Policing Ethics, Part Two: When Those Expected To Stand Up For The Law Can’t Stand Up For Themselves

Cellphone videos of New York City police officers being doused with water while trying to do their jobs became an internet sensation this week, and an unsettling (but inevitable) controversy for New York City.  The officers were trying to disperse rowdy groups at fire hydrants during a three-day heat wave, and allowed themselves to be assaulted and humiliated while  crowds cheered the attackers on.

The police arrested three men who were caught on video hurling water at police in two incidents. This also caused controversy. “Why is a man facing more severe punishment for dousing a police officer than Officer Daniel Pantaleo is for choking Eric Garner?” asked a Times article. That shouldn’t be a difficult question, but you know—the Times. Eric Garner was a petty criminal resisting arrest. The officers were doing their jobs, and Garner died as the result of an accident, in great part because of his own actions in defying the police. The police were also trying to do their jobs when they were doused with water, in an act that threatens the peace and order of the community.

The Police Department’s highest-ranking uniformed officer, Terence Monahan, the police chief, lit the fuse on a larger controversy, saying,

“Any cop who thinks that’s all right, that they can walk away from something like that, maybe should reconsider whether or not this is the profession for them.We don’t take that.”

But they did take that, and the Mayor of New York wants them to take that, because the whole idea of law enforcement is now, and has often been, anathema to progressive ideology.

Thus the police in New York get confusing memos like the recent one reminding officers that while they have to accept verbal abuse, physical assaults on police acts like dousing or spraying water could justify arrests and many possible charges like obstructing governmental administration, criminal tampering, harassment and disorderly conduct.

Interesting. And if, say, a 350 pound water-hurler (like the late Eric Garner) simply defies the police and makes it clear that he’s going to keep doing what he’s doing (like Eric Garner) and resists arrest (like Eric Garner), then what? A gun is excessive force. The police can’t move the man, and we now know that trying to subdue him isn’t acceptable either.

Before the arrests, the police commissioner, James P. O’Neill (think Tom Selleck in “Blue Bloods”) said the city and the Police Department would “never tolerate such disrespect.” Nonsense. New York’s progressive government wants them to tolerate disrespect, which means disrespect is what they will get.

Donovan J. Richards, the chairman of the City Council committee that oversees the Police Department, called Chief Monahan’s remarks “troubling” because they criticized the officers for doing what the department is supposed to preach: “exercising restraint.” He called dousing of police“reprehensible,” but said the officers deserved to be commended for avoiding a “needless confrontation” that could have “spiraled out of control.”

Incredible. Machiavelli knew what he was talking about when he said that respect arose from either love or fear. Police are never going to be loved, and groups like Black Lives Matter, anti-police propagandists like Ta Nehisi Coates, open borders activists who condemn ICE, and New York’s Mayor de Blasio ensure that efforts to seek love by ignoring lawbreakers will eventually end with a breakdown of safety and order. In other words, people, including officers, are going to end up dead who wouldn’t have and shouldn’t have, despite the good intentions.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who reversed a crime wave in the early 1990s by introducing policies based on the “broken window” theory that included aggressive enforcement for minor offenses, has responded to the  dousing episodes by saying  de Blasio’s decision to reverse Giuliani’s policy has triggered the disrespect shown to the police. De Blasio countered that crime rates were low “because we’re bridging the divide between police and communities.”

That, of course, is nonsense. If that gap has been bridged, why are citizens abusing police?

Crime in the U.S. generally has been falling precipitously since 1993 (or right before Rudy became mayor).  Since most of the period did not feature special efforts to “bridge the divide,” de Blasio’s statement is disingenuous. Most agree that the decline in crime is primarily demographic, with the aging population producing fewer of the group responsible for the majority of crimes, young males. Neither Rudy’s policies nor de Blasio’s can take credit for that.

This isn’t hard, or shouldn’t be. If the minority of the public that has contempt for law and law enforcement knows that it can express that contempt without consequences, the contempt and defiance will increase, and law enforcement will become more difficult and more dangerous. Citizens should be acculturated to respect and obey police authority, and there should be serious consequences for not doing so.

This is basic, and is not confined to law enforcement. Parents who allow their children to verbally abuse them, defy their directives and rules, and project disrespect end up with chaotic homes and undisciplined, socially destructive kids.  Leaders and managers in any field who do not demand respect from subordinates will not be successful, and neither will their organizations.

Yes, good, well-trained, competent law enforcement officers will be able to do their jobs with as little force as possible, but they still have to be allowed to use sufficient force to enforce the law, and the public still must know that their duty is to facilitate that, not impede it. They also have to know that if they do impede it, there will be a price.

11 thoughts on “Policing Ethics, Part Two: When Those Expected To Stand Up For The Law Can’t Stand Up For Themselves

  1. Diblasio’s ideas will ultimately result in injury or lawsuit. I don’t care if these are considered pranks or assaults at some point in time the law of one upmanship will cause someone to cross that thin blue line.

    Communities need police that respect them as much as they need to respect the police. That requires both sides to show that they deserve respect. No one can demand respect it must be earned. The police are not there to be loved or hated. I don’t want them getting chummy with everyone to the point they fail to hold people accountable. They are there to perform a needed service.

    Let’s be clear communities with the lowest levels of police antagonism also have the lowest levels of crime and police/public interactions. That is a function of the behaviors the community exhibits not that of the police.

  2. Interesting that the guys dousing the police officers were older guys in their forties or so. They weren’t teenaged boys.

  3. The police were also trying to do their jobs when they were doused with water, in an act that threatens the peace and order of the community.

    Is this not obstruction of justice?

    If so, why is it bad if President Trump obstruct justice?

  4. “Crime…has been falling…since 1993”. Not here in San Francisco with car break-ins at 30,000 in 2018, shattering all previous records. As I understand it, property crime is a precursor to more serious crime which suggests the trend you reference is likely to reverse. The progressives can’t accept that human nature does not change regardless of age–without imposed discipline and fear of punishment, we humans care only about ourselves and only about what’s happening to us in the here and now.

  5. It is interesting to see the breakdown of order. It is almost like cultivating contempt for society, law, and the police leads to people ignoring the law and the police. These incidents of people humiliating their police and making sure everyone knows the police are powerless are just the latest and not even the most severe example of this phenomenon. By promoting a victim ideology, by promoting a view that all misfortune is caused by racism, by excusing criminal behavior as justified because of ‘systemic racism’, the left has been trying to destroy society. This has been aided and abetted by our foreign enemies. The actual ‘Russian interference’ mainly dealt with supporting groups like Black Lives Matter and trying to instigate racial strife, if you remember.

    A peaceful, orderly society relies on the vast majority of people having respect for and obeying the law The left in this country has cultivated an intense disrespect for the law and more importantly, this country. This country is mostly peaceful because we like our lives and we really don’t want to hurt others. We just want to live our lives in peace. The United States really hasn’t had a lot of foreign conquests because we haven’t really had a society that valued conquering other countries. In foreign wars, our MO is to fight the war, then find a way to come home, not to permanently conquer a foreign land. The left has disrupted this content society by eliminating Christianity, promoting class struggle through Marxism, and promoting racial strife through cultural Marxism. These changes have produced large groups of people who believe they are ‘owed’ other people’s stuff and believe they have been so wronged by other groups of society that attacks are justified. Once critical mass is achieved, orderly society breaks down. What do you do when groups of hundreds of teens decide to loot a mall? What do you do about a gang of hundreds of ATV’s and dirtbikes invading a city? Conventional police forces are designed to handle a few incidents involving, at most, a few criminals. You cannot stop this with conventional policing. It has gotten bad enough that the police know this is going to happen and admit they are powerless to stop it, they just issue guidelines as to your best course of action is if caught in such a mob. This is close to a point of no return. Once it gets out of hand, how do you put the genie back in the bottle? How do you go back to an orderly society once enough people figure out they can do whatever they want to whomever they want and they feel they are justified in doing so? This is the goal of the left and has been for a long time.

    Many online channels have been predicting a civil war in this country because the Democrats refuse to allow the peaceful transfer of power after they lose elections. I think a civil war is more likely because of the breakdown of order. How would you propose to stop the attacks described below? The police can’t and won’t do it. The cities won’t do it. The states won’t do it. Look at those mobs. What would happen to a politician that rounded them all up or authorized shooting them?

    So the real question is “What will happen when groups of otherwise law-abiding people decide enough is enough?”

    Here are examples of mobs roaming cities, looting and attacking people.






    Then there is the phenomenon of mobs of ATV riders swarming through cities.





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.