Policing in Democrat cities: Don't say we didn't warn you

I won't say that police officers who serve in cities run by Democrats deserve what happens to them after they are forced to make an arrest or use force — even deadly force — against criminals in those cities.  But I will say they can't complain that they weren't warned, and they shouldn't be surprised at the consequences.

America's big cities are almost exclusively run by Democrats and have been for decades.  America's big cities contain most of America's minority race population.  And America's big cities are suffering from soaring crime caused by failed Democrat social and economic policies.  It is a given that police in these cities will have to use force against a criminal who will be a member of a minority race.  When that happens, it is inevitable that riots, arson, looting, and such will occur.  Democrat leaders of these cities find it easier to throw police under the bus than to admit that the crisis was caused by their policies.

Again and again, we have seen police prosecuted (and often acquitted) for using force against violent criminals.  Democrats have defunded their police departments, elected or appointed weak prosecutors, abolished pre-trial confinement for violent criminals, legalized drugs, weakened sentencing laws, and released violent criminals early from prison.

Police unions have become typical left-wing unions that constantly demand more pay and benefits for police instead of advocating for better laws and policies to reduce crime and enhance the effectiveness of law enforcement while preserving constitutional rights.  Many local and national police unions actually support left-wing Democrats, who enact policies that put police officers at risk, enable criminals,  and endanger public safety.

Police departments in big cities are adopting an unofficial "react after the crime" policy instead of being proactive and trying to prevent crimes from occurring.  All too frequently now, police officers in many jurisdictions hesitate to enter a situation involving a high risk of injury, death, or use of deadly force to accomplish their mission to uphold and defend the Constitution and protect citizens' lives.

Take note of the case of former Fort Worth, Texas police officer Aaron Dean.  His department dispatched him into an ambiguous situation, where a possible home invasion was in progress, with little or no information.  As he approached the house, he suddenly saw a figure in a window with a gun.  He had less than a second to make an assessment and react; he shot and killed the occupant of the residence, Atatiana Jefferson, who had retrieved a gun when she saw someone outside her window (a very reasonable act on her part).  Dean resigned, Fort Worth P.D. designated his actions illegal, and he was indicted and is awaiting trial.

While this occurrence was a tragedy (that could have been prevented if the Fort Worth P.D. dispatch office had called the residence to inquire about the occupants' well-being), it probably will not result in a conviction based on the SCOTUS decision Tennessee v. Garner — the litmus test for law enforcement use of deadly force.  If Dean is smart, he will request a judge trial instead of a jury trial — as the police officers in Baltimore did in the wake of Freddie Gray's death in 2015.  Many wonder if the Fort Worth P.D.'s actions were influenced by the fear of riots and defunding.

Why would anyone genuinely interested in the true mission of law enforcement go to work as a police officer in a Democrat-controlled city?  Don't say we didn't warn you.

Image: Tony Webster via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0 (cropped).

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com