It's not brutality, it's the law

By Chuck Soder
210 west Writer [send email]

When I was 13, a cop threatened to shoot my friend Tom in the back. We weren't doing anything too horrible, but it looked that way to the policeman who pulled his gun.

We were just going toilet papering when a cop spotted three teenagers toting three duffle bags across a normally busy intersection at 2 a.m. He jumped from his car and pulled his gun.

"Freeze!" he yelled. My friend Brian and I stopped.

Tom kept running.

The cop cocked his gun: "Do you want to get shot?!" Tom stopped running. When the cop found we weren't robbing the nearby drive-thru, he brought us home.

Tom almost had his brain blown out that day. Assuming the cop meant his threat, why would he do something so horrible to a kid who clearly poses no immediate danger? Is there a reason?

Lots of people hate cops for this sort of thing -- just ask a rapper or any member of Amnesty International. Cops have earned a reputation as tools of an authoritarian state that overuse physical force as a means of silencing and controlling the masses.

Of course, this reputation is pure hogwash. Or better yet, "pigwash." Yes, cops shoot people. Most of them are asking for it. If my dear friend Tom had kept running, he too would've deserved a bullet in the back.

Out of a thousand police shootings a few might be unjustified, but some groups -- Amnesty International, in particular -- blame 999 of them on cops. The group, good-hearted as they may be, keeps a list of noble but expensive goals meant to put laws in place to regulate police violence and increase training so that cops wonít go on reckless killing sprees.

But the group often cites violence violations that don't exactly meet the Rodney King standard. Amnesty International lists "victims" who flee police, resist arrest or try to put cops under the wheels of a moving truck. Every time they mention a legit complaint, it turns out the cop has long since been fired and, in some cases, jailed.

To run from cops makes a suspect a criminal on at least one charge: resisting arrest. Of course, everyone deserves a fair trial. But someone who wrangles from a cop's grip and sprints for a getaway has waived that right. If this person escapes, there's another criminal on the loose.

The worst of Amnesty's claims is that cops can't shoot someone trying to run them over. According to their Web site, "Officers have frequently been exonerated -- despite having failed to take basic avoidance procedures (such as moving out of the path of an oncoming vehicle."

If a cop wants to risk his and others' lives by letting this guy escape, that's dandy. But the driver is out to kill. Blasting his brains out is self-defense.
Though some law-breakers are peaceful -- usually protesters -- they too need a solid smacking if they resist arrest.

Recent protests about the war in Iraq have jailed quite a few protesters. And injured a couple, too. When cops have to forcefully stop a protest, activists always think their rights are being violated. An anti-war student once told Republican pundit David Horowitz that protesters have the right to assemble. Horowitz's response was something akin to "not in the middle of an intersection."
Horowitz had a point. Rights aren't meant to violate the rights of others. For example: the right to go to work, to school, to a hospital or even to, dare I say, a World Trade Organization conference.

According to copwatch.com -- which makes Amnesty International look like a bunch of right-wing conspirators -- protesters in 1999's Seattle riots did nothing to incite forceful retribution by cops with oh-so-deadly rubber bullets. Well, maybe they did throw a few explosive Molotov Cocktails.

Though most protesters were peaceful, they still crowded streets that Seattle Mayor Paul Schell dubbed no-travel zones after the first day of havoc. Only those who had jobs in the area or were attending the WTO conference could set foot on the streets.

Copwatch.com calls this ridiculous. They also thought it was ridiculous for cops to shoot a rubber bullet at an old lady named "Life Has Meaning." Though her name is really what deserves ridicule, she knew the consequences and illegality of her actions, despite her age.

But was non-fatal violence necessary? It is a cop's job to protect the law. Without some force, the job is impossible. Are cops supposed to physically carry each protester back to the designated area? Maybe legislators could revoke law-breakers' health care benefits or something.

Any peaceful protester reading this would probably cite progress made by civil disobedience in the 1960s. But the situations are different. Black civil rights activists sat at whites-only counters because they were unjustly denied that right. They took only what rights they deserved. But if "Law A" is unjust, break it and kindly go to jail. Donít break "Law B." Otherwise, you might end up starting the L.A. Riots.

The rare incident that does meet the Rodney King standard of power abuse (i.e. the Rodney King beating) gets blown out of proportion and comes down on cops harder than it should. First, King, was not innocent. He was a drunk driver refusing to obey commands to lie on the ground. However, beating King was not the answer. He cooperated but still got the daylights beat out of him.
For this, cops everywhere are immortalized as brutal maniacs. Which is prejudice, plain and simple. I've met people who've honestly meant the phrase "Fuck the po-lice." Here's what I tell those prejudiced Dr. Dre wannabes: "Fuck gangs."

And, while we're talking about King, fuck rioters. The L.A. riots killed 54 people. The King beating jailed two out-of-line cops and gave an ex-con enough money to start a rap record company.

My point is not that cops should be quicker on the trigger. After all, thanks to one cop's patience, my friend Tom is still alive. But to those who can't heed a cop's warning to shoot, or who toss aside a chance at justice by resisting arrest, my advice is this: Quit breaking the law.