(The views expressed in the guest comments are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.)
In today’s world, it seems that you can belong to one of two camps: either you support Blue without hesitation, or you think ACAB (all policemen are bastards). But as usual, reality is somewhere in between. What we have seen in the past year is a reactionary war between two ideological camps, trying to appease the most enthusiastic supporters.
But, just as the modern right wing is normal, we have seen an overreaction to left wing information. In doing so, right-wingers have become so defensive against our police force that they seem willing to justify almost any behavior, even if the police are obviously exceeding their authority.
When we talk about policing, the most common topics revolve around police brutality or the killing of black Americans. This kind of conversation has become stale, and each party immediately retreats to the statistics and talking points of their choice, and is rarely willing to have an honest conversation about the individual circumstances that occur.
The person on the left will say that the person on the right is a racist, and the person on the right will say that the person on the left is an idiot. This is the scope of the conversation. Of course, each case should be regarded as a unique event, and all parties are waiting for evidence before they can file a lawsuit. We have seen cases of lawful atrocities committed by the police and actions that caused personal injury or loss of life by the police with every reason.
We saw many cases last year, from George Floyd to Reshad Brooks and Jacob Black, to a recent case in Ohio where a young girl was drawing a knife and trying to stab another. The young woman was shot afterwards. But what about the cases where officials abused their power without losing their lives? What happens when an official enforces laws unequally or enforces unconstitutional authorizations? In the past year, we have seen police forces across the country use the power of a “public emergency” as a guise to violate the basic freedoms of citizens.
We have seen governors exercise newly discovered powers to close businesses, stadiums, churches, schools, public places, and any other places in the world that they believe are not necessary at this time. Every time they use law enforcement to enforce these tasks, it will result in girls being beaten in high school football games, mothers being arrested for letting their children play in parks, priests closing churches and facing huge fines for providing public services, as well as countless children. The business owner went bankrupt financially.
Remember that communism in the Soviet Union did not happen voluntarily. Instead, it was the KGB and other police forces that came to confiscate the property and assets of landlords and business owners. Operators went door-to-door (as President Biden suggested he wanted to enforce vaccine compliance) to ensure compliance with national regulations. Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba and China are doing the same thing.
As a conservative, my primary goal is to protect the personal rights and freedoms of all citizens of our country. This means ensuring our privacy, speech, religion, and innocence rights until our peer jury proves guilty. What we cannot do is allow ourselves to authorize government officials to violate our rights.
So what should I do? How can we support our police forces at the same time, while ensuring that we do not grant them enough power to control our lives without impact? How do we ensure that we do not hand over power to those who want to use government power to deprive us of personal property rights?
Our founding fathers fought long and arduous struggles over these issues. What they gave us was a system in which the people controlled the government, and vice versa. We have the ability to choose those who are in power over us, and their intention is to represent our aspirations in government.
This concept is correct whether it applies to your city, county, state, or federal representative. We increasingly hand over control of our government to these representatives. Once taken away, we are unwilling to demand the maintenance or restoration of our rights. We found that Benjamin Franklin was right: “Those who are willing to give up basic freedoms and buy a little temporary security are not worthy of security freedom.”
When we give up our freedom, the government never seems willing to give it back. They coax us into giving up more and more rights in the name of “public safety.” This is true for many governments’ over-expansion, whether promulgated by right-wing or left-wing power holders. Whether it is trying to restrict our constitutional freedom of speech or the right to own guns, or our right not to be monitored by our own government, we must demand that our rights be protected from infringement by any party.
We have seen a small number of delegates sent to Washington, willing to protect our freedom at all costs. But, so far, these people seem to be an overwhelming minority of those in power, and they are willing to take more power from us. This has resulted in the government now having more say in our health care, finances, education, and our ability to hold elections.
However, if these officials do not have the ability to implement these policies, none of these policies have any power. Moreover, this law enforcement comes directly from our local police force. Recently, the Biden administration even tried to exert greater influence on the local police department by manipulating funds obtained by these departments.
Do you want a world where your right to decide which vaccines to get is cancelled? Do you want to see your local police station appear at your door, requesting proof that you have acquiesced to the government’s request? What happens when a government official decides that you have a gun or your right to believe in religion represents a “public health emergency”? What happens when government decree suddenly prohibits meeting with neighbors or shopping at preferred retailers?
We have seen that the government is increasingly willing to choose which companies will benefit and which companies are doomed to fail. I don’t want to live in a country where my business might be destroyed just because I competed with someone in the government, or a misguided politician decided to crush the entire industry just because their political supporters wanted to see it disappear.
So, the question is again: what should we do? How do we ensure that our government has no way to enforce unconstitutional laws or orders?
My proposal is called “community accountability for policing”. Allow me to list the rationale behind my policy and then explain it in detail.
- The vast majority of police officers are noble and upright citizens who seek to help the community.
- Most cases involving police brutality proved to be lawful use of force.
- Protecting the police means getting rid of the bad police.
- The people of a city should have direct accountability to their police force.
What I propose is a city-by-city policy in which the people of each city will be granted a form of direct accountability to their city officials, allowing a vote to determine whether an official is accused of abuse of power by any member. Their city is still in the police force of the community. This means that any citizen of a city can obtain a petition signed by a specific part of their citizen, and then they can initiate a voting initiative to determine the administrative fate of a specific official.
This measure will play a role in many areas to ensure that we maintain a limited local government. First, this will allow each city to set the parameters for applying this policy. Second, it means that no city has any power over the police in another city. This allows all municipalities to remain independent of each other and therefore reflects the wishes of the people in the community and their preferred level of policing.
But, of course, if officials are not given the right to defend themselves, this policy is incomplete. In my proposal, the city will be required to hold a public hearing in which the official faces the claims against them and then allows them to provide evidence or testimony on their behalf.
If officials wish to abandon this option, they have the right to abandon such incidents. This will allow the public to directly listen to the opinions of the police officer accused of breaking the law and give the police officer the opportunity to provide evidence that may affect public opinion in their favor. This will also be a way for the public to ask the official questions to gauge their willingness to involve the official in their community.
The goal of the policy is to create a means to enable citizens to invest more directly in the level of governance they prefer. This is also a means to ensure that these decisions are made at the most local and direct level to prevent external interference.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s important that my city, Midland, Texas, not be placed under the whim of Austin, San Antonio, or Houston, because they have a much larger population and are able to enact us Possibly unwanted policies. This also prevents our city from being dominated by a larger government and does not allow people in California, New York, or any other state to have a say in our city’s local business.
What we must not forget is that our freedom will never be deprived. The more power we give to government officials, the greater the chance for them to abuse their power. Just because people in the government happen to agree with you today, it doesn’t mean that tomorrow may not be the case. Control of our government can change hands quickly. If we want to ensure that we have the right to self-determination, we must ensure that the larger governments cannot impose their prejudices on us.
Ross Schumann It is a constitutional conservative from Midland, Texas. He served in the Texas Army National Guard for 10 years and has been in the oil and gas industry since 2007. Ross is a candidate for the Midland City Council in Texas and has been active in state and local politics as a supporter of conservative values.
