Police Officers Unwelcome?

Interesting reports come this week from Phoenix (of all places?):  a uniformed police officer picked his daughter up from school and was subsequently asked by the principal to never again wear his uniform or sidearm on campus, as parents complained when they learned of his presence on campus with the firearm.  Undoubtedly, the parents’ children went home and inquired, as children do about such things, about the man with the gun in school (no resource officers normally present at this school?).  This is not a legal issue, of course.  Arizona Revised Statute Title 13 Chapter 31 is quite clear regarding relationships between armed law enforcement officers and schools.

In the interest of fairness, at least some hysterical hoplophobes are willing to irrationally agitate at police officers as well.  As absurd as this story appears to be on its surface, it is nonetheless nice to see this ignorance is somewhat equitably channeled at times.  I have long stated that if the social hoplophobes wish to restrict and/or outright disarm law-abiding citizens to satiate their fears, there is no legitimate or ethical reason to fail to do the same to armed agents of the State.  To be clear, this is not an endorsement of such an objective, as this broad approach would be neither desirable nor practicable, but what is good for the goose should be good for the gander since it is the State itself that violently enforces such nonsensical policies.


, ,

  1. #1 by sandman54862 on October 5, 2013 - 7:09 AM

    Police now shoot one in ten shooting victims. 57 officers died from bullets last year 1862 babies died from crib death. unstable cowards with badges should not be allowed near schools. many schools have hired counselors to protect children from police encounters. Police no longer server or protect. Our children are easy prey to them.

    • #2 by An Observer on October 11, 2013 - 1:56 PM

      Generally, police serve a theoretically legitimate and ethical purpose. However, society at large grants law enforcement officers far too much untempered trust, discretion, and authority, the latter of which is growing in scope and aggression in ways that are wholly inconsistent with individual liberty, and therefore wholly inconsistent with the legitimate purpose behind the institution of government in the first place.

      That said though, I believe all individuals should be unequivocally proven guilty by their accusers before being presumed and punished as such. Assuming the statistics you have quoted here are true, which would not surprise me necessarily but they are nonetheless unsubstantiated at this point, that is no ethical justification to take prohibitive or restrictive actions against an individual’s constitutional and individual rights. This approach is precisely analogous to efforts restricting law abiding citizens’ right to protective carry simply because statistics – both legitimate statistics and dubious ones – suggest that at least some individuals behave unethically with those implements.

      My point in the post is not to endorse prejudicial rights discrimination, even if supposedly risk-based. My point is to highlight that such behavior occurs often enough but is typically slanted in favor of the State at the expense of the individual; in this case, the prejudice seems more evenly distributed which is not strictly ethical but is at least less hypocritical for a change.

  1. A Response to CNN’s Anti-Gun Rhetoric |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: