Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, May 18, 2007
Mike Gallagher :: Townhall.com Columnist
Remember who the good guys are
by Mike Gallagher
Forward Print Share Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


I am sitting here watching TV coverage of another shooting death of a police officer – this time, two sheriff’s deputies from Henderson County, Texas were killed by some creep – and I find myself getting angrier and angrier.

What is it about our culture that makes people want to pretend that the good guys are actually the bad guys? Every time I hear someone criticize our military or the men and women of law enforcement, I find myself asking that same question, over and over again.

Good guys being turned into bad guys. People do it all the time.

On my next radio show, I’ll pay tribute to the two brave deputies who were simply doing their jobs, responding to a domestic disturbance call, when some lunatic opened fire and shot them dead. I’ll point out how underpaid and dangerous a police officer’s job is, and how infrequently we stop to remember the great sacrifices they make.

And my phone lines will light up with callers who have all kinds of gripes and complaints about cops: there will be the guy who once received a speeding ticket he felt he didn’t deserve; the woman who thinks the police don’t patrol her neighborhood enough; or the angry militant who is convinced that the police are just a bunch of racists.

I’ll defend the police to these callers, asking how many of us would be brave enough to strap on a badge and carry a gun and try and keep the peace. I’ll point out to these whiners how we turn to the police immediately when we have a problem. And I’ll rightfully detail how relatively little their pay is for their dangerous, sometimes fatal occupation.

And then I’ll really get annoyed when I get the predictable call from the person who says that people who become police officers know the risks involved, and no one forces them to choose the career they’ve chosen.

As if somehow choosing to serve a community by becoming a police officer makes it okay to get shot by a filthy criminal.

I am really, really sick of the attitude of people who don’t appreciate law enforcement. Sure, there are “dirty” cops. Just like there are dirty politicians and dirty insurance agents, maybe even a few dirty broadcasters.

But overall, the men and women who elect to become police officers are heroes. They kiss their loved ones good-bye when they leave for work, hoping today won’t be the day that they have to confront a madman who wants to kill them.

Hearing the details about the deaths of these two Texas deputies just makes me mad. I’ll eventually be incredibly saddened by their murders, but right now, I’m angry. I know I’m going to be met with a bunch of people who have chips on their shoulders when it comes to the police.

The next time you want to rail against that speeding ticket you didn’t think you should have gotten, at least think of two families this week who are making the dreaded preparations to bury their brave loved ones.

Please remember who the good guys are.

Share:
Forward Print Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Mike Gallagher is a nationally syndicated radio host, Fox News Channel contributor and guest host and author of Surrounded by Idiots: Fighting Liberal Lunacy in America.

Be the first to read Mike Gallagher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Join The Debate!

Post Your Comment
(47 comments so Far)
View in ascending order     View in descending order
Reply # 1
Date: May 21, 2007 - 4:44 PM EST
Respecting Police
I was brought up to respect police and still do when they are concentrating on the bad guys but unfortunately most of my encounters with the police and many others find themselves being charged with relatively minor traffic charges that appear to be harassing and money generating efforts. And, every time this happens my respect for them slips a little further...

They should be protecting our neighborhoods during the day while we are at work and our business and employment centers at night when we are at home. And, of course be on call for accidents and if they spot someone driving really recklessly or drunk.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 2
Date: May 20, 2007 - 8:18 PM EST
Prosecution-Not so in the state of MA
Here all you get is a slap on the wrist...how many drunken driving charges must one receive before being put away??? A Cape Cod woman is now dead because of a repeat offender being "slapped on the wrist" after many, many DUIs - guess what, a judge finally decided he was a menace to society and is holding him in jail until his hearing. Of course, he was left at home for a week or two after he murdered this woman by causing an automobile accident - WHILE DRUNK!

Then a woman in Boston was sentenced to 30 days!!! after killing a man...leaving a family without their loved one. But because she was 81, irregardless of having a breath test of .11, she gets 30 days! I imagine the family would like to have their husband & father back again in 30 days!

Law and order and punishment to fit the crime just don't seem to matter in the state of Massachusetts!

Hooray for liberal judges!!!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 3
Date: May 20, 2007 - 10:48 AM EST
Certainty of prosecution is better...
...than the death penalty. The death penalty is too much power to place in the hands of politicians. Certainty of apprehension and prosecution is a far better deterrent.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 4
Date: May 19, 2007 - 12:32 PM EST
Meaning of Pro-Life
Mike Gallagher reminds us -- as Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee recently did -- that pro-life means much more than just being anti-abortion.

All too often, my fellow conservatives -- and I've also been guilty -- take positions that are emotionally satisfying but politically devastating. They tend to dismiss any candidates they disagree with -- and that turns out to be every candidate who conceivably could win against Hillary Clinton.

Roe v. Wade became the law of the land more than a generation ago. The conservative response has been irresponsible in the extreme. It turned into an "all-or-nothing" approach -- one that refused any compromise -- and it ended up not with ALL but with something resembling NOTHING.

The way to deal with abortion was -- and is -- to chip away at it. The alternative to that approach isn't the elimination of abortion but the maintenance of the satus quo. When winning a battle -- military or political -- you don't attack at the enemy's strongest fortifications. You attack at his weakest point, which happened in the case of the horrifying procedure known as partial-birth abortion.

We conservatives tend to wildly overestimate the significance of Roe v. Wade.

In fact, what would happen if, next week, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 against Roe? Would that end abortion? No, it would not. It would oveturn Roe, but it would do little else.

Abortion would continue as it is now. In fact, all 50 states would have to come up with their own laws about the matter. Some of those states, including places like New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts -- in fact, most of the highly populated Blue states -- presumably would come up with liberal abortion laws.

Others, particularly smaller states in the South and West, would have relatively restrictive laws -- we think. Thus, in states where a majority of Americans live, abortion would go on pretty much as it does now. It would be "safe" (except for embryos), legal, and frequent.

Since the Court isn't about to overturn Roe v. Wade -- and very possibly, never will in our lifetimes -- what are we to do about the situation? The answer doesn't lie in shouting more slogans and churning out ever-more-creative bumper stickers.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 5
Date: May 18, 2007 - 8:56 PM EST
Well, they knew the risk
A stupid statement that would only be made by the kind of wimp who would never risk 'anything' to help his fellow man.

If my son gets shot in Iraq and someone makes that statement to me, his ___ will end up on the ground. But it'll be ok, "he knew the risk".

Yeah, cops, firefighters, emt's, nurses and soldiers "know the risks" and they do their jobs anyway. Not because they are well paid (what a laugh) but; because it is the right thing to do. Something a lot of people in this country have forgotten.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 6
Date: May 18, 2007 - 7:02 PM EST
insight vs forder.
as hayek pointed out, much legislation is not within the "rule of law". the rule of law is something each of us should understand. it has a specific definition.

as hayek pointed out, it is not just socialists that use legislation to go beyond the "rule of law" to enslave its people. faicists do the same thing. he notes most of what hitler did was legal. he further noted that central planners in a democracy can be more insidious than all of them as they slowly strangle freedom after freedom while pretending and faux protesting ..."but we are a freedom loving democracy"

indeed, to explain that beyond the "rule of law" legislation he uses example after example. see chaps 3, 5, 6. but i think his quote of stalin captures the essence. he quotes stalin saying by whom, for who. it is all about whom gets to decide for who

those that propose that it is good to follow each law our multiple legislatures decide to cook up need to spend a long time reading the road to sefrdom. seems to me, breaking bad laws is an american virtue.

to paraphrase an american, something hayek was not. we have found the enemy, he is us. a pox on you ant farmers disguised as conservatives.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 7
Date: May 18, 2007 - 6:18 PM EST
Packrat:
Most people are good, decent folk that try to live their lives without harming others. But your assessment that they "obey the laws most of the time" is out of sync with reality. When you differentiate between laws and regulations, as I have tried to do here, an obvious dichotomy emerges.

Good laws are obvious, almost natural, and most people observe them because it is in their best interest to do so. Regulations that masquerade as "law" are ignored by most people, most of the time. Speed "laws" are a good example. People tend to drive at a speed at which they feel "safe and comfortable." Which anyone who has ever driven on an American highway knows is 5 to 15 mph above the marked speed. The ONLY time they do not is when there is an actual or perceived presence of a "regulation enforcer." They are not scofflaws! The rule just makes no sense to them, so they ignore it.

It is unfortunate, but such laws are in place primarily to produce an income stream for the state. Public safety is just an excuse. Speed limits are often set at 85% of what most would consider a safe speed, thus insuring a constant supply of violators to contribute funds.

You ask, "What would happen if everyone decided to ignore the speed limits and stop lights at the same time?
The answer is, we would all probably be safer. Recently the Dutch have experimented with their traffic systems by removing the majority of traffic control devices, road markings, and control signage. The results have been enlightening. Fatalities are down. Property damage is down. Injuries to pedestrians and bicyclists are down.

In the absence of the top down, artificial, authoritarian controls, people tend to assume responsibility themselves. They slow down when conditions demand, and they make up time when conditions allow them to do so safely.

When it comes to human beings, command and control systems bring about perverse results. Just as with economic systems, there are simply too many variables effecting our actions for politicians and bureaucrats to direct us minute by minute. Freedom and personal responsibility do not achieve perfect results, but they constitute the best system available to help us live in peace and harmony in a complex society.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 8
Date: May 18, 2007 - 4:51 PM EST
IT
It is indeed fortunate that most of us obey the laws most of the time.

What would happen if everyone decided to ignore the speed limits and stop lights at the same time?

I contend that constant flaunting of law leads to disrespect and escalation of the law-breaking.
( I got away with 55 in a 35, why not ignore the 20 in a school zone or go around that stopped bus, because I'm in a hurry.)



Flag as Offensive

Reply # 9
Date: May 18, 2007 - 4:34 PM EST
Forder
Reading a bunch of different economists like Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams. I'd throw in Adam Smith but I never read "Wealth of Nations"

Milton Friedman has a clear explanation:

...minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. That's what the law says. The law says here's a man who would -- has a skill which would justify a wage rate of $1.50, $2.00 an hour. You can't, you may not employ him. It's illegal. Because if you employ him you have to pay him $2.50. Well, what's the result? To employ him at $2.50 is to engage in charity...


Friedman goes on from there, you can see the transript here http://www.theopenmind.tv/tom/searcharchive_episode_transcript.asp?id=494


Flag as Offensive

Reply # 10
Date: May 18, 2007 - 4:18 PM EST
Matthew
Convenience store clerks and cab drivers have my respect, those are tough jobs with a real element of danger.

However, the vast majority of people who get in a cab or come in to the store are everyday people who mean them no harm. Police, however, by definition deal 24/7 with the bad guys who can range from a drunk with an attitude and full of liquid courage, to an armed total psychotic who would kill them for fun if given a chance.

Not a real accurate analogy, I'm afraid. It is a cliche, but if the evil-doers are at the door and are threatening you and your family, you call the police, not the cabbies or c-store clerks. Perhaps try walking a mile in a cop's shoes or those of their spouse, figuratively speaking, before dismissing them.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 11
Date: May 18, 2007 - 4:14 PM EST
Packrat:
You say, "Conscience of a jury?
You mean like the OJ jury or the KKK type juries of the 1920's."

The "KKK type" juries you are referencing were hand picked to get convictions. The process is a corruption of the law. It is not a jury of peers.

The jury in the OJ case was also hand picked, but it was biased in the direction of acquittal. We could talk at length about the sociology behind that verdict.

You ask, "How about the laws that flow form natural law, like don't steal, don't kill. What would you call the activities that went on during the Mau-Mau uprisings or more recently in Dafur?"

The problem in those cases was the absence of law enforcement. Prohibitions against stealing, and killing are nearly universal. I suspect that there were laws prohibiting such acts, but there was no moral will to enforce those laws for the benefit of the victims.

You state, "And not all anti-bellum anti-slavery was peaceful. Violence often accompanied anti-slavery actions as well as the pro-slavery."

We were not discussing the violence associated with the anti-slavery movement. I was talking about the function of juries. As I understand it, in some jurisdictions acquittals based on jury nullification of The Fugitive Slave Act reached 50%. That is the proper role of the jury as envisioned by Jefferson.

You also state, "As you can tell, both sides can stand improvement. My point on the republic was that is our current form of government and for good or bad, left or right, we are stuck wit the "laws" they pass until they are changed by another legislature or the court."

I contend that we are not "stuck" with bad laws until the court or the legislature get around to changing them. We can render them ineffective. As intelligent beings we routinely ignore laws that we do not agree with. Most people treat speed limits, stop signs, and parking restrictions as mere suggestions. There are many other examples of "laws" that we, our friends, our neighbors, and others ignore. Then there are the Rosa Parks that are openly defiant of bad "law." Once that bad "law" is corrected we rightly treat these defiant ones as heroes. Lastly there are people who understand the proper role of law in a civil society, and when opportunity presents refuse to convict if their conscience tells them that the "law" is unjust, and does not deserve to be enforced.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 12
Date: May 18, 2007 - 3:30 PM EST
Robin Rose
There really are people who respect the job police officers do,At least where I live and I'd like to thank your husband for his courage, and doing the best he can in his situation.It takes alot to be a policeman's wife too, so thank you as well.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 13
Date: May 18, 2007 - 3:28 PM EST
R.M.
You wrote; "Minimum wage laws for example, discriminate and prefer people of one constituency, say unions, over another, say unskilled workers"
WOW. Where did you get this from.
Wages are based on a companies desire to hire and the workers skill level. We live in a capitalist society. People can choose their wage by developing a skill and getting a job that pays what they deserve. If they don't like the wage they can update their skill and get another job.
There is no law that tells you where you have to work. Minimum wage discriminates against no one. The wage is set and people choose to work or not. There is no law that forces anyone to work for minimum wage.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 14
Date: May 18, 2007 - 3:20 PM EST
I.T.
Although I like your point about anti- smoking, which I do not agree with myself. The law is not based on splitting up groups. It was based on the health of those who wish not to smoke. It's a HEALTH issue. There is an issue of when someones rights to smoke are in direct conflict with those who chose not to. Someone does not have the right to jeopardize someones health. I personally do not know if this has been scientifically proven, however the powers that be inacted the law because some studies say that 2nd hand smoke can cause cancer. That's why there is a law. It has nothing to do with pitting one group against another.
Now remember, I , like you am not a smoker and think the law goes too far. I'm telling you why the law exist's. HEALTH not seperating groups.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 15
Date: May 18, 2007 - 3:03 PM EST
Remember who the good guys are
i am the wife of a police officer. In most social situations my husband and I get to hear about the dirty cops and the unfair tickets. I have yet to have anyone come up to my husband and thank him for the job he does. But he goes to work because he KNOWS that he makes a difference. He works in a town that does not support their police force; they have effectively tied their officers' hands with a marajuna smoke it here in public and homeless who have overrun the downtown area. I thank God for my husband and his fellow officers. They keep doing the job trying to keep the rest of thankless safe in spite of being hog tied.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 16
Date: May 18, 2007 - 2:49 PM EST
Forder
Another example would be "open space" laws that benefit homeowners by artificially jacking up property prices. (Thank Dr. Thomas Sowell for that one, the man is a genius)

What about hate crime legislation? That prefers gay people over straight people.

The tax laws have a plethora of examples of special interests that favor one group over another.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 17
Date: May 18, 2007 - 2:48 PM EST
I.T.
Conscience of a jury?
You mean like the OJ jury or the KKK type juries of the 1920's.

How about the laws that flow form natural law, like don't steal, don't kill. What would you call the activities that went on during the Mau-Mau uprisings or more recently in Dafur?

And not all anti-bellum anti-slavery was peaceful. Violence often accompanied anti-slavery actions as well as the pro-slavery.

As you can tell, both sides can stand improvement. My point on the republic was that is our current form of government and for good or bad, left or right, we are stuck wit the "laws" they pass until they are changed by another legislature or the court.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 18
Date: May 18, 2007 - 2:37 PM EST
Very good example Randophus...
...I wish I had thought of that one.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 19
Date: May 18, 2007 - 2:33 PM EST
To Packrat:
I did not speak against the "rule of law." Nor have I spoken against our republic.

I do not know whether the absence of law results in chaos or not, that may be a question better left to philosophers. I do know that chaos results from bad law. Further, I know that any law that conflicts with the natural rights of human beings is bad law. I have the extensive record of human history to guide me to that conclusion.

In defense of your other poster, whom I sound like, let me say she is correct in a sense. One need only familiarize oneself with the history of our jury system to know that conscience has a large role to play. People with a moral objection to slavery effectively nullified many ante-bellum pro-slavery laws by voting their conscience while serving as jurors, despite the fact that their views were in opposition to existing "law."
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 20
Date: May 18, 2007 - 2:07 PM EST
Forder
I'm going to have to go with Insighting Truth on this. There are laws that are on the books that DO prefer one constituency over another. Minimum wage laws for example, discriminate and prefer people of one constituency, say unions, over another, say unskilled workers.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 21
Date: May 18, 2007 - 2:06 PM EST
Okay forder,
Anti-smoking laws are a good example of bad law. It pits those with an anti-smoking agenda against those who wish to smoke. It pits business owners against the anti-smoking lobby.

Before you label me a disgruntled smoker, as you labeled me a "victim", be advised that I do not smoke, I have never smoked, I avoid places where people do smoke, and I find the habit extremely distasteful. But, I defend the right of people to choose to smoke, and I defend the right of businesses that want to cater to smokers instead of non-smokers.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 22
Date: May 18, 2007 - 2:01 PM EST
Comment
Without law, you have chaos.

I.T., you sound like another poster, who said she could choose which laws to obey based on her morals. The problem with that view is that there are always people like Charles Manson or Gary Gilmore.

As I told her, if you do not like the law, work to change it. If enough people feel as you do, the law will be changed. If not, it won't. Such is the nature of a republic.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 23
Date: May 18, 2007 - 1:37 PM EST
Insighting Truth
Contrary to your opinion "laws" are not designed to pit one constituency against another. Sorry you feel that way. Sounds like your playing the victim card.
There are always examples of certain laws being abused, however, laws are there to protect the general public from those who would cause us harm. Laws do not know what "constituency" you belong to when they are inacted. They do not know your race or sex.
You are trying to say that people write laws in order to keep a certain group down. Please cite for me a law that exists that pits one constituency against another. No crying and no generalities please.
Obey the law....................No problems.
Obey the law..........................No problem
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 24
Date: May 18, 2007 - 1:13 PM EST
Gladly forder
There is good law, laws that protect the people from force or fraud. Then there are "laws" that are enacted for the purpose of plundering the populace. Most regulations are of the second kind.

When police enforce the first kind of law they enjoy virtual universal support for their actions. The second type of "law" is more often the result of one group of people trying to gain power over another group of peoples' lives or resources. By their very nature this type of "law" is resented by those that it impacts. Usually that group feels put upon by the regulation, and resent the police when they are obliged to enforce it.

You see, forder, all laws are not created equally. Some are obvious and well received by the public. Others are pushed through our legislatures by special interest groups, and are designed to pit one constituency against another. Unfortunately it is the enforcer that suffers the wrath of those who feel ill-used by the "law."
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 25
Date: May 18, 2007 - 1:07 PM EST
Well, Mathew 11:06
won't be one of those callers you'll have to listen to as he rants on about how bad policemen are and how ONLY policemen show eachother favoritism and Blah..Blah..Blah.. Isnt the net a real timesaver,Mike.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 26
Date: May 18, 2007 - 12:40 PM EST
Keep it Up
As long as ignorant people continue to complain about the police force and all the "good guys" in uniform, people with a media projected voice such as yourself should consider it your responsibility to debunk them. Im glad you've got the perspective and passion you do. Keep it up.



Curious? Check out Christopher Ruddy at http://www.simonsays.com/content/destination.cfm?tab=25&pid=353818
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 27
Date: May 18, 2007 - 11:50 AM EST
NEWSFLASH: COPS ARE HUMAN TOO
brought to you by Master of the Obvious (aka Mike Gallagher)
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 28
Date: May 18, 2007 - 11:43 AM EST
Not worthy of contemplation
This post is just ridiculous and I’m not certain how it even got posted here. It is akin to saying little doggies are basically good until abused to the point of rebelling. At least you acknowledge that sometimes otherwise decent people falter, which is a rather obvious point. Shallow posts like this don’t really belong on a site for serious discussion.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 29
Date: May 18, 2007 - 11:43 AM EST
Forder
"Or is ignoring a police order part of the reporters job? I didn't know reporters are immune from the law?"

you discovered the magic answer!

Thanks, Mike G, for keeping this lack of respect for law and order on the front burner. We must return to some semblance of civic responsibility if our country is to continue to be a republic.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 30
Date: May 18, 2007 - 11:39 AM EST
above post
this shooting occurred in Franconia, New Hampshire
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 31
Date: May 18, 2007 - 11:37 AM EST
"low-lifers"
If anyone is interested, low-lifers exist everywhere...check out the cousin of former US Olympic Ski Team member, Bode Miller. He of the foul mouth and lack of respect demonstrated at the last Olympics.

Sped off after being stopped for speeding by a local police officer, then when the police officer caught up with him, pumped 4 shots into the officer, killing him immediately. Thankfully, a passerby who witnessed said shooting stopped, took the officer's gun and killed the cousin, Liko Kenney.

And...then there is good old Bode...bragging that he had challenged a speeding ticket the same officer had issued him in the past just to antagonize him!

Great family values shown here! And from what I read, a family member serving in some official capacity in a nearby town refused to let their public servants attend the officer's funeral to show their respect!

As I said, GREAT???? family values...passed on down from hippie parents to hippie children.

My sympathies to the family of the fallen officer - killed by a disrespectful kid. Wonder if the Miller extended family is happy they were so successful in passing on the values that created this sorry affair!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 32
Date: May 18, 2007 - 11:34 AM EST
Matthew
You wrote ;"DO have a problem with what happened with the Los Angeles Police (who, among other things, attacked reporters doing their jobs)."
Do you bother to check the facts of the case or just cry brutality. Thats so cheap and easy. In case you wanted the facts. There is a tape that shows the police trying to restore order before things got out of hand. With the use of a bull horn the police ordered several times for everyone to dispurse,( You do know why people are ordered to leave an area, don't you?..... it is for the safety of others.....)Any way...they defiantly ignored the order and the police escalated thier force to enforce their order. Did you forget about that part? Or is ignoring a police order part of the reporters job? I didn't know reporters are immune from the law?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 33
Date: May 18, 2007 - 11:26 AM EST
They knew the risks...Cops on cops

Do cops treat other cops and family differently than the general public? Yes! I have not had a ticket in 20 years. Helps to have a State Trooper and a local cop in the family.

Now, "They knew the risks" is the line I get for my youngest son, who is a US Marine in Iraq. When he was wounded, I get: "He knew the risks" from my neighbor.

When his wife was killed last year in a traffic accident, I just said: "Well, she knew the risks".

Enough said. Life is a RISK. Get over it.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 34
Date: May 18, 2007 - 11:24 AM EST
Matthew
You Wrote; "pretty easy to keep the peace...
without enforcing the law. That's mostly what cops do...they don't pull you over for speeding, they pull you over for being a nuisence in traffic"
I can't say it any better than the cave man on the Geico commercial......UGH......WHAAAT!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 35
Date: May 18, 2007 - 11:19 AM EST
Mike, good point
but as you can see from some of the posters, there is a reason for some to distrust the police. I think there are at least a couple of reasons for it. Bad new makes news and bad cops get all the news stories. You hardly ever read about the cop that found a lost child and returned him safely home. Or the other 95% of the cops that are good honest, if all too human, officers doing their best. The other is the prevelance of SWAT teams that have a more military attitude about their "mission" and are more concerned that one of their own is not killed than if an innocent person is killed. I support organizations that provide for the survivors of officers killed in the line of duty and wish that it would never happen. But if the choice is between an officer getting killed while ensuring that an innocent civilian lives vice "accidentilly" killing and innocent person, the choice that the officer made when choosing their profession should be to protect the innocent at the cost of his/her own life.

As to the story of the knife-weilding manic-depressive, it is a tough call, but if the family is there, there should have been no reason to simply shoot him to death. I do understand the danger of a man with a knife in close proximity, but perhaps they should have called for an officer that is more experienced in dealing with that type of situation. Stun guns, nets and other non-lethal methods must be used when possible.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 36
Date: May 18, 2007 - 11:17 AM EST
The lowlife in Texas unfortunately...
The lowlife who shot the two sheriff's deputies (both in their sixties who apparently took the jobs to wind down their careers, neither had been on the force that long and probably retired from big-city forces in Dallas, Houston or Austin...)unfortunately was a native US citizen what we would call in Texas a "back-hills country bleep!" A couple of days ago, the one who shot the doughnut store owner and robbed the Whataburger and proceeded to lead a high-speed chase while shooting out the side window, wounding a police officer in the wrist and eventually being deservedly blown to doll rags, now he could have been an illegal...
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 37
Date: May 18, 2007 - 10:49 AM EST
cops
Silicondoc

You face a knife being wielded by an individual in a manic state, then tell me how puny it was.
You probably don't know that a person, with a knife, 20' away from you, can run at you and stab, slash and kill you before you are able to draw and shoot your firearm.
You make a traffic stop, for suspicious behavior, at 3:00 A.M. on a vehicle with heavily tinted windows. Who's in there, how many and what do they have?
You have a "good" citizen(s) scream in your face, calling you every rotten dirty name they can think of because you cited them for running
a stop sign.
I could go on and on.......but you still would not understand, because you have to be there.
It takes a special person to be a cop. Not that he/she is any better than you, just, hopefully, better suited for the job. Are there good and bad cops? Absolutely! We're not supermen just everyday people, like you, with the same misgivings, imperfections and foibles.
Think of that next time you want to disparage someone who has taken an oath to protect you and
will/does die in the course of performing their duty.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 38
Date: May 18, 2007 - 10:02 AM EST
Insighting Truth
Maybe you can tell me how you can "keep the peace" without enforcing the law?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 39
Date: May 18, 2007 - 9:59 AM EST
Sharpton?
I am waiting for Sharpton, Jackson and the Hollywood elites like Sarandon and Spaccoli......errrr, I mean Sean Penn, to march against the violence and injustice perpetrated against the police. Did hell freeze yet?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 40
Date: May 18, 2007 - 9:53 AM EST
Dichotomous view of police.
At one time the police of this country were correctly viewed as peacekeepers. Being a peacekeeper is a respected role in any society. Today police are often seen as regulation enforcers. The role of regulation enforcer is almost universally hated. Politicians and bureaucrats are misusing our police forces. Anyone who actually cares about the police should be petitioning their government to stop sending them out to "regulate" their fellow countrymen, and allow them to focus on their original mission of keeping the peace.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 41
Date: May 18, 2007 - 8:56 AM EST
Knowing the risks........
I suppose that if we want to go with the "they knew the risks involved" theory then we should also apply that litmus test to the law abiding citizens, also. After all, we know the risks of electing liberals to office, and allowing them to erode our country and make the bad guys good. Yet we still elect them, and freely walk down the crime ridden streets, so maybe it is the victims fault? No wait, blaming the crime victims is just stupid. Maybe someone should remind the Democrats of just how stupid it really is.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 42
Date: May 18, 2007 - 8:48 AM EST
but
if our gvmt puts border patrol agents for doing their job into a prison, let the perp keep on bringing drugs without arresting him - who are the bad guys?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 43
Date: May 18, 2007 - 8:44 AM EST
Mike G.
I am one who supports the efforts of the cops and who hates the "liberals" who chastise police every time cops do their duty, as they did in response to illegals throwing rocks at them in the LA May Day march.

I also know that cops get paid a lot more than the average worker or the average soldier.

Mike, don't shout the "underpaid" rhetoric anymore. It cheapens a good point. Cops are well paid, with benefits. They have unions.

Sure, sometimes they get killed in line of duty. They knew the risks going in.

Sometimes law abiding citizens get killed, too. For nothing.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 44
Date: May 18, 2007 - 7:50 AM EST
AudiR10
Well said.

I think you have the picture. Fortunately there are men and women of all ages out there that still can do their duty and show honor. Otherwise , we would all be down the well-known crapper.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 45
Date: May 18, 2007 - 7:47 AM EST
knowknownoshki
What do you mean?
Mike means lawbreaker, killer, low-life.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 46
Date: May 18, 2007 - 6:36 AM EST
You're Not The Boss Of Me Culture
This is yet another manifestation of the culture of disrespect for any authority at all. It's all part of the hippydip ethos that is grounded in Daddy Issues, I think. "The Man" is really Daddy who tells you that you can't do things (like get a wee-wee ring or a tattoo), that punishes you for those things you do after he told you not to, that won't give you money to go to Paris with your Grade 6 class, that makes you do your homework, take out the trash, quit sassing your mother and clean up your act.

And sadly this is a product of the Helicopter Mommies who show up with their lawyers every time anybody steps into the Daddy role and stops Junior from being defiant and disrespectful on the grounds that he's GOTTARIGHT to do and say anything he wants to and never suffer any consequences.

Generation Whine and their hippie parents simply hate authority of all kinds, and have the attitude now that anything you hate has no right to exist, and you can't be punished for eliminating it.

Maybe that's the world the hippies reaped when they sowed the wind. I pray there are enough of us who do not feel that way to counter this lunatic theory of operation.

Police, firemen and soldiers are the good guys. Criminals of every age are the bad guys. Not hard to figure out for me and mine.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 47
Date: May 18, 2007 - 12:10 AM EST
LA
May day march, the cops are being hit with rocks and bottles. They are the bad guys for so called excessive force. They are forced to walk a thin line of perfection, only to be punished for doing their jobs.
Flag as Offensive
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
 *
State:
 *
Zip:
 *
Phone:
       
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.