8 Must Wait

Many people I've spoken with regarding the recent rioting and protests have agreed that concrete goals and asks must be articulated in order to create meaningful progress in race relations, especially with respect to police abuse of minorities. Most notably, this sentiment was echoed by President Obama; it is not reasonable or productive, he explained, to decry racism without asking for specific changes to be made. This is exactly correct.

To that end, I was sent the following "asks" that are meant to be considered as reasonable and readily actionable. Entitled "8 Can't Wait", it has received some play in the media and is being circulated around Hollywood and the internet.

Like most progressive initiatives, it comes from the right place with its intentions: that is, to minimize the risk of harm or death to innocents at the hands of police. A good goal.

But like many progressive initiatives, the recommended changes are short sighted, and fly in the face of conservative wisdom that examines multi-dimensional trade-offs before making changes in order to preserve (or conserve) that which is good. In other words, before making policy changes, second and third order effects that are not immediately obvious must be considered. As the wise old adage goes, "never bring in a lion to chase out a lamb." 

This means that before making a change, it is prudent to make sure the change being made is small, targeted, and that it doesn't cause more undesirable outcomes than the problem itself causes. The baseline assumption of a conservative worldview is that smart people, with good intentions, common goals, and differing perspectives, through rigorous processes over large periods of time, have created the world as it is now for a reason. And, while this world may be imperfect, deeply flawed even, changes should be made with extreme caution to prevent negative externalities.

Thus, with the above considerations in mind, let's examine whether these 8 really can't wait:

1. No choke holds.

No one wants to see another innocent victim choked to death. The image of George Floyd was horrible, so it is an understandable reflexive reaction to want choke holds banned. If chokes can kill, and kill innocent people no less, then chokes are bad, and we should ban them. So the progressive wisdom goes.

But in reality, no one wants chokes used to kill innocent suspects or even suspected criminals. Rather, it is simply that chokes are the safest and surest way for a smaller person to disable a larger person without weapons. Some cops are small, while some criminals and suspects are violent and big. As is known throughout all of martial arts and defense forces, chokes are among the most effective methods for a small person to defend against a larger one, and they are very safe. So safe, in fact, that they are allowed in even in sporting competitions. So, to the progressives advocating for 8 Can't Wait, chokes should be allowed in sporting competitions where there are rules, but not allowed in real life fights to the death where no rules exist. This does not make sense.

The problem with the choke on George Floyd was that, from what we know, it never should have been administered in the first place, and then to make matters worse, it was held for some 8-9 minutes, long after Floyd was no longer conscious. But banning chokes from police is not the remedy. A police cannot have one hand tied behind his or her back with "rules" while the person they fight has no rules. Such a suggestion is suicidal, like many of those found on the demand list. 

Further, a ban is not a real ask. The ask is the thing that replaces the thing being banned. A ban is a "not" ask. What should cops do instead? Punch? Kick? Pepper spray? Taze? Stab? We need to know the alternative that is being proposed to weigh against the current option so that pros, cons, and trade-offs can be evaluated from one option to the next. So, if chokes are banned, what will replace them, and will that replacement be better or worse, and in what ways?

In sum, with respect to ask #1, it makes cops less safe and is a non-starter. And for those worried about police brutality, it's better to get choked and made unconscious than it is to get hit anywhere on the body with a billy club. No comparison. One wakes up from a choke no worse for the wear, whereas a billy club strike is incredibly painful and damaging.

2. Require de-escalation:

The demand or requirement to de-escalate is non-specific, thus not helpful and again, potentially dangerous to police.

Isn't it better to use the standard of 'minimal possible force required', rather than requiring de-escalation? Of course it is, and this is the standard already.

Why is the minimal possible force a better standard? Because the worst possible preparation for a violent encounter of the type cops often find themselves in is the unwillingness to use the required force. Getting into a fight with someone that is willing to hurt you more than you are willing to hurt them is an untenable and terrible disadvantage. Instead, the moral position is that if you are on the side of right, then fight with that knowledge and with the fortitude to win, and to do so without apology. 

3. Require warning before shooting:

This one is rich. I suppose that looks something like this:

"Mr. Suspect with a gun aimed at my face trying to evade punishment at all costs...this is the police...please don't shoot me while I give you the following verbal warning."

Res ipsa loquitur. The lunacy of this recommended change speaks for itself. 

Hesitation will get you killed. The better idea is that cops should be trained enough that the instinct of whether to shoot or not is properly honed. But with a verbal warning requirement, a criminal could, and thus would, pull a gun on a cop and squeeze the trigger before the cop has time to give the required verbal soliloquy. 

This will never happen. Truly, God forbid. It is a method for criminals to kill cops wholesale by giving them a categorical advantage on speed to the trigger.

4. Exhaust all alternatives before shooting.

All alternatives? How many are there and who determines the number of alternatives?

This standard is far to vague, because cops are only half of the altercation equation; the other half is the suspect or criminal. If the criminal opts to use violence as option one, have all alternatives been exhausted?

Once again, the current policy of 'use the minimal amount of force required' is a far better categorical imperative. 

5. Duty to intervene:

I am not sure what this means. Feel free to write me if you know!

6. Ban shooting at moving vehicles:

As with all things categorical, we need to examine if there are any exceptions, and we quickly find that there are:

What if a cop sees a terrorist driving a car into a building and can stop the car by shooting the driver or the vehicle's tires? With this new demanded requirement, instead of acting instinctively to stop such a violent act, the cop's mind would be slowed down and over burdened wondering if all the required de-escalation check boxes had been fulfilled. "Should i shoot? I forgot to give a verbal warning and I'm not allowed to shoot moving vehicles." This does not serve our common interest.

A categorical ban leaves out the possibility of judgment. That is terrible, even if some judgment calls unfortunately lead to sub-optimal, even tragic outcomes. 

7. Establish use of force continuum.

What is to be gained by this announcement? Suspects should have a road map of how the police will escalate violence in advance? This is another suggestion that is unnecessary. If we all know in advance that the police will use violence as required, that's all the road map we need to avoid harm unless the officer acts against the rules by using more force than is necessary or required.

But more rules doesn't solve that problem. 

8. Report all force:

This could create an overwhelming amount of paperwork that would hamstring our cops actual policing capacity. Nearly everything is on video these days anyway between car cams, body cams, ATM machines, security cameras, smart phones, witnesses, and more. Another recording mechanism seems unnecessary and superfluous. It doesn't create a huge problem, but it doesn't solve one either.

Conclusions:

The above is an examination of first order consequences primarily. However, making large changes to a system causes ripple effects--second and third order consequences that also must be considered. Namely, and specific to this demand list, the proposed changes will result in: 1. More dead cops, 2 More living crooks that killed those cops, 3. A structural disadvantage that will prevent people from becoming cops, and 4. (much) more crime, particularly, violent crime. Those are the second order consequences.

I wish it stopped there. But it likely will not. The third order consequences are far worse, because baked into these left leaning composite recipes is far left ideological ingredients. The second order consequences above would radically transform society such that the strong could have their way with the weak, with no police force available to protect the weak. Indeed, these policy suggestions would endanger us all, and only make sense as a first step toward accomplishing a larger desire to dismantle society as we know it. What seem like small first steps toward curbing police brutality will end with radical calls to disband the police entirely. We are already seeing #defundpolice trending. The writing is on the wall.

Accordingly, these 8 can, and must, wait. Cops need to be more capable of, adept with, and prepared for violence in order to have the confrontational edge needed to effectively police. These are brave civil servants taking on the risky job of protecting the public from whatever dangers they may encounter. Their lives matter, too.