We should know better than to trust what or how the media does or doesn't report
With apologies for going a tad bit off the main topic, but in response to some who express very negative views toward police officers being just revenue raisers or getting away with really bad conduct....
I have to wonder what kind of experiences some folks have had. In my lifetime, starting with illegally riding dirt bikes (motorcycles) on the street as a kid of 10, I can recall a grand total of 15 officer-initiated contacts and a half dozen contacts I initiated for one reason or another over my lifetime. That includes a number of speeding tickets as a lead-footed teenager in Utah (where it is 100+ miles between gas stations on I-70) during the DC-imposed "double-nickel". I've also been OCing a handgun since I was 25. And in many cases I OC into "traditionally sensitive" areas like the neighborhood middle school, the city offices, and my State capital: always in compliance with laws. I also spent years driving a classic muscle car that was in dire need of body and paint work and basically screamed, "uninsured minority teenager."
Out of those ~20 official contacts, about 3 were mildly negative, a couple were totally unjustified stops (pure profiling and fishing trips), the rest were all completely justified under the laws existing at the time. I think the nationwide 55 mph speed limit was complete garbage. But it was the law and if States didn't show good-faith efforts to enforce the law, they lost their federal highway money. And every time I've been stopped for speeding in my life, I was, actually speeding. Whether my speed presented a credible risk of harm to anyone around me under the circumstances could be debated, but the fact is, I was speeding. There were a couple of other stops that were for violation of equipment laws. I've worked to repeal one of those laws in Utah. But at the time the stop was made, I was in technical violation.
Simply put, the vast majority of my interactions with police officers have not been negative and a couple were in the realm of legitimately, not justified under existing laws. Given how my younger self viewed traffic laws, and given my active and visible political involvement, I've had a fairly high number of interactions with police for a fellow who--excepting traffic laws--has lead a peaceful, boring, and law abiding life.
I then consider on my interactions with the media. In every case where I've had personal knowledge of an event that ended up in the media, the media has gotten something wrong. Every time. Like everyone else here should be, I am also well aware that criminal uses of firearms get a lot more and a lot wider coverage than do legal self-defense uses of firearms. The media has clear bias.
That bias has long included a bias against police officers (or even law-abiding private citizens) as they interact with racial minorities.
As a law abiding gun owner, I'm well aware of and have felt victimized by the biases of the media. I would be a rank hypocrite to allow media reporting (including what they choose not to report) to color my vision of the overall conduct of police officers or any other group.
Additionally, I'm well aware of federal biases when it comes to inter-racial interactions. Of the four officers involved in the Rodney King incident, for example, three were acquitted in State court, with one convicted on some charges. All four then faced federal charges of violating King's civil rights with two convicted and two acquitted. Those convicted served 30 months in federal prison. In the vast majority of cases of alleged police brutality over the past decade (with Obama and Eric Holder in charge of federal investigations and prosecutions for much of that time), the feds have been unable to obtain convictions or even enough evidence to justify indictments. Those who have looked beyond typical media reports have also learned that there is very strong evidence that "hands up; don't shoot" was quite often a flat out lie on the part of violent criminals or others unhappy with any police presence in their neighborhoods.
When it comes to gun laws we think are unconstitutional, or mandatory national speed limits we think are useless or even dangerous, or even drug laws that offend libertarian sensibilities, it is easy to want police to refuse to enforce laws. That view of wanting police to not enforce laws we find unjust gets a little more difficult to sustain when we realize there is always someone who finds a particular law offensive and doesn't want it enforced. There are those who would prefer that laws preventing female genital mutilation not be enforced. There are those who don't want various anti-discrimination laws enforced. Violent criminals would be much happier if the police were not around to enforce laws against theft, assault, rape, and murder. Expecting rank and file cops to determine which laws to enforce and which to ignore is a very slippery slope. Far better to hold lawmakers accountable for what laws they pass, and judges accountable for what laws they allow to stand.
Yes, there are a few bad cops. Some of them are dirty, others merely incompetent for the job. There are also a lot of laws we don't like. No doubt some laws have far more to do with revenue than with public safety. It is also clear that in some cases the courts have granted the police far more power and leeway than the constitution should tolerate.
But those who jump on every incident with an inherent bias against the police officer are no better than, no different than, those in the media, the Brandy bunch, or other institutions, who hold biases against the private ownership of firearms and lawful use of firearms for self defense.
Charles