“How many times must the cannon balls fly, before they are forever banned?” Blowin’ in the Wind, Bob Dylan (1963)
Eight heroes shot, by a gunman (perhaps two) in North Carolina. Four were killed. Joshua Eyer was a Charlotte-Mecklenburg cop. Sam Poloche and Alden Elliot worked for the state as parole officers. Thomas Weeks was a deputy US Marshal.
They had gone to an address in Charlotte to serve a warrant on someone with a rifle, a person who was prohibited by law from possessing it. In addition, this individual was wanted on charges of eluding police on two separate occasions. No law enforcement experience at all is required to conclude this guy was dangerous.
Invariably, some politician or pundit will use the deaths and woundings of these officers to renew their call to ban semi-automatic rifles. That’s fine - it’s not an irrational suggestion. Outright prohibitions are tricky, but one can disagree with a legal position (or some portion of it) without being disagreeable.
It is entirely rational to prohibit felons on parole from possessing firearms of any kind, and apparently this was the case in Charlotte. Just about every state (I can’t account for several) has similar laws. Some continue the ban in perpetuity, even after the individual has finished any post-incarceration supervision. One might argue that they’ve completed their sentence, done their time, paid their debt… Sure, fine. I’m not persuaded by that line of argument, but okay.
“Red Flag Laws” that provide for the (initially temporary) surrender of firearms by people deemed mentally at risk to themselves or others is a separate situation. Because of the relative newness of these laws they are, in some cases, legally ill-defined. Reasoned disagreement about these laws exists, and the discussion should continue. Suffice to say, at the very least, that people who are mentally ill should not own firearms. But, some do.
So do some people prohibited by law because of their criminal histories. That’s what was going on in Charlotte. One of the problems that the “There ought to be a law” crowd does not ever seem to consider is that someone has to go out on the street and enforce the laws passed by the political…I almost wrote “leaders.” Passed by the office holders. In this case, the someone enforcing the law encountered a situation involving desperate, violent, homicidal individuals bent on remaining free no matter what they had to do. If that included killing cops, they were willing to do that.
Rather than understand this point (or, maybe in spite of it), there are self-interested politicians and pundits who spend much of their time criticizing law enforcement officers because of what happens when they encounter violent, dangerous people.
Not a week goes by, it seems, that law enforcement officers aren’t criticized for defending themselves against someone bent on injuring or killing them. In a recent situation, officers awaited an adult male who was expecting a juvenile female he’d groomed to answer a motel door. Armed police officers greeted him, instead. It was a sting. The suspect drew a firearm and, after a brief struggle the officers shot the man to death. It is violent, graphic. All caught on body-worn cameras.
The officers faced criticism about their tactics, decisions and inability to “safely deescalate” the situation. Seriously? This isn’t Hollywood. The suspect died because he drew a gun on armed police officers. The many imponderables - why did he bring a pistol to meet a teenage girl? - are irrelevant. The officers were clearly legally justified. They protected themselves.
Rather than reflect the opinions of constituent members of society who (across all demographics) support the work of ethical, competent law enforcement officials, the politicians and pundits conveniently forget that when they advocate for and pass laws, someone has to do the work in the “hard areas” of society. Someone has to face the deadly situations involving remorseless, armed people.
Eight officers shot, four making the ultimate sacrifice. The loud voices will find it astonishing - they would never do this - that when the shots fired call went out, hundreds of officers responded unhesitatingly. Because someone had to do it. The hard jobs have to be done. Someone has to enforce the law. Without it, there is only anarchy.
Thank you, heroes. You are the best of us.