For the longest time now, Liberals have been going about this issue of police shootings in the wrong way. We have approached this issue of police officers shooting unarmed people, almost arbitrarily, as if it were a bad thing.
But look at it from another angle: why don't we get all cops to shoot first and ask questions never?
Isn't it true that if police officers were shooting our country's criminals dead in the streets, it would eliminate all sorts of shared costs to our society? Things like prisons, probation officers, handcuffs, all are paid for by our taxes and all would be things of the past.
We could do away with all the criminal courts, judges, lawyers, and prosecutors for that matter. Talk about really cleaning up the streets, amirite?
All of these would be unnecessary, if only police officers had the capacity to kill anyone they deemed a threat.
On the other hand, think of the economic stimulus this would be for funeral homes, coffin makers, and ammunition companies. Haven't they suffered enough hardships?
And let's consider the scenario then, that this change in policy is bound to bring about, that cops end up routinely killing more innocent citizens, along with criminals.
Think of all the lawsuits that get filed, all the settlements and renumerations that get paid out, because of the determination that police brutality, wrongful deaths, and general abuses are somehow wrong. We would never have to worry about paying for any of these ever again, as long as we allow police to shoot anybody, including anybody who questions the legitimacy of their actions.
We would no longer suffer from the injustice of unjust police shootings, because now all police shootings are justified.
As a society that depends on the mutual understanding, cooperation, and well-being of all our citizens, aren't we obligated to consider these tough questions? Shouldn't we ask, why don't more of us get shot up by the police?
Of course, a proposed policy change so extreme, so bold, and dare I say, so effective, is bound to draw criticism from detractors.
One of the likely criticisms is that being an innocent citizen who gets shot and killed by the police is a violation of our civil rights. But what does that even mean?
It's not like we have a fundamental right to make public complaints against the government without fear of punishment or reprisal. It's not like any members of our government are obligated to respect the legal rights of all its citizens, whether intending to criminally prosecute them or not. It's not like we have the right to be tried in a court of law before facing punishment, or for that matter, before even being found guilty of committing the crime they are being punished for. It's not like we all have a right to avoid a severe punishment that is inflicted in a wholly arbitrary fashion. It's not like anything prevents the government from taking any person's life, even without the due process of law. And furthermore, it's not like anyone has ever said we as Americans are entitled to any of these protections, let alone declared it in writing anywhere.
Even if any of the above were true - what the hell, let's say, even if all of the above were true - it's not like any of that changes the fact that in our current society, once a police officer has shot and killed a person, it has basically been proven impossible to punish that police officer for having done anything that wrong. Why not use that as an advantage rather than, say, a criticism of how our current system operates in direct contrast to its declared principles and as a result engages our populace to advocate for reforms that more closely treats police officers the same as their fellow human beings, in line with our fundamentally agreed-upon principles?
Some detractors might even assert that if we give police officers this huge impunity, that it would only encourage would-be criminals to then become police officers themselves, and then use their newly-acquired authority to commit the same crimes they might otherwise commit and then some. But this criticism obviously ignores the main point of this policy, that as long as they are cops, they are above the law anyways, so really, what distinction would there be anymore between a crooked cop and just a plain old cop? I mean, if they had to choose between being a criminal who can freely be shot by cops, and being a cop who can freely shoot any criminal they want, who can blame them for choosing the latter? Isn't that what we want as a society, to be unable to treat our criminals any differently than our law enforcement?
If you have gotten this far into this argument, and are still not convinced that the best thing to do would be to allow all cops to shoot anyone they want, I challenge you to take this plan to its logical conclusion, and still remain against it. Let's say all cops are allowed to shoot anyone they want, and then proceed along with this plan. Eventually, they will shoot everyone else, so the only people left are people who refuse to defy the cops' right to shoot anybody, people who are just too fast to shoot, and other cops. At that point, even the cops will have to agree that there would be no more reason to shoot anyone, and we will finally achieve that ideal we are all looking for, where cops don't have to shoot anyone anymore. Most of us will probably be dead, but nobody ever said change is easy.
Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say you are still in opposition to this idea.
Let's say that, the idea that police officers should be able to shoot anyone they want, and generally speaking, be able to do practically anything they want without facing any objections or punishments, let's say that you still do not like this idea.
For the sake of argument, let's take all these hypotheticals: that cops should be expected to abide by the law just like any other citizen, that cops should respect the fundamental rights of criminal and innocent alike in all aspects of their duties, that cops should acknowledge that shooting someone who is unarmed and poses no legitimate threat should be punished and even deterred, that cops carry a huge responsibility in upholding all the laws set by society and should act in a way that warrants the reverence and respect they receive for all this responsibility.
Even if all of these were the case, what sort of society were that to leave us with? Who's going to say that is the type of society they want to live in, over a society where police officers have the ultimate authority over who lives and who dies?
If that doesn't coincide with your idea of a utopia, then I can't imagine what will.