Dangers of Police-less-ness

There is a new “abolitionist” movement starting up and it isn’t about abolishing slavery, taxes, or even borders. No, this movement wants to abolish the police. You read that right, they want to end the institution of policing in this country. You know, those people you call when someone breaks into your house or you have an automobile accident. The same people who ride around your neighborhood in the middle of the night to make sure no one is sneaking around trying to break into cars and homes. This group associated with Black Lives Matter wants those pesky people in uniform who are willing to give you directions when you are looking for something in an unfamiliar city or take a bullet for you taken off the streets. They believe that the institution of law enforcement makes the criminals because they believe the penal system is “for profit”. Therefore, giving the police an incentive to create criminals to fill the spaces for them. Don’t take my word for it you can check it out here. If you watched that you may be wondering how abolishing the police would work and what it would do.

First off, let’s address the person in the video. Her name is Janaya Khan and she is the co-founder of Black Lives Matter Canada and has made an appearance at the GWS International Women’s Conference in 2015. She identifies as a queer, gender non-conforming, why she would speak at a “women’s” conference makes no sense for someone who gender non-conforming, and a staunch Afrofuturist. Her views of the world could be considered delusional at best and psychotic at worst. What does she think will happen if there were no police officers around to enforce the law? Would we all hold hands and sing “Kumbaya”? She claims that police don’t keep people safe, and I think she has a point there somewhat. Yes, police are more reactionary as in they show up only after a crime has been committed but they have been proactive in deterring crime by their presence in areas where criminals like to frequent. Some high crime areas have become nearly crime-free due to more patrols in the area. Even though the police can’t be everywhere at once, their presence does help keep people safe so that argument is debunked. I believe your safety is up to you and you can do things to help, if you are inclined you can get a pistol and learn how to use, store, and care for it. That is what the 2nd amendment is all about.


Now we need to address some of the statements in the video about the police and the justice system. She stated that the prison system was “for profit” but that just isn’t the case. Most of the prisons, penitentiaries, and jails in the US are run by local, state, or federal agencies and not corporations. The few prisons that are run privately have less overcrowding and are usually low security for petty offenders who spend less than a year there. She stated that police had an incentive to “create” criminals. I don’t see how that could be true. Is she saying that everyone serving time was an innocent person framed by the police? The phrase, “prisons are full of innocent people” is not about innocent people being put in prison, on the contrary, it means everyone in prison will say they are innocent even if they were caught in the act. Criminals are criminals because they break the law. If you rob someone at gunpoint, even when you’re having a “bad day” you should be punished for that crime. Running a red light and saying you were upset about your boyfriend might let you off the hook but I don’t believe the same excuse would work after you murder him. The difference is in the law that you broke. Running a red light is a minor traffic offense that usually carries a fine, no jail time and even some jurisdictions will let you go to traffic school instead. On the other hand, killing someone on purpose and not in self-defense is a serious felony that, depending on the degree, could get the death penalty. With the advent of forensic science, it is harder for a criminal to get away just as it is harder to convict an innocent person. Not that it doesn’t still happen but it is less common today than ever before.


Now let’s talk about weaponizing skin color and the reasons that there is a difference between the number of white people in prison as opposed to black and Hispanic. The black community has claimed that black men are targeted by police for nothing more than being black and they are arrested for the same thing. I have never seen a mugshot in our local paper or on the sheriff’s website with the caption, “arrested for being black” under it. Most have a crime whether it is a petty crime such as theft, harassment, or trespassing or more serious crimes such as rape, murder, and assault under the mugshot. I live in a mixed community where there are black, white, Hispanic, and Asian people living in the same area. On my local sheriff’s website, just this evening (May 23, 2017) there were 51 mugshots. Out of those, 24 were black and out of the 24, 5 were female. That means that black males made up 36% of those arrested today. That is a far cry from the portrayal that Ms. Khan is putting forth. If her statements were true there should have been a 90% black male arrest rate. I have been binge watching Forensic Files and have noticed that about 85% of the cases involve white or Latino perpetrators not black. This also flies in the face of the statement that black people are unfairly arrested.


In another statement, she said that mosques and churches have stopped calling police in their areas. I believe the mosque statement but not so much about the churches, there are several areas in many countries including the US that are majority Muslim and are called “no go zones” where police will not enter for fear of assault or assassination. As long as you are Muslim or not white, you have safe passage through these zones. Therefore she said they were working so well, the fact is that these areas are dangerous for white males and especially white females. Reports from Paris document sexual assaults on women and girls as young as 15 in areas labeled “no go zones” and the media in France will not divulge the identity of the assailants as Muslim. As far as a justice system is concerned, these areas use Sharia Law as the basis for their laws. The mosques are the courts and under Sharia, only Muslims are recognized as legitimate and therefore any crime perpetrated against an infidel (non-Muslim) is justified and there is no punishment. On the other hand, if an infidel commits a crime against a Muslim or Islam, they can be subjected to harsh punishments including beheading. There is no real sense of justice as the infidel is not allowed representation in Sharia courts.


The statement that was most asinine was when she talked about not having prisons and that we should move to transitional justice system. With no policing and no jails, she thinks that would be a great way to change the current justice system. I wonder if she would feel that way when it comes to Dylan Roof or others convicted of racially motivated crimes. What would a jail free system really look like? How would we deal with violent criminals who refuse to give up their ways and continue to commit crime including murder and rape? Her suggestion was to have trained rapid response justice teams respond to a crisis. How would these teams be trained and what kind of response would they have? We already have such a system, it is called first responders which include the police. The term “rapid response justice team” is a euphemism for “vigilante justice” because such a team could be like the judges in Judge Dredd that have the power to try, convict, and punish the offender without a trial by jury. Trial by jury is the cornerstone of our justice system along with the prohibition of warrantless searches and the right to legal representation regardless of ability to pay. To do away with police in favor of “rapid response justice teams” would erode the Constitutional protections to which every citizen in the US is entitled. While our justice system is not perfect, it is still the best model for fair and impartial application of the law. It has been misused in the past but with advancements in technology and forensics there are less chances the wrong person will be convicted of a crime.


She also stated that “undocumented immigrants” and some black communities are fearful of calling the police in a crisis. Do these same communities fear calling an ambulance or fire department? I would think not. So, why do they fear police? The short answer is that the police have the power to arrest anyone that is suspicious at the scene. Illegal aliens, I do not call them undocumented immigrants, are technically breaking the law by being the US without going through the proper channels and therefore could be arrested. The truth is that many times police are more concerned about catching the violent criminal than about the victim’s immigration status. I have heard this from police officers who have been called out to Hispanic neighborhoods for very heinous crimes. The last thing on their mind is whether the person reporting the crime is a legal resident, instead they are wanting to apprehend the perpetrator before they can commit another crime. While the fear of deportation is present, the immediate focus of police responding to an emergency is the safety of the people and not their status.


While the belief that police target black people, especially men for arrest may seem true on the surface, nationwide statistics do not support it. In individual cities, the rates may be higher but this could be due to the percentage of other races in comparison to all others. For instance, a city with a large percentage of Hispanic population will have a higher rate of Hispanic arrests, mainly for misdemeanors. The issue here is that if you live in an area where most everyone is your race, you will feel that you are being harassed by police because the only people you see at any given time are your race. As far as a black person looking suspicious by being in a mostly white neighborhood, that door swings both ways. A friend and her sister, both white, were pulled over around 2:30 AM in a mostly black neighborhood. The cop was black and he asked them what they were doing in the area. They stated they had dropped off a friend in another neighborhood and they were told the route they were on was the quickest to get to the interstate to go home. He explained to them that they had looked “out of place” in the neighborhood and he stated that there were known drug dealers there. After he was satisfied that they were not there for nefarious reasons he sent them on their way with a warning to be careful. The same thing happened to a young black male friend with the same result. Checking on people who don’t look like they belong in an area, especially during off hours is not racial profiling, it is common sense policing. I am not saying that racial profiling does not happen and I do not support it, but there was logical reason behind its use.


The unfortunate truth is that young black males are more likely to be in a gang and involved in criminal activity. This is not due to race but to culture. The youth in the black community for many years has embraced a culture of violence and drug use. It is reflected in a popular music that started in the black community called Hip-Hop. In the beginning, Hip-Hop was just another music genre that seemed to be a spoken version of rock. Many of the early Hip-Hop artists, also known as rappers, wrote songs that were about the same thing all other genres were singing about. Much of the theme in early Hip-Hop was about fun and parties of course there were references to sex and violence but most was not graphic. In the late 1980’s there was a group called N.W.A. that was from Compton, CA and released an album that was much different in tone and lyrics than anything before it. From that point, there was a new subgenre called gangsta rap which made social commentary but also glorified a lifestyle that included crime and drugs. The music industry compared the subgenre to the death metal movement that came from the hard rock genre. Unlike death metal, gangsta rap caught on despite criticism and mainstream radio stations refusing to play it. It mainly found fans in the black community but soon had spread to other communities with new artists coming on the scene. During the same time, gang activity was increasing as young men without fathers felt they could only be accepted by the gang. This is another issue that the black community refuses to acknowledge and calls anyone who points it out as racist.


Since the 1960’s there has been a stark contrast in the US as far as family is concerned. Starting with President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”, a plan that was supposed to reduce poverty and racial injustice there has been a rash of missing fathers. Programs that were intended to help struggling families ended up creating generational dependency on the government. One of the unintended consequences of the programs was the elimination of the father from the family. The “welfare” program made it more profitable for a woman to have a child without a man in the household. This incentivized single-parent households that exploded in the late 1960’s starting in the black community, the most impoverished at the time. After 50 years, these policies that were to reduce poverty have not changed the poverty rate in the US by much. In some areas the rate has increased while it has stayed about the same elsewhere. Once again, the lack of fathers in the family led to more young men growing up without a responsible, mature male influence. In the absence of this influence, more of these young men have sought belonging in gangs since they held more allure than most other avenues and activities. It was also a way to keep safe in the neighborhood where members of the gang were not targeted for crime. The gangs went from protecting their neighborhood to becoming the threat through drugs and violence. While some have left the gang life, there are more young men entering the dangerous lifestyle.


We must acknowledge that there are people in the world with no morals, scruples, or even a sense of common decency. No society can survive without rules and laws that set the minimum standard of behavior in the society. The US was unique in the fact that the founders tried to balance freedom with law and order. Even with laws, there are always people in the society that will not obey the law so there will always be lawlessness. Crime is not a black or white or brown issue it is a human issue that has been with us from the beginning of time, no matter when you believe that was. Humans have the capacity to do good but more often will gravitate toward evil. This part of human nature makes it easier to be lawless than to be lawful, in other words, it is harder to obey a law than it is to break it, especially if the risk of being caught is low. This is the reason for policing in the community. Lack of law enforcement encourages law-breaking when there is no chance of punishment. That would put the role of justice in the hands of the victims of crimes and eliminate the rights of the accused to have a trial and face their accuser. This would turn many large cities into war zones with people who even feel they have been wronged seeking vengeance. That situation leads to the families of those who met with vigilante justice to hold a vendetta against the victim that sought vengeance, thereby perpetrating an endless cycle reminiscent of the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s. Law enforcement would not be necessary if we lived in a perfect world where no one did anything wrong, but we don’t live in that world so law enforcement is absolutely necessary.


What would really help all communities and reduce the overall number of people in prison is to live lawfully. For the young people, staying in school and avoiding drugs and gangs would be a start. We need to reject the ideology of the Left, the Socialists, and the divisive people that try to blame other groups for their problems. We need to understand that the way to prosperity is not an easy journey and many times we will have setbacks but we must be willing to keep going. The government can only give to you that which it has taken from someone else. You would not go to your neighbor and rob them at gunpoint so why would you want the government to do it for you? When you depend on the government to give you something, it will only give you what it believes is fair and no one can get ahead when the government oversees their lives. The only true way out of poverty is to gain a marketable skill either through education or training and go out into the workplace and build your career. Depending on your skill level and your willingness to learn more and work hard, you can achieve a better life than government can ever give you. You just have to be diligent and not be lured into the traps of the streets.



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