I’ve always been the sort to have very mixed feelings about police officers. On the one hand, I am no great friend of big government. Traffic stops for fund raising, not safety, are a fact of life for most of us. Yes, terrible, going 65 in a 55. Why, everyone’s life was at risk, right? Over-regulation and nanny state tyranny have their ultimate expression in officers of the law. Eric Garner died during his arrest, after he had been caught selling loose cigarettes. Why a law against selling cigs was even on the books to begin with, I have a difficult time understanding. But I know this: never pass a law for which you are unwilling to kill in order to enforce.

That’s what it comes down to. Am I willing to kill to prevent harm to myself and my family? Absolutely. Am I willing to kill to prevent some random slob from selling cigarettes on a street corner? No, not really. I can’t imagine why anyone would, honestly, except for obtaining more tax revenue from so-called “sin taxes”. But that happened in New York, and whatever else you can say about them, they sure love tax money. Whatever.

But this isn’t the fault of the police officers themselves. Oh, sure, there is some leeway for them to ‘accidentally’ overlook whatever it is you’re doing. And many will overlook small items if they can, and if they are not being hounded to report certain numbers of violations. But when you have someone pulled over because of a busted taillight or selling some cigarettes on the corner, a great measure of the responsibility ultimately rests on whatever idiot decided this merited armed police involvement in the first place by passing such a law.

The micromanagement coming from officers of the law is, in great part, a consequence of the nanny state.

What does this have to do with the shootings in Dallas? Well, quite a lot, actually. The nanny state has ensured that more confrontations between law enforcement and the citizenry (of whatever ethnicity) will take place. And some percentage of these will go bad, whether the fault of the officer, the citizen, or both.

Add to this a documented propensity for violent crime in the black community (again, regardless of the source — that’s a discussion for another time, perhaps), and you create the ingredients needed for police to feel more threatened and to simultaneously involve themselves more often in the business of the people. Then when the media comes in and makes a special issue out of those that involve blacks, you create a recipe for disaster.

Blacks feel on edge. Police feel on edge. And some of the citizens so stopped really are violent at a higher rate than the average citizen, and the cops know this. And then those very same people are fed a constant line about how the cops oppress them, and it’s okay to hate them (some even suggest it’s permissible to kill them). And somehow the media acts surprised when things like what happened in Dallas go down.

No, we’re in a state of affairs where increasing police involvement is demanded (who else is going to enforce the laws of the nanny state, I wonder?) by the very same people who hate cops and don’t want to involve the police. It’s a complete contradiction. And then you tell the cops that they must keep the peace in an area full of people who hate them and look upon them as racist oppressors. When they try to, by profiling those most likely to destroy the peace, they are called racist, and demands are made to disband them. Yet if that area becomes violent, decayed, and decrepit as a result of rampant crime (see: Detroit), those people will then demand that the government come save them from the madness. Usually with heaping piles of money that rapidly vanish into the ether.

It’s a mess of contradictions. The cops have contradictory missions. The politicians offer mutually-exclusive promises. Money is funneled away. And the nanny-state demands ever-increasing levels of scrutiny.

We have a police state. It’s a fact. But in an era in which the choices are chaos or police state, what choice is there? Any sane option was discarded long ago by our so-called leaders. Even looking at the demographics of criminals is considered contentious.

So all the blame falls upon the cops, because the politicians deflect it from themselves, naturally, and the citizenry fails to notice the correlation between nanny-state demands and an increase in police power, and because the black community routinely fails to even look at its own problems.

So the cops become the scapegoat for a host of problems, of which they are only a very small part. All the enmity thus unfairly earned is heaped upon them, and they are murdered by a bunch of self-righteous thugs claiming to be crusaders of moral virtue. This is why the families of those slain officers will shed their tears for those lost. This is why the partnership between police and citizens is wearing away, and why both are becoming increasingly antagonistic to one another. This is why racial problems in America continue to worsen.

I’m no fan of big government, and the police state worries me greatly. But let me be very clear on this, because I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding: in this foul deed, my heart is with the police. I am tired of them being unfairly blamed for problems that are far beyond them, and for which they can personally do very little. Certainly, them being slaughtered for doing their best when given contradictory mission objectives is far worse than anything they could have deserved.

But mark my words, more of this will come. More cops will die, and more citizens will die with them, and the politicians will continue to deflect, and the SJWs will continue to cry racism, and BLM will continue to act like the neo-Fascist thugs that they are. Because the American people have lost the ability to tell the truth, even when it is unpleasant. For those lies, we will all continue to pay. Some with their lives.

%d bloggers like this: