LF: The “Hero” Problem

When the state and its media bullhorns refer to armed government workers – law enforcers – as “heroes,” it’s a sign the hour is getting late.

When most people don’t draw back and spit coffee all over the keyboard at the idea, it’s minutes to midnight.

How did it become “heroic” to enforce laws?

And if it is “heroic” to enforce laws then – ipso facto – the East German Stasi, the Soviet GRU and NKVD were “heroic” also.

Right?

Crickets, usually.

Well, cognitive dissonance. Too many people don’t make such connections; see the concept behind the particular.

“Law enforcement,” like references to the United States as the “Homeland” (mein Fuhrer! I can walk!) are relatively recent rust spots on the American quarter panel; visible evidence of the underlying rot.

This is their own term, too. It is what they do – by definition.

Well, at least they are honest about it. Meanwhile, the populace in general still regards them as being there to “protect and serve,” the “thin blue line.” Both are false – and ridiculous – notions.

First, they are not there to to protect. This is not their job.

The Supreme Court has very explicitly stated this. The job of law enforcement is (wait for it) to enforce laws.

Law enforcers are under no legal obligation to protect anything – or anyone.

Indeed – hark, Officer Safety! – they are most concerned with protecting themselves, if anything. To the nth degree. Which is certainly understandable – we all value ourselves highly. But looking out for Numero Uno isn’t “heroic.”

A hero puts his own self at risk for the sake of others. Law enforcers go to great pains to not do this. The state they work for esteems their lives – their safety (whether a threat is real or imagined) far more than our lives and safety.

Note that a “hero’s” life is literally – legally – more valuable than our lives. This extends even to dogs. A “hero” can murder a family pet, without reason (beyond “I feared for my safety”) and he may be reprimanded. A citizen who defends himself against a police dog and slay the animal can be charged wth murder of a “law enforcement officer” – and will be prosecuted with extreme prejudice.

Just last week, in Georgia, two law enforcers were filmed punching and kicking an unarmed, not-“resisting” motorist. They were fired – a result of the publicity – but not arrested. How is this possible? If any Mundane (as the late and very great William Norman Grigg put it) so much as jabbed an index finger into the chest of a “hero” to make a point, he is likely to be on the receiving end of an immediate and very violent “take down,” placed in manacles and charged with felony assault/battery upon a law enforcement officer.

We are not allowed – legally forbidden – to defend ourselves against a law enforcer; we are required to go limp, submit and obey. To “let the courts” sort it out. Even if we end up in the hospital (or worse) first.

They, on the other hand, my do as they like with us – and largely without repercussions, even when there is video of them en flagrante, committing an act that would land any of us in jail for the same, as in the Georgia incident.

The “heroes” might be assigned to “desk duty” – or “suspended” – in both case, with pay.

Now, as to this “thin blue line” business.

It is based on the idea that – absent armed government workers – who have no duty to protect us, recall – most people would revert to Lord of the Flies savagery. This bleak view of most people as criminal by nature is as horrific as it is ridiculous. Do you suppose your spouse, your friends, the people you’ve known for years – are secretly, in their hearts, murderers and rapists and thieves ?

That – absent the “thin blue line,” they would slit you throat, steal your stuff, rape your wife/daughter?

It is nonsense of the vilest sort.

Most people have moral sense that exists regardless of law – or enforcers. Most people would not commit theft or rape or murder or any real crime – even if both codified law and costumed law enforcers disappeared tomorrow.

Ask yourself. Would you?

But then, most of the laws being enforced have nothing to do with theft, rape or murder. They are mostly just . . . laws.

Which in freer times were not enforced because they did not exist.

Nor should.

Was America a less “safe” place 50 years ago, when there were fewer laws? When it was considered laudable for a cop – as they were called in those days – to boast of not ever having had to unholster his gun during a career of 30 years? When one could argue with a cop and not risk a beat down?

In those days, cops were not considered “heroes” . . . but many were.

Who in their right mind would jab a finger into the chest of a police officer? Where does that person get the idea that it would be OK to do that?

Was America a less “safe” place 50 years ago, when there were fewer laws? When it was considered laudable for a cop – as they were called in those days – to boast of not ever having had to unholster his gun during a career of 30 years? When one could argue with a cop and not risk a beat down?

We had fewer laws 50 years ago because we didn't need more. People respected each other's rights without being forced to.

You could say whatever you wanted -- but you accepted the consequences from those around you. You could be crude with a woman -- but be prepared for a slap in the face. You could buy a gun through the mail, but you were held personally responsible.