“Police Violence” is a fantasy – Legislation Officer

For practically twenty years the time period “police violence” has bothered me. The time period simply by no means sounded proper and by no means made any sense. Like nails on a chalkboard or grown males watching skilled wrestling – one thing about it simply didn’t appear proper. The time period strikes a cringeworthy degree of dishonesty cloaked in essentially the most awkward of white, woke advantage alerts pulled from essentially the most uninformed anti-police echo chambers.

For the reason that overwhelming majority of use of pressure (together with shootings) by law enforcement officials is in direct response to them being attacked whereas finishing up authentic lawful duties – wouldn’t a extra correct time period be “violence in opposition to police”, “police response to violence”, “police self protection”, or “police moderately attempting to not get shot within the face by violent maniacs and using lawful pressure choices to realize that objective”?

I’ve loosely been kicking round these concepts for years and was motivated to write down a few of them down after listening to Drew Breasy Uncuffed on the On Being a Police Officer podcast (hosted by Abby Ellsworth).

The time period “police violence” ought to be utilized for conditions have been police use of pressure is illegal. For instance, when talking in regards to the George Floyd or Walter Scott circumstances – that may be affordable use of that time period. Nonetheless, why ought to a scenario be labeled or categorized by lecturers and media pundits as “police violence” when the usage of pressure is lawful, affordable, justified, and inside the limits of coverage and coaching?

So, that is actually a case the place everybody that has investigated it has concluded that the taking pictures was lawful – but nonetheless that is listed for example of “police violence” and even in 2020 NBA gamers wore the phrase “fingers up don’t shoot” on the backs of their jerseys – regardless that the DOJ discovered that: Mr. Brown by no means mentioned these phrases, by no means had his fingers up, and was actively attacking Officer Wilson when the taking pictures occurred.

See why it’s problematic and dishonest to categorise lawful police use of pressure incidents as “police violence”?

Michael Brown attacked Officer Wilson and tried to seize his gun. This was an instance of “violence in opposition to police” the place fortunately the nice man got here out on high. That’s the reality and we shouldn’t be afraid to say it. Those that select to reject this actuality are akin to Q’Anon worshipping election deniers. #TrustTheScience

Just like the phrase “black lives matter” the phrase “finish police brutality” isn’t controversial. Actually nobody is “professional police brutality” and each affordable particular person believes that each life issues and that notion is fortunately cemented in U.S. regulation – that all of us are required to be handled equally beneath the regulation.

Individuals who maintain indicators at protests and exclaim “finish police brutality” on social media actually have zero opposition. It is a good factor. We’re all on the identical aspect right here. Police brutality by definition is illegitimate and immoral. Everybody ought to be (and customarily are) against it. Nonetheless, the dishonesty right here is two-fold:

1. Anti-police activists faux that some persons are pro-police brutality.
2. Anti-police activists take pleasure in lumping all police shootings and use of pressure incidents into the class of “police brutality” it doesn’t matter what the details of the person circumstances are.

Each police use of pressure incident ought to be totally investigated and judged on the particular set of details and circumstances. A police officer in Rhode Island who utilized lawful pressure shouldn’t have their case be blended in with an illegal police taking pictures incident that occurred 2000 miles away.

Inserting any blame or linking something adverse to law enforcement officials who use affordable pressure in response being attacked or to beat resistance from lawful arrest is akin to blaming the sufferer of home violence for being crushed. Positive, you possibly can blame the sufferer in order for you – however the issue will proceed to persist till the offender is pressured to cease their illegal actions.

632 of the folks shot by police have been listed as armed with a “gun”.

155 of the folks shot by police have been listed as armed with a “knife”.

Solely 32 of the folks shot by police have been listed as fully “unarmed”.

Due to this fact, solely .03% of all police shootings concerned an “unarmed” particular person.

*It also needs to be famous that “unarmed” doesn’t essentially imply that these people weren’t harmful or didn’t pose a lethal menace to police. For instance, an “unarmed” offender who’s within the strategy of attempting to bash the officer within the head in an effort to steal the officer’s gun is (and ought to be seen as) a direct lethal menace by the officer within the second.

A fast have a look at this information signifies that solely 3% of people who find themselves shot and killed by police have been unarmed on the time of the taking pictures. So, in 97% of circumstances when law enforcement officials utilized lethal pressure – the offender was armed with a lethal weapon.

The concept there may be an epidemic of “police violence” plaguing our society is much much less believable when details and proof are launched into the dialogue. Dishonest anti-police activists depend on the lies of their loyal followers and on the ignorance of well-meaning residents, who merely have no idea any higher.

Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of police use of pressure incidents are objectively simply merely not examples of “police brutality”. Use of pressure by law enforcement officials is nearly all the time in response to people who’re attacking police or resisting lawful arrest – and law enforcement officials reply in sort with proportional pressure choices.

I’m merely demanding that there be separate classes for these incidents. If a police officer commits a legal act whereas utilizing pressure – we’ll classify that as “police violence” and if a police officer doesn’t commit a legal act whereas utilizing pressure – we’ll classify that as “lawful police response to being attacked” ()

.And if anybody within the media or authorities deliberately misgenders these circumstances – the concerned law enforcement officials ought to have the power to hunt damages.(

This text initially appeared at The Police Law News Substack.