The Purpose of the Police, Part 2

(Part 2 of 2) 

Cormac McCarthy’s Sheriff Bell tells us that the old-time sheriffs “never even wore a gun.” It is increasingly true of our new-time sheriffs that they will never wear anything without one. Only in being disrobed will they be disarmed. I recall a recent story of an off-duty officer who shot and killed a boy in St. Louis. If my theory of the police is correct, then we can conclude that the officer acted wrongly, because nothing breaks the peace like seventeen bullets and a dead body.

It was true of judges, at one point in our history, that they liked fatal justice too much. A man who had never killed could be sentenced to death by order of the court. In those days, at least they still clung to the formality of a charge, investigation and trial. Whether or not the punishment was too harsh, all were in agreement that there ought to be a punishment. It would have been the most efficient trial in the history of jurisprudence if judge and jury had signed off on shooting Levar Jones. But they didn’t. Officer Groubert asked Mr. Jones to show ID and as Mr. Jones reached for ID: Officer Groubert shot him.

(September 3th Groubert Traffic Stop)

I suspect the problem is not an excess of hostility but and absence of aim, or purpose. It is not, or should not, be the purpose of the police to hate criminals. It is the purpose of the police to love civilians; that is citizens who are civil. What can be said to defend the Florida cop who detained, berated, abused and questioned the mental ability of the three teenage boys? They were miming (a harmless, even humorous prank) the drinking of beer (a harmless, even humorous pastime). That it is illegal to publicly drink beer is a stupidity which deserves its own essay. But what explantation, other than unchained ignorance, can be given for the cop who detained children who happen to have a lighter sense of humor than her? The world always stands in need of a good laugh, and in need of those brave enough to have a sense of humor.

Are the police forgetting the peace that is theirs to protect? As long as I could, I avoided this idea, until I saw video of Jamal Jones arrested and tasered by the Hammond police department. In my previous fable it was the crook who shattered the window and shook the peace. In Hammond, it was the constable who shattered the window and stole the peace.

(Hammond Police Department Break Through Vehicle Window and Taze Passenger)

The whole drift of my argument comes to this: if the family, for which the police exist, is increasingly ignored, we’ll have to find other ways to secure the peace of the quiet house on the shady street.

If the police disturb the peace rather than preserve it, soon defending the family will carry all the thrill of committing a crime.