Shooting blanks on police issue

There is perhaps no greater descriptor of police than the quote: Sheepdogs of society who work 24/7 to keep the flock — we the people — safe. Like every species, a select few will go rogue by acting contrary to natural instinct. Derek Chauvin was one of those: A protector who, for whatever reason, became a predator. And for that, he has been severely punished.

But like most things in America, the pendulum has swung to the extreme. In the case of law enforcement, it has become an all-out war on the men and women in blue, where every move is scrutinized by armchair analysts sitting in the safety and comfort of the cheap seats, but who act like they’re experts on the front lines.

The results are already upon us: Police applicants are dropping precipitously (66 percent of 400 departments surveyed reported declining applications, and that was two years ago), crime is skyrocketing, and cops are increasingly apprehensive about responding to calls and making proactive stops.

Plain and simple, Derek Chauvin did not receive a fair trial. As a result, he will undoubtedly appeal, plunging the country into what will be a tortuous round two. Most frustrating is that his grounds for appeal would have been considerably less has just a small bit of common sense been utilized.

Winning the award in the “what was he thinking” category, the Minnesota judge somehow thought it a good idea not to sequester the jury, though he reportedly advised them not to watch the news. With such foolproof instructions, what could go wrong?

This should have been an open-and-shut case, but because people can’t keep their emotions in check and mouths zipped, Pandora’s Box was opened unnecessarily. Now, there is a widely-held view that, even though Chauvin should have been found guilty in some regard, the bullying mob won the day by threatening violence if they didn’t get what they wanted.

Next we have what appears to be a clear-cut case of stellar police work being slammed as racist and an unnecessary use of force.

For those who haven’t yet viewed the video of a Columbus, Ohio, police officer responding to the call of a woman threatening people with a knife, watch it. The footage is worth a thousand words.

You will see Ma’Khia Bryant holding what appears to be a knife, raising her arm in what looks to be an offensive posture, ready to strike/stab another woman. Responding police encountered the chaotic situation with mere seconds to act. An officer fired his weapon in an attempt to stop the attack, hitting and killing Ms. Bryant.

Almost immediately there were criticisms of police and calls for protests.

Here are some aspects to consider:

Why is “racial injustice” being evoked at all? Bringing race into the equation means, in no uncertain terms, that the shooting was racially motivated. But how can any reasonable person come to that conclusion? Police had milliseconds to respond. Color, be it of the officer, attacker, or the accosted, was irrelevant.

What if the officer hadn’t responded the way he did? What if the person under threat was stabbed? If the officer had done nothing, and the victim was maimed/killed, would the officer have been fired for inaction?

Most importantly, if the officer hadn’t fired, what else could he have done? Taser? Maybe, but it takes longer to deploy (time the officer didn’t have), and isn’t nearly as effective in stopping an attacker. Should he have tried to reason with Ms. Bryant over the noise of the scene, even though he would only have had a second or two to make his point?

No one wants to see anyone die, especially a 16-year-old, as Ms. Bryant was. But based on the body-cam footage, it appears that she made a terrible decision in not just wielding a knife, but moving it toward another human.

We mandate that vaccines be 100 percent safe, to the point where a one-in-a-million adverse event is unacceptable. We scream for recalls and more regulations when unsupervised children or objects get sucked under a treadmill, despite ample safety warnings. And yes, some demand that no one should ever get hurt or killed in police-vs-attacker confrontations involving weapons.

Sorry, but that’s not reality. Never has been; never will be. Fact is, the more we expect riskfree outcomes, the more disappointed we’ll be. Nowhere is that more prevalent than in biased attitudes toward police.

And that’s a black-and-blue mark not easily healed.