What If There Was a Crime and the Police Were Unable to Respond?

September 15, 2019

Suppose you were asleep in your bed one night and you were awakened by someone trying to break into your home at two o’clock in the morning. You immediately call 911 and are told by the police department employee that all available officers are out on other calls and they would send someone as soon they could. At this point, you would be on your own and forced to fend for yourself. Is this what the future of law enforcement will look like in the US?

I was raised in a fairly rural county in upstate New York. Our police protection was provided by the county Sheriff’s Department and the NY State Police. I don’t recall seeing that many patrol cars cruising around the area where I lived, but that was sixty years ago. The implication of this is that if you called the police back then, you may have had to wait ten or fifteen minutes for help to arrive, depending on just how off the beaten path you lived. 

I now live in an even more rural county in upstate New York known as the “north country.” Some parts of the north country are even farther off the beaten path than the area where I grew up. My guess is that even though response times have probably improved, there are still parts of the county where a five or ten-minute response time would not be unreasonable.  

I bring this up because police departments and law enforcement agencies all over the country are experiencing serious difficulty hiring new recruits. It’s become so bad, in fact, that many police departments are losing more officers by way of retirement and career changes than they are able to replace. As a matter of fact, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 66% of all police departments nationwide report that the number of those wanting a career in law enforcement is down significantly. 

Not only has the number of new applicants declined, but the number of active duty police officers has also diminished. For example, in 2008 the number of police officers on the streets of the US was 765,000. In 2016 that number dropped to 701,000. This is despite the fact that the US population has increased to 330,000,000 according to the US census bureau. This being the case, the number of police officers on the street, on a per capita basis, has declined from 2.42 per thousand to 2.17 per thousand. The trend is continuing.

According to the BJS, the problem is pervasive throughout the country and is not limited to a geographic area or the size of the municipality. Many people who were considering a career in law enforcement have had second thoughts and are pursuing other careers that are more lucrative and come with less baggage.  

Many of those who have considered a career in law enforcement have done so from a desire to serve their community. In many cases, these people serve in the same community in which they live. People wanting to serve in their hometowns makes sense. New recruits were willing to forego some financial considerations in order to serve in their own community. In today’s environment, that scenario is becoming less and less likely. 

In addition to the mediocre pay, there are several other reasons why people are not choosing law enforcement as their life’s work. One of the major reasons people are choosing careers other than law enforcement is the amount of disrespect and out-right vilification that police are forced to endure just for doing their job. An example of this occurred in New York City several weeks ago. Police were in the process of making an arrest when several local men began throwing buckets of water at the officers. When did this type of behavior become acceptable? Those individuals should have been arrested for obstruction of justice. I’d be willing to bet that in the not-too-distant past they would have been. 

I grew up during the 1960s in the area of Albany, NY. The police departments, especially in the local cities, were very tough. As teenagers, if we had done anything even remotely similar to what I described above, we would have had our heads handed to us. It just would not have been tolerated. Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but there was not nearly the amount of crime on the streets as there is today. This may be just a coincidence, but is it possible that the trend towards liberalism in America has anything to do with the blatant disrespect shown towards law enforcement in general?    

There was another similar incident in NYC in August. In this particular instance, police were again interfered with while making an arrest. In this case, however, three people were arrested and charged. Let’s hope these individuals are convicted and severely punished. 

It’s bad enough that police officers have to put up with disrespect from the citizens who they are paid to protect, but they also have to tolerate disrespect from elected and unelected officials who run the state and local governments. One of the most egregious examples of this happened in—yup, you guessed it—New York City. Mayor Bill DeBlasio has shown nothing but disdain for the hardworking, devoted members of the NYPD. In return for the disrespect shown to the officers of the NYPD by the absolute worst mayor in the history of this city, many of the rank and file police officers have, on more than one occasion, turned their backs on “his honor ” the mayor while he was giving a speech. 

 In addition, Mayor DeBlasio and his wife have actually poisoned the mind of their son, who is half African-American, by “training” him to be “extra careful” if he should ever have an encounter with police officers. The mayor, in my opinion, was implying to his son that police officers were biased against black people, and that he should therefore be very careful if he should ever have such an encounter with the police. How’s that for divisive rhetoric? 

Mayor DeBlasio also failed to support the police officers involved in the Eric Garner case. Mr. Garner was accidently killed by a police officer while in the process of being put under arrest. Mr. Garner, who weighed well in excess of three hundred pounds, resisted arrest and had to be physically subdued. Because of his size, it took five police officers to subdue Mr. Garner and place him under arrest. During the confrontation one of the officers put a choke hold around Mr. Garner’s neck and he died. The use of a choke during the course of an arrest is against police regulations. After a long, drawn-out investigation, Officer Pantaleo, the officer who applied the choke hold to Mr. Garner, was dismissed from the NYPD. 

Mr. Garner was put under arrest for selling loose cigarettes on the street. He had evidently been told on several occasions that it was illegal to do this and that he should stop doing it. The police officers confronted Mr. Garner for again selling loose cigarettes on the street and told him that they were going to place him under arrest. Instead of complying with the police and allowing himself to be handcuffed and put under arrest, Mr. Garner resisted and had to be forcibly subdued by five police officers. 

Mr. Garner lost his life for selling loose cigarettes on the street. Really? What a waste of a human life. This is especially true when you consider that the entire episode could have been avoided if Mr. Garner had just allowed himself to be put under arrest. It adds credibility to the fact that people in this country are losing respect for the police and the laws that they are paid to enforce. Groups like Black Lives Matter think that their protests are helping the plight of inner-city residents who are supposedly being treated unfairly by law enforcement. The fact is they are doing just the opposite. As the number of law enforcement officers dwindle, who will protect those vulnerable people in the inner cities? Maybe those people will just have to resort to paying the local gangs for protection.

The premise of this post is that the number of people who desire a career in law enforcement is dwindling. What will happen to these inner-city citizens, whether they be black, white, Hispanic or whatever, when there are so few police that they are unable to provide the level of police coverage necessary to protect these people? What happens is gang violence, racketeering, and anarchy. This will be the result of disrespect for the law and the police officers who enforce it. In short, these cities will become war zones. The current situation in cities like Chicago and Baltimore will seem like Sunday School picnics compared to what these cities will become without adequate police protection. It will be interesting to see how this works out.

This sad episode did not have to happen. It could have been completely avoided if Mr. Garner had only allowed himself to be handcuffed and put under arrest. Instead he resisted arrest. Mr. Garner would still be alive today. His children would still have their father and Officer Pantoleo would still be a New York City police officer. All this because Mr. Garner resisted arrest. How can we expect the citizens of this country to have respect for police officers and their authority, when they are openly disrespected by elected officials and the government administrations they lead? The obvious answer is that you can’t. 

NYC police

An even more egregious situation just occurred in The People’s Republic of California. A new law was just passed and signed by Governor Gavin Newsome. It basically says that deadly force can be used “only when necessary.” Duh! Who will determine when the use of force is appropriate? Will it be the police officer on the scene who happened to be involved in the confrontation or some desk jockey lawyer sitting in his office reviewing the case a week later? Dumb laws like this are going to get police officers killed—and probably other people as well. This is another reason why there are less people interested in a career in law enforcement.

According to the ACLU, there other avenues open to the police when confronting a suspect. For example, police in California are now required to pursue other options, such as de-escalation and verbal persuasion when it is safe to do so. Here again, who determines when it is safe to do so? Is it the police officer who is under fire—or some liberal-minded lawyer sitting in his office? Maybe the police officer and the suspected criminal can discuss the situation over coffee and a danish. Or maybe the ACLU should be on the street and personally confront these armed criminals and see if getting shot at changes their opinion of how law enforcement should handle these armed thugs. I won’t be holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

In days past, the police only had to worry about being physically attacked or shot by an armed suspect. Now, in addition to being harmed physically, police officers also need to contend with the possibility that if there is a need to use physical force, or worse yet, deadly force, he may be charged and prosecuted for murder or assault by some liberal-minded DA who has a bias against cops. It’s getting to the point where it’s just not worth the risk for anyone to choose a career in law enforcement. The deck is stacked against them. This is especially true in our major cities which are, for the most part, run by progressive politicians, who have a bias against the police. 

The term “necessary use of force” has already been settled by the Supreme Court. The standard set by the court is called “objective reasonableness.” My understanding of the term is that the reasonableness of a particular situation must be judged from the perspective of a “reasonable officer on the scene,” as opposed to someone who was not at the scene and is second guessing the officer.

The court further stated that “the subjective beliefs of the actual police officer involved in the altercation, whether they are good or bad, are not relevant.” Put another way, if the officer involved in the altercation reasonably believes that the object in the hands of a suspect could cause harm to himself or another person, and it later turns out to be a non-lethal item, such as a cellphone, that is also “not relevant.” 

Given the restrictions placed on police officers today, not just in California, but in other states and cities as well, why would anyone want to risk life and limb to serve an ungrateful community? As I wrote earlier, the financial compensation earned by police officers is not that great and the risks are becoming more numerous and more dangerous every day. If this trend continues, we may get to a point in this country where there are just not enough police to do the job. When that point is reached I suggest that those citizens who need police protection call Black Lives Matter to patrol their streets. Let me know how that works out.

The issue of sanctuary cities is not only a slap in the face to law enforcement at all levels of government, it also puts US citizens at greater risk of harm. Local police are forbidden by their government administrations from cooperating with federal law enforcement agencies, such as Immigration, Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Immigration Border Patrol (IBP). They are even forbidden from notifying ICE when they have an illegal immigrant in custody, even if that illegal has committed a violent crime. These violent crimes include murder, assault, and the rape of women and children. In many cases, these violent criminals are released on bail and go on to commit other crimes. If these crimes were committed by a US citizen, they would be arrested, indicted, prosecuted, and sent to jail. Where in our legal system does it say that illegal non-citizens should be held to a lower standard of justice than American citizens? 

Situations such as these are not only the fault of the elected officials who put these policies in place, but they are also the fault of the people who voted them into office and continue to vote for these same people election after election. People in this country look at elections as a popularity contest instead of looking at who is the better candidate. This is why our country is $23T in debt and it is also why that number will be $50T in fifteen years. It is also why crime is on the rise and why our borders are porous. This is the fault of the electorate.

An example of this stupidity can be found in Montgomery County, Maryland. Between the middle of July of this year, and the middle of September, nine young girls were brutally raped by illegal immigrants. It was only seven girls when I started typing this post. But it has since increased to nine. I believe that one of the girls was only six years old. I would be very interested to know if any of the parents of these young girls voted for the people who initiated the sanctuary policy in that county. How would you like to have to live with that on your conscience?

Finding new recruits has become a serious problem for federal law enforcement agencies as well. Applications for those wishing to become special agents in the FBI have dropped from 68,000 per year in 2009 to only 11,500 in 2018. This is roughly an 83% decrease. We’re talking about the FBI, the most revered law enforcement agency in the world. Other federal agencies, such as the US Immigration and Border Patrol (IBP), Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) are also experiencing similar problems with recruitment.

One possible reason for this shortage is the booming American economy (thank you Mr. President.) There are more jobs available than there are people to fill them. This means that anyone who is looking for new employment has the upper hand. It’s a job seeker’s market and job seekers, in this market, have the ability to pick and choose which job best suits their needs. In this type of job market everything is negotiable. The applicant may be in a position to entertain multiple offers and the applicant will take the job offered by the highest bidder. Given the current job market, law enforcement, at all levels, will have to compete in the open market for the best personnel. Salaries and benefits will have to be made more competitive in order to have a chance at hiring the best people. This is called competition in the open market.

One obstacle to hiring qualified recruits is the harsh environment that IBP officers are forced to work in. For example, the area where the southwest border of the US is located is extremely desolate. For all intents and purposes it can only be described as a desert. Temperatures, especially in the summer, are often well over 100 degrees. Then there is the lack of affordable housing. Because of this housing shortage IBP agents are often times forced to drive dozens of miles in order to patrol the most remote sections of our southern border. I believe the main reason, however, is because of money. The starting salary for an IBP agent is around $42,000 per year. That’s not a lot of money. In addition, if the agent is married and the spouse wants to work, it is difficult to find work in the area because there are just not a lot of jobs available in that part of the country. If the spouse is able to find employment, there is at least the possibility that the couple will be able to make ends meet. In a single-income family it would be difficult at best. The problem of recruiting law enforcement is pervasive at all levels of government. Unless steps are taken to rectify the situation, the problem will only get worse and it will get worse at an increasing rate.

When I hear people like Beto O’Rourke, Elizabeth Warren, or any of the other left-wing ideologues who want to weaken the 2nd Amendment or get rid of it all together, I have to wonder if they’re going to take firearms away from criminals as well. Oh, wait a minute. I’m sorry. We can’t take guns away from criminals because those guns are not registered. So now I fully understand the situation. Law-abiding Americans will be disarmed, but criminals will not. I wonder what Democrat genius came up with that plan. It must be that criminals all vote Democratic. Now it all makes perfect sense.

Allow me to paraphrase something spoken by Apollo 13 astronaut John Swigert: America, we have a problem. Local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies are losing more personnel through retirement and career changes than they are able to replace. If this trend continues police departments all over the country will not have the manpower to police their districts. They will be understaffed, possibly outmanned, and unable to protect their citizens. There could be situations where a police officer requires backup. What would happen if that backup was unavailable? The problem is real and the consequences will become more dire as time goes on.

Who would want to be a law enforcement officer in today’s America? Who would want a job where, when you leave for work in the morning, there is the very real possibility that you won’t be coming home at night? Who would want a job where you are disrespected and vilified by the very people that you are sworn to protect and serve? Why would anyone want a job where people in their line of work are targeted for assassination? Why would anyone want a job where if there is a need to use physical force to subdue a suspect during the course of an arrest, you could be unfairly charged with assault—or worse. Also, as if that wasn’t bad enough, the elected officials who run the municipalities you work for could—and would—hang you out to dry if it was politically expedient for them to do so. Who in their right mind would want a job like that?