign donations for Police Chief and Sheriff elections).
6. Controlling dissenting narratives that would interfere with 1-5.
They’ve been totally co-opted, insulated from financial consequences and tax paying citizens are picking up the tab. That's the sad reality of where
we are today, in regards to contemporary Law Enforcement Culture. Civilians should view the police no differently than the way in which police
typically view the general public, with suspicion.
Here is an example of a sleepy county in Oregon, that is 92% white, with 56% of the population over 45 years of age, yet, these people still VOTED TO
DE-FUND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT because they got sick of receiving unjust traffic tickets:
Defunding government is a sensible voter solution to reining in local government By Dave
Think about that for a minute, if LEO's can't hold the trust of small communities, with these kinds of demographics, what chance do they stand
anywhere else? Not much. This should be a VERY CLEAR message that LEO's, in general, have lost the trust of the public
Civilians should not trust the motivations of LEO's and must always assume that their lives are in danger, with EVERY interaction they have with
Why? Not because ALL LEO's are bad, but because ALL LEO's are LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to kill civilians AND TAKE THEIR PROPERTY, as they see fit.
Why should civilians take any risk of death or loss of property, when its far easier to simply not interact with, refuse to help and actively avoid
contact with LEO's, whom are LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to kill civilians AND TAKE THEIR PROPERTY, as they see fit?
We have come full circle, except now, LEO's don't regularly "exterminate" undesirables TO TAKE THEIR PROPERTY, they simply put them in jail
indefinitely, for petty offenses, so someone can make money off their existence while in the system, via a government contract.
Law Enforcement Agencies, AS CURRENTLY OPERATED (see above items 1-6), can't function when large numbers of people with good consciences serve in
them. So, even if good people with consciences tried to enact grass-root change from within, they would simply be denied entry to the agency or get
quickly removed from the ranks through various legal and administrative means.
Here is an except from Bowers v. DeVito. In 1982, 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
"no duty" = "free to ignore" because if there is no financial or legal consequence to inaction, then certainly some "bad apples" will use that as a
legal basis for "choosing", when to "render services" or when not to.
From the perspective of LEO's, the above noted ruling means that they may "pick and choose" when they attempt to "save someone from death or injury"
because the ruling does not obligate them to act. It is that perspective, which LEO's are allowed to legally take, that should matter to the average
citizen. The context from Bowers v. DeVito is very clear, the police CHOSE to not assist, despite Marguerite Anne Bowers repeatedly requesting their
help and the courts then determined that the police are not liable for making the "choice" to not help her.
As for the "Oath's" that LEO's typically take, lets use the LAPD oath for example, which seems to be MOSTLY concerned with swearing to not overthrow
"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now
advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within
the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or
other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful
means. I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of
the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."
Here is another sample Oath, that focuses on "Peace with the Communities" within the "Sovereign Country and State":
I SWEAR,, THAT - I WILL WELL AND TRULY SERVE - OUR SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND STATE - AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT FAVOR OR AFFECTION - MALICE OR ILL-WILL -
UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED, THAT I WILL SEE AND CAUSE OUR COMMUNITY’S PEACE TO BE KEPT AND PRESERVED - AND THAT - I WILL PREVENT TO THE BEST
OF MY POWER - ALL OFFENSES AGAINST THAT PEACE - AND THAT - WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER
So exactly how, do these above noted sample Oaths, keep officers from "picking and choosing" when they attempt to "save someone from death or injury"
due to having no LEGAL obligation to act? Other than of course, having the LEGAL obligation to keep "Peace with the Communities" within the "Sovereign
Country and State" and also swearing to not overthrow the government.