Originally posted by LightAssassin
THE DIFFERENCE IS THEY ARE MEANT TO PROTECT US. FROM OURSELVES.
The role of Law Enforcement is not to protect the individual, but society as a whole. Law Enforcements function should be that of a last resort. We
should be visible but not overbearing, helpful and courteous, firm but fair when dealing with the citizens we work for.
The concept of full time law enforcement dates back to London England. Law Enforcement evolved in a different manner in the US beause, at the time our
country was founded, people were reluctant to let the government establish an overbearing presence.
Hence the reasons behind the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendements to our Consitution. One of the fears the founding fathers had was creating an
institution that would place a permanent armed presence in cities / population centers. This is why our militrary is set up the way it is, and why we
have posse commitatus. This is why State militia units are under the command of an ajudant General and the Govenor.
In an effort to keep the military out, we let law enforcement in. Law Enforcement back in the day, when compared to now, are completely different
beasts. Law Enforcement has in a sense become the standing army the founding fathers wanteed to avoid.
Whose fault is it for where we are today? It lies with 2 groups, although not equally.
5% of the blame belongs to the Government (Federal, State and Local) for over stepping its bounds while being afraid of its own shadow and political
95% of the blame lies with the people for taking our form of Government for granted. For assuming that the people they elect could police themselves
while fully representing the people. For being apathetic when the time comes to vote and ignoring it. For allowing the government to pass laws that
are vague with loopholes that are exploited.
Our founding Fathers created a Representiative Republic - A grand experiment at the time, with the expectation that it is of, by and for the people.
This requires citizens to partake in Government, from voting people in, voting people out, attending government meetings (city Council etc) and last
but not least communicating with the elected officals.
The amount of distrust between the citizens and law enforcement grows on a daily basis. It is evident more so now because everyone is armed with a
cell phone and camera.
There used to be a time where if an officer was dealing with a "bad guy" in the middle of a crowd, there was no thought that the crowd would attack
the officer. If anything they would assist if they had to. Now days, as we can see, when an officer is dealing with a bad guy in the crowd, there is
concern that the crowd might attack the officer.
This situation is tragic - plain and simple. There is enough 20/20 hindsight that does suggest the officer who shot the individual apparently went
retarded with his actions and choices that day.There is nothing that can be done to change the outcome of what occured.
The question we must ask ourselves is this -
Do we continue down the road we are on now, with rampant distrust between the police and the citizens we serve, apathy towards holding government
accountible and voting?
Do we learn from our mistakes and acknowledge there is a problem on both sides of the equation. Do we set the paranoia aside and engage each other to
open the lines of communication?.
Personally speaking I vote for option #2. We can take a trip through history to see what happens when the disconnect between the people and the
Government who serves them become so distrustful of each other that paranoia and anger crosses over to armed conflict.
I believe there is opprotunity to head disaster off. It is going to require peple to live up the the founding fathers expectations though, where the
citizens go back to participation and exercise their oversight of Government.
Just my 2 cents.