Rand Paul Deserves Thanks for Focus on Police Militarization (Redstate)

[Okaloosa]

http://www.redstate.com/2014/12/29/r...ilitarization/

I am definitely not generally a fan of Rand Paul, but I am thankful that he, virtually alone among conservatives, has not been swept away by the well organized and ghoulish police union PR campaign sparked by the senseless murder of two NYPD officers last weekend.

The murder of officers Ramos and Liu is absolutely to be lamented, and our hearts go out to their family and friends. But police unions have callously, transparently, and (let us be honest) deftly used their deaths to unjustifiably shift the national spotlight away from police practices and lack of accountability. More directly, they have shoehorned this incident into their already-ongoing national push to have their budget for military style equipment (in particular, body armor) increased.

The police and their defenders-at-all-costs have taken the sad story of Ramos and Liu and used it to brand as “anti-cop” anyone who points out that the basic facts on the ground haven’t changed. Facts, such as the fact that Ramos and Liu were the first NYPD officers killed by gunfire since 2011, or that civilians are between 10-15 times more likely to be killed by police than vice versa, that by far the most common killer of police is not violence of any kind from civilians, but rather that the same people who obsessively write tickets for failure to use seat belts are themselves terrible at wearing their seat belts and therefore are often killed in vehicle accidents.

Nor does their story address the central problem which is not even the use of police force per se, it is that excessive force, when used by police, is never punished. In the overwhelming majority of (comparatively rare) cases where a civilian kills a cop, the civilian is either killed himself in the process or shortly thereafter, or is indicted, tried and convicted in short order. Killing a cop virtually guarantees harsh treatment by the criminal justice system, where homicide of a police officer is the most potent sentence enhancer there is. And that’s all perfectly fine. The problem is that the shoe is not being placed on the other foot whatsoever. Of the 179 homicides committed by NYPD officers since 1999, only 3 resulted even in indictments, leading only to one conviction, for a non-jail-time offense. If your credulity leads you to believe that the scales of the criminal justice system are not unfairly stacked and that reform isn’t still needed notwithstanding the murders of Ramos and Liu, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona that may interest you.

And yet nonetheless our powerful (and well justified) belief in the good faith behavior of many or most cops, cynically manipulated by the police unions, has created a groundswell in the wake of these murders that seeks to shut down any and all examination of ongoing police practices, as virtually everyone on the right side of the spectrum rushes to change their twitter username to show solidarity with the police and to hashtag the most possible tweets with #bluelivesmatter. Kudos to Rand Paul for having the courage to recognize that anecdote is not the same as data, and that the high profile media coverage of one incident does not invalidate an entire and long overdue movement.

[Crashland]

Nice. There haven't been too many positive articles about Rand's thoughts on policing lately... I know it's the holiday, but Rand has been pretty silent about this ever since the "war on police" started getting blasted in our faces in conservative media. And with his meeting with Sharpton right before all of this went down, Rand needs to do some damage control and turn the ship around...somehow.

[jmdrake]

Most of the comments on this article were positive. Thanks for posting! I disagree with the "Rand needs to do damage control" argument. Little to be gained by that. He absolutely did nothing wrong so there's nothing to apologize for and just saying "something" gives more ammo to the stupid critics.

[Crashland]

Most of the comments on this article were positive. Thanks for posting! I disagree with the "Rand needs to do damage control" argument. Little to be gained by that. He absolutely did nothing wrong so there's nothing to apologize for and just saying "something" gives more ammo to the stupid critics.

Not saying he needs to go back on anything he has said, but right now the narrative in conservative media is going 99% against him. Saying nothing is almost as bad as capitulating. He needs to find a way to make himself relevant, as opposed to allowing Rudy Giuliani and Peter King to lead the discussion. Find a way to link this issue to his philosophy of "conservative realism" and expanding the party.

[economics102]

That was actually a very well-written and persuasive article, even putting aside the fact that he defends Rand.

[jmdrake]

Not saying he needs to go back on anything he has said, but right now the narrative in conservative media is going 99% against him. Saying nothing is almost as bad as capitulating. He needs to find a way to make himself relevant, as opposed to allowing Rudy Giuliani and Peter King to lead the discussion. Find a way to link this issue to his philosophy of "conservative realism" and expanding the party.

Okay. Play Rand Paul political consultant for a minute. What speech would you write for him right now? What talking points would you have him say? What interviews does he need to do? Now if he had a chance to debate Peter King and Rudy Giuliani on the specifics of the Eric Garner case I believe he was slap them both silly, especially Peter King with his "if you can talk you can breathe" and "Eric Garner died from obesity" stupidity. But what can he say now that hasn't already been said? He split the difference on the issue, neither fully blaming the police nor fully blaming the victims of police violence, but instead blaming the politicians. MSNBC wasn't happy with his attack on high cigarette taxes as a contributing factor to Garner's death for instance. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-rand-...-theory-flawed

So as long Rand says anything about the situation somebody is going to whine about it. Sure he met with Al Sharpton. And? Fake conservative goobs need to get over it. I was listening to one talk show host complain that Obama only talked to the protesters and not to the police. Well Rand's talked to both. And maybe that's where we start. People like you and me, not Rand, need to call in to these shows and point that out. Lead out with the question "Does it bother you that Obama just talked to one side? Shouldn't politicians talk to both sides?" Then slam them with the fact that Rand did talk to both sides. I dunno.

Anyway I think we as a movement have a long history of overreacting to every stupid thing some fake conservative blogger has to say. I don't believe rank and file voters are listening to them. In 2008 (and somewhat in 2012) people were running around worried about conservative bloggers linking Ron Paul to 9/11 truthers. In my phone and door to door canvasing I saw no evidence that those attacks had any measurable effect. Average republicans didn't like Ron Paul's foreign policy and they learned about that during the debates.

I don't think foreign policy will be a problem for Rand as he's more nuanced in his approach, and it's starting to be obvious that the neocon foreign policy isn't working. Even Ted Cruz said we stayed too long in Iraq and Afghanistan, which goes directly against the conservative blogger screed that "We left Iraq too soon."

If someone attacks Rand on Ferguson during the debates he can say "All I said was there is too much police militarization and even Mike Huckabee said the same thing." If someone attacks Rand on Eric Garner during the debates he can say "Even George W. Bush didn't understand why the officer in that case wasn't indicted." Nice simple short answers spoken at the right time when most of America is paying attention is better than another op ed piece that tries to explain what really doesn't need explaining. But again, if you've got better ideas, please share them.