American Police Brutality and its Impact on Society

One of the reasons I completed my studies in law enforcement is to empower citizens to protect themselves against any who violate or abuse the law for their own benefit. But first I have to explain legal details that the average American doesn’t always know or understand. The justification for my analysis here is based in both law and philosophy. You have to remember that police are regular citizens, just like you. They’re not legally distinct from citizens, they are merely citizens who have entered into public employment with their local, state, or federal authorities. They’re not military, even if formerly so. There’s a common saying, “once a soldier, always a soldier”. Maybe in mentality, but not legally. Soldiers are legally distinct from civilians, police are not. This difference is key, but even this legal distinction is temporary and conditional upon active duty service. Once the service is over, the distinction is gone.

Police are citizens who have been allowed through contractual agreement with their authorities to be trained, educated, and empowered to uphold the law. Here’s where Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “Social Contract” comes into play. Police are simply citizens who have amended their previous social contract to include new duties, responsibilities, authority and power. That power is derived from the consent of the legislative and regulatory bodies which empowered them. That ability is granted by the federal government, which is granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the power and authority of American government is ultimately granted by the people. See where I’m going?

People ultimately consent to the existence of police, and in so doing consent to their government granting such powers to these officers. In America, the law recognizes this as “the consent of the governed”. But the oath that an officer takes usually includes the words “…to uphold, in good faith, the public trust…” An officer is not entitled to violate the law. It would be a violation of the oath, which is essentially a breach of the social and philosophical contract. The contract between powers that be and the officer is shattered if an officer violates the law. But also in so doing, the consent of the governed is violated, as is the public trust; no trust, no consent. No trust, no oath, no powers, no authority. Because the badge does not empower the officer to break the law, breaking the law invalidates both the oath and the badge. The officer would then, at least in the eyes of the law, cease to be an officer, and at that point be “reduced” to a common citizen again. Thus, an officer who breaks the law is immediately a criminal.

Citizens have the ability to arrest law-breaking criminals. The justification for this legal empowerment is, again, to obey the law and prevent its violation. This is a conditional expectation of the social contract. Either people consent, in which case they are law-abiding citizens), or they don’t, in which case they are criminals in need of arrest. The social contract is conditional upon both consent and adherence. Criminals that break the law can be arrested by citizens, who are required to turn over custody of that criminal to an officer. An officer by definition cannot be a criminal and vice versa, therefore the power of an officer is ultimately derived through their conditional adherence to the law, not through a “de facto” (by definition) existence of the authority, because that authority is derived only “a posteriori” (after the fact) from the adherence to the law, and holding the public trust in good faith. Without that, the badge is worthless. Police, in a sense, legally and philosophically require the trust of the citizens whom they are legally and morally obligated, as the saying goes: “to protect and serve”. If they can’t meet that obligation, the governing bodies have a legal obligation to us to fire that officer, and make room for those who can handle the social responsibility of justice.

As it stands now, rather than do that, the government more often than not protects the officer, not understanding the philosophical or legal implications of the officer’s social and legal responsibilities to the public. The government prefers to define the legal authority of the officer by definition of its existence, as if the existence comes before the consent of the governed, rather than after consent has been given. Remember your rights and remember that you can record the officers from your vehicle, as they are in plain sight. Never let them try to claim that “a new law” has been passed which criminalizes recording them. The Supreme Court has ruled that recording officers is legal. Any “new law” which would criminalize recording police would be a categorical violation of the Constitution, and as such would be invalid. No law can exist (for long) which is unconstitutional, and the very nature of its unconstitutionality renders such a law useless. To enforce, or try to enforce an unconstitutional law, especially after it has been declared unconstitutional, is a violation of the Constitution and thus the law.

Any officer trying to enforce an unconstitutional law voids their authority, and is no longer an officer. As criminals are not legally allowed to use force or hinder law-abiding citizens in any way, the use of force by a criminal is tantamount to aggravated assault. Citizens also have the right to refuse any illegal command from an officer, and officers would be in violation of the law if they gave a command which would force a citizen to violate the law in another way. Cops can’t make you break the law, nor can they break it themselves. Citizens have the right to resist arrest, legally, if the arrest is in violation of the law, and if excessive force is applied by the officer. Citizens are allowed to use force to defend themselves from police brutality as long as that brutality is used in an illegal arrest. Citizens are allowed to use up to and including lethal force to preserve their lives from any criminal. Police, by legal definition, present lethal force or the potential of lethal force, at all times while on duty.

So what then can a citizen do if an officer violates the law and becomes a criminal? Does that mean a police officer can be killed by a citizen in their defense of themselves? Technically yes, but only if the officer’s actions and conduct can be proven illegal. The only defense the state has is conditional upon the understanding that what the officer did was legal. Every shooting an officer engages in is required to be legal and justifiable. That is why a transparent, ethical, and responsible police department investigates every shooting one of their officers is involved in. If the shooting is not legal, officers are supposed to receive legal punishments, including forfeiture of their badge, as well as arrest and incarceration. This is how it is supposed to be, in a fair and ethical society.

But if our society is not ethical, what then is a citizen left to do? That is the question.

WRITTEN BY

Johnny Ringo

Disabled, bisexual American socialist and political activist. Student of politics, aspiring journalist, and academic. Bachelor’s of Science in Criminal Justice.