The Bad Guys VII: Cops (Part 2)

Let’s do a little experiment, the kind you might do in a classroom setting. Let’s watch this 1-minute video of a police interaction:

Depending on your presuppositions about the police, you probably have one of two opinions about what you just saw:

a) A man who was legally exercising his constitutional right to carry a firearm disclosed its existence to a police officer in a non-threatening manner, and without even being told why he’d been pulled over, had two cops draw and point their guns at his head.

or

b) A man who refused to comply with an officer’s reasonable, legally justified order to secure the disclosed firearm of a suspect under investigation forced the police to take measures to defend themselves against a potential threat.

If you’re in camp A, this may be a prime example of jittery, under-trained cops trampling on individual rights and transforming a simple request by the driver (asking why he was pulled over) into a license to engage him with (potentially) deadly force. You probably got mad, and might point to this as just another in a long line of reasons why people see the police as the bad guys.

Camp B residents, on the other hand, may see this as a prime example of the foolishness of citizens needlessly escalating routine safety measures intended to protect them and the driver (handcuffing a suspect), into a deadly situation. You probably got annoyed with the driver’s obstinance, and understand where the cops are coming from.

For both camps, the hardest pill to swallow is this: You both have sound reasons for the positions you hold.

Before you swear at the screen, dismiss it, or crack your knuckles in preparation of telling me to bleep off, consider the inescapable reality we’re currently in: Millions of your fellow Americans agree with the other side.

If you doubt that, just look at the comments section of any video like this (and there are thousands) and you’ll see the philosophical divide in all of it’s profanity-laden, closed-minded infamy.

If you’re a cop, that should alarm you. It’s your lives on the line.

If you’re not a cop, it should alarm you as well. You need the police, whether you know it or not.

Solutions are what will keep everyone alive, which is kinda the point of a police force anyway. But if our heels are so firmly dug into our camp’s position that we ignore or mock the other camp’s point of view, then we might be part of the problem. In fact, we likely are the problem—the bad guys, if you will.

We need to ask ourselves: Are we willing to discuss solutions, or are we content with hating the “scumbags” or “morons” on the other side?

Bad Cops?

On May 25, 2020, Officers Derek Chauvin, J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane, and Tou Thao apprehended George Floyd in Minneapolis MN. On April 20, 2021, these four officers were each convicted of various crimes connected with the death of George Floyd that occurred later that day. The facts of the incident, autopsies, investigations, charges, trials, and convictions are hotly disputed to this day.

In 2024, a crowd-sourced documentary film by Alpha News, The Fall of Minneapolis was released free online. The film details multiple factors that led to the prosecution of these four officers, from politics to cover-ups and everything in between. The true story of that day is cloaked by prejudice; a strong argument can be made that those four officers got raw deal.

And yet, while that film’s producers were putting the finishing touches on their documentary, seeking to upend the police-are-unhinged-monsters narrative, down in Mississippi a different case was playing out which reinforces that very narrative.

Monster Cops?

On Jan. 24, 2023, Ranklin County sheriff’s deputies Brett McAlpin and Christian Dedmon learned that two black men, Michael Corey Jenkins and Eddie Terrell Parker, were staying with a white woman at a house in Braxton, Mississippi.

McAlpin and Dedmon texted fellow deputies Hunter Elward, Jeffrey Middleton, Daniel Opdyke, and a former police officer from the city of Richland, Joshua Hartfield. These six officers collectively referred to themselves as The Goon Squad, and that night they all went to the home in question, though no crime was ever indicated to have been occurring there.

Once inside, they handcuffed Jenkins and Parker, fired two rounds to intimidate them, threw eggs at them, and poured milk, alcohol and chocolate syrup over their faces while mocking them with racial slurs. They then forced them to strip naked and shower together to conceal the mess, and bludgeoned them with a sex object.

Next, Deputy Elward shot Jenkins in the mouth, lacerating his tongue and breaking his jaw. Finally, the whole troupe conspired to cover up the incident by destroying evidence (including surveillance footage) and planting drugs; the drug charges stood against the victims for months afterward. McAlpin and Middleton even threatened to kill other officers if they spoke up.

All six men eventually plead guilty.

At his sentencing for 17.5 years, Daniel Opdyke cried profusely and told the victims that he was reflecting on “how I transformed into the monster I became that night.”

Additionally, Christian Dedmon plead guilty of assaulting a white man, Alan Schmidt, during a traffic stop on December 4, 2022. Elward and Opdyke were also sentenced for failure to intervene during that incident as Dedmon punched, kicked, and used a taser on Schmidt. Dedmon also fired his gun into the air to threaten him before sexually assaulting him.

Pause and reflect on these two cases.

Considering the totality of everything surrounding Minneapolis in 2020, and the reality of situations such as Rankin County in 2023, is it any wonder that the philosophical divide between those who see cops as maligned servants of the people versus those who see the cops as monsters is so vast?

Crimes are one thing, but cops acting in good faith is another matter entirely. Not many people would argue against prosecuting officers who perpetrated clearly criminal acts such as the Goon Squad did. But others use such incidents as pretense to strip the police of things like qualified immunity. The other side argues that qualified immunity should have protected officers like Derek Chauvin from the political witchhunt they claimed it was. And here perhaps lies the greatest challenge to bridging the police/civilian divide.

What is Qualified Immunity?

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine pertaining to civil litigation. It attempts to toe the line between holding individual government officials accountable for misdeeds while protecting government officials at large from frivolous lawsuits. Unless the official (cop, correctional officer, city planner, etc.) violates clearly established¹ constitutional or statutory rights that a reasonable person would know, they retain qualified immunity from civil litigation.

In other words: A well-meaning cop who inadvertently violates a person’s rights (searching a car without probable cause, for example) doesn’t necessarily deserve expulsion or worse. Sometimes punishments and restitution are warranted, but often for simple errors in judgement they’re just not.

Here’s a real example:

A while back we had a cop who was new to our city’s police force; he was a transplant from California where he had been an officer for several years. One day after issuing a routine traffic ticket, he submitted the paperwork and checked the boxes in the same manner he did in California. The problem was that checking certain boxes in Alaska initiates a complete DMV revaluation of the ticketed driver’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, requiring them to complete medical and psych evaluations in a narrow window of time.

It was an absurd mistake by an oblivious officer resulting from the disparity between the way two different state systems do things. In this case, the officer was informed of his error, the department apologized and settled matters with the DMV, and instructions were filtered down on what not to do.

The police are often accused of inappropriate actions when in reality they are forced by statute, direction, or policy to make arrests in given situations. The difference between a statute directing that the police shall do something versus if it says they may do something is a distinction that is lost on the average citizen. To the lawyers, however, it’s a vital difference that often locks a cop into a course of action that the public may not recognize.

For example, 27 states give officers discretion in choosing to make an arrest in domestic violence cases, but the rest require at least one person (and in some cases both parties) to be arrested.

I can only assume that there are probably videos out there prompting outrage for a cop arresting a domestic violence victim (because the cop had no discretion in the matter) and getting off scot-free (because he was following the statute) and getting excoriated in public (because the state has a crappy dual arrest² law on the books).

Multiply this times a million interactions every day and I think you’ll start to get a grasp on the complexity that’s lost in the ether of the internet.

A trend toward greater discretion in the field over mandatory arrest is emerging, but that brings us back to the gray area of proper officer conduct. Unfortunately, within that gray area the discretion afforded to local prosecutors over matters of qualified immunity is nearly absolute.

Blanket immunity regardless of the seriousness of the incident is practically a default in much of the country, and especially in the big cities with massive crime problems. This is why for many people it seems like the police are rarely, if ever, held criminally accountable for serious offenses.

Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.

— Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)

But cops who make simple mistakes while reasonably performing their duties aren’t the problem. Cops—or more importantly, police departments and police unions—who wave qualified immunity as a banner to do whatever they choose, are.

Check Your Ego At The Door

In Latin, the term “ego” means for “I” or “self.” In psychiatric terms it refers to the rational, conscious part of the personality that mediates between the id (primitive instincts) and the superego (moral conscience). In layman’s terms it means: jerk.

We’ve all fallen victim to our own egos to one degree or another. We feel slighted by inconsequential situations—people flipping us off in traffic, a comment on social media—and respond like fools instead of just brushing it off and moving on with our day. We are far too easily offended, and retaliate in a number of immature ways.

When an unhinged cop is easily offended, the results are often disastrous for the public they’re supposed to serve, for the taxpayers who foot the bill for resulting lawsuits, and for the reputations of the departments that employ them.

Yet all across the nation, qualified immunity and unchecked egos are combining to create headaches everywhere. It’s frustrating, expensive, and needs to stop.

How does an officer get in trouble? Someone calls the officer an a**hole, the officer immediately arrests, and possibly assaults the individual. Not only did the officer make a bad arrest, because we do have Freedom of Speech in our constitution, but the officer lets their ego take over and makes a bad arrest. A lot of issues can be avoided if officers left their egos out of the job.

— Ego is the #1 Cop-Killer, by Ayman Kafel, former SWAT officer

Working The Problem

The issue of police misconduct is a contentious one mired in nauseating politics. Sometimes the police are innocent but nonetheless railroaded out of political expediency. Other times they get a skate despite mountains of evidence of their crimes. I began this article by identifying two camps: one that jumps to err on the side of civilians, and one that defaults toward defending the police.

If you’re in the first camp, you might enjoy the YouTube channel Audit the Audit, which documents police interactions and grades the officers (with either praise or scorn) based on their conduct. If you’re in the second camp, you might enjoy any number of popular podcasts such as Street Cop, Project Sapient, or Things Police See.

I’m rather comfortable in either camp, and the interesting thing about them, after you strip away the outrage over specific instances, is that both seem to agree that the key to solving the problem lies in more and better training.

Most police departments run their officers through an academy and that’s where the official training stops. Twice a year, weapons “qualifications” are a box to check for insurance purposes but they don’t make the streets safer. Many police officers drive vehicles completely different than the ones used in the academy. And understanding legal minutiae is almost non-existent, both in the academy and especially afterward.

Instead of merely tossing newbie cops onto the street to learn questionable habits from veteran cops, we should fund departments to rotate their officers through continual, intensive, monthly training. One month could be focusing on live-fire scenarios and proficiency, the next could be dedicated to constitutional law with role playing or simulator-initiated arrest scenarios, another could review videos like the one at the beginning of this article where the counter arguments are debated.

One training could employ community volunteers to role-play controversial issues, like refusing to show ID, or filming the police. The officers could respond in the manner they feel appropriate, with the rest of the class giving legal and layman’s assessments of how they handled the various scenarios. A city lawyer could detail the cost of litigating any potential lawsuits resulting from the chosen course of action.

I’m not sure whether anything like these examples are happening in police departments nationwide. If there are, please comment below.

Is The Status Quo Cheaper Than Creativity?

Police department funding is a sore subject, but if the public is given opportunity to help craft the training designed to meet the needs of the community at large, perhaps they may see it as an investment. From 2019 to 2023, the city of Chicago paid $164.3 million to litigate misconduct suits³ against over 200 officers. Frivolous lawsuits or not, the cost is the same for all the lawyers necessary to settle it. It’s expensive, and fails to do anything to bridge the philosophical divide or make the city safer.

Instead of endlessly defending bad cops, how about getting creative with how we equip the good ones? If the general public is given the option of paying (or sponsoring others) to attend these monthly trainings alongside the police, these kinds of classes might even become profitable.

That could also build much-needed bridges between the police and the community. Imagine if the local police department sent out a message telling the public that for $80 they could attend an eight-hour session where they get to Play-The-Cop and decide in a role playing exercises whether or not to slap handcuffs on a real officer. I’ll bet there would be a waiting list to get into that class, and I’ll also bet there would be churches in the community willing to sponsor lunch for these events.

The idea is that both the public and the police need better training — in the law, in the realities for those donning the uniform, and in the subtle differences that cloud everyone’s perceptions of proper and improper policing.

This problem is as old as America, older even. The need to protect the land from the preying antics of criminals is a high calling, and one few people take on lightly. We should respect it. That, however becomes hard to do when a tribe sees everyone outside their circle as a threat. Unless we’re willing to change our perspective, and make overt decisions to look at each other as men and women instead of cops and civilians, that may never change.

Get the police and constitutional 2A auditors on the range together, running shoot-no-shoot⁴ drills, and they might gain some mutual respect that will carry over to real world interactions like the one in the video at the beginning of this article.

When it comes to armed citizens, most of the cops I’ve met have a you don’t touch your gun, I won’t touch mine approach. Why the cops in that video didn’t is a good question; they deserve an opportunity to explain it.

[This is a two-part edition to my series The Bad Guys. Please subscribe to be notified when new installments or other articles are added. You can read Part 1 here.]

---

You can follow me on Telegram, Substack, Truth Social, GETTR, Gab, and X.

This is part of an ongoing series titled, The Bad Guys. Previous articles:
The Bad Guys I: History.
The Bad Guys II: Abortion…and Cobra Kai.
The Bad Guys III: The Feds
The Bad Guys IV: The GOP
The Bad Guys V: Intelligence Agencies
The Bad Guys VI: The Courts
The Bad Guys VII: Cops (part 1)

If you enjoy my work, please consider supporting us with a paid subscription in the amount of your choice. Or if you’d like to make a one time donation feel free to Buy Me A Coffee.

You can subscribe to receive new posts to your inbox for free, as well as get information on my upcoming books and projects.

If you enjoyed this article, you may enjoy these as well:

Clearing the Search History: Overcoming Pornography & Addiction

Pink Floyd, Spiritual Warfare, & the Problem of Christian Music

Evidence That Demands A Verdict: Then and Now

1. When it comes to qualified immunity, the term “clearly established” generally requires a prior case with functionally identical facts to have been previously litigated. This creates a convenient catch-22 wherein many courts have thrown out cases, even where clear violations of rights occurred, claiming the case law has not been clearly established.

2. Dual Arrests result from mandatory arrest laws wherein anyone suspected of committing violence is apprehended. This would (and often does) include a victim who commits “violence” by fighting back and injuring their attacker.

3. Supervising Sargent Jerald Williams was named in five lawsuits over five years, costing the city $1.4 million on his own, with $850,000 going to Bernard Kersh, who was injured by Sgt. Williams.

4. Shoot, No Shoot drills pertain to firearms training wherein the trainee must determine if his or her target is a valid threat and decide whether or not to fire. These often utilize simulators or unconventional targets such as a paper image of a person holding an object, perhaps even a gun, but not necessarily in a threatening manner.