Rediscovering Liberty

Contrary to the media and the “the end is near” alarmists, the coronavirus is not going to be “disastrous.” It’s another in a long line of viral infection outbreaks. It is already in the wild, and it will continue expanding until it runs its course – which will occur when there is enough herd immunity to stem its growth.

It is very likely there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who have already contracted COVID-19 in the United States. Because the symptoms for most healthy adults tend to be very mild, most are probably not even aware they have contracted the virus. The “official” numbers likely reflect those who have exhibited serious symptoms related to the disease, and those in close contact who exhibited any symptoms, resulting in positive tests. The real number of cases is almost certainly greatly higher than the published data.

As with any outbreak of disease, the outbreak should be taken seriously. But the reaction should be proportionate to the reality of the disease, and not the fear of the public (particularly fear being driven by a sensationalistic media). The original reactions of most government officials and medical professionals were correct. Individuals should take the same precautions they take during any other viral outbreak – practice good hygiene, wash hands often, cover coughs and sneezes, and stay home when feeling ill. Very vulnerable members of society should be protected as much as possible. Recommendations like closing nursing homes and assisted living centers to non-essential visitors make perfect sense.

Efforts should be taken to ensure that healthcare centers and providers have the materials and machines needed to address the outbreak, with government removing any unnecessary roadblocks that may be preventing this from happening. Note that I suggested government merely remove the roadblocks and not attempt to take over the healthcare system. In spite of the agendas of Marxists like New York mayor Bill de Blasio, government does not need to nationalize healthcare industries. The last thing we need is to have a hidebound, governmental bureaucracy tie up the process. Let private industry do what it does best, which is quickly, flexibly, and nimbly responding to market demand.

Much of the population has not experienced any real adversity in their lives, and they are desperate for someone else to take control and reassure them everything will be OK. These folks expect government to shield and protect them from any adversity.  These individuals believe that every disease or malady must have a cure, and the lack of any cure must be the result of governmental inaction or greedy corporations unwilling to invest in a cure. They can’t accept the fact that certain diseases just don’t have a cure, and must just run their courses.

Short of vaccines, most viral diseases don’t have cures. People who contract the diseases must let the disease run its course until the body’s natural immune system produces enough antibodies to destroy the virus. The only thing medical science can do is engage in palliative care by treating some of the symptoms as they appear. Some symptoms will be so severe they will kill the host, usually people with existing medical vulnerabilities. This holds true for coronavirus, influenza, and even the common cold. Coronavirus tends to be more contagious and has a higher mortality rate than common strains of influenza, but also has milder symptoms in healthy adults (and children appear to be largely immune to experiencing any substantial symptoms of COVID-19).

Because of the media-driven sensationalism, the public, led by the usual “activist” suspects, has decried the “lack of action” on the part of government.  Pressure has been placed upon government to “do something,” “ANYTHING!” to deal with this “crisis.” There are even people demanding that the government put everyone on lockdown, essentially house arrest, for the next few weeks.

The federal government and the states have reacted in various ways to these demands. Most recently, the politicians have put many states on partial lockdown, restricting the types of businesses that may operate, their hours of operation, and the maximum size of public gatherings.

When governments attempt to engage in such far-ranging and severe restrictions of commerce and civil liberties, it is the prerogative, if not the duty, of the population to ask what these governments hope to accomplish by these measures, and if these measures will actually be effective. Nobody should blindly and unquestionably accept the dictates of governmental “authorities,” particularly when their actions appear to be driven by political, and not practical, considerations.  The definition of specific, quantifiable goals must be established, and metrics and empirical data used to validate effectiveness of any restrictions.

We have to face the reality of this infection, whether we like it or not. The virus exists in the population, and will continue to spread until herd immunity slows, and eventually halts its progress. The current business restrictions are mostly window-dressing, with so many loopholes that they probably won’t impact the rate or timing of the spread of coronavirus, and some of them may actually accelerate it. While closing restaurants, bars, and other entertainment venues may limit the spread of the virus in those venues, there are enough supermarkets, drug stores, and other businesses open that the spread of the virus will likely not be contained. In fact, people standing cheek to jowl in a supermarket checkout lane or waiting to pick up their take-out order in a restaurant are more likely to spread the virus than if people were casually enjoying a restaurant meal at private tables in which each are separated by several feet.

Even if we were to lock down every individual in the United States and eradicate coronavirus from our country, we would merely be put in the position we were in a few months ago. Just one infected person coming to our shores would start the infection process over again, since society would not have yet developed the immunity needed to fight the virus. We’d just be kicking the can further down the road.

Any attempts to halt the spread of coronavirus at this point will be futile. As long as there is no immunity in the population, the virus will continue to spread. We might (and the key word here is, “might”) be able to limit the pace of the spread to ensure that our medical institutions are not overwhelmed with an influx of seriously-ill patients. However, considering the fact that the vast majority of infected individuals exhibit rather mild symptoms, it is unlikely our medical care facilities will be that overwhelmed. There are always doom and gloom prognosticators, but their dire predictions almost never pan out.

Regardless of what government does, and in spite of alarmist and sensationalized media coverage, this outbreak will not abate until enough people develop the natural antibodies to coronavirus required to develop enough herd immunity to halt the progress of the disease. Eventually, the virus won’t be able to find hosts without immunity, and will die out of its own accord. This is the natural progression of virtually all viral diseases, and will be the natural progression of COVID-19, whether we like it or not.

It is fair to also ask how these governmental restrictions on lifestyles and businesses will impact the lives of Americans, and whether these restrictions cause consequences more serious than the coronavirus itself.

Closing bars, restaurants, theaters, and any other venues considered “unessential” also impacts the jobs and wages of those dependent upon these venues.  Often, these are the people in the lower-paid segments of society, who are now being deprived of their livelihoods.  Many of these businesses are small, individual or family-run businesses, and may not be able to survive any extended closing.

Downstream businesses will also be affected.  If restaurants, theaters, bars, and other businesses are required to close, this will also adversely affect their suppliers.  We can keep going downstream to the landlords, distributors, transporters, and producers who will also have their livelihoods impacted by these business closures. 

The federal and state governments claim that anyone economically affected by these business restrictions will be made whole.  But by whom?  Someone has to pay for the missed wages the government will pay displaced workers, the grants and tax credits offered to closed businesses, and the unemployment benefits paid out to workers who permanently lose their jobs at businesses that couldn’t weather an extended closing.

The funds needed to make those affected “whole” don’t’ appear by magic.  They have to come from somewhere. This money will come from our tax dollars or increased financial deficits in the federal budget.  In essence, we will be paying ourselves, through our tax dollars, to make ourselves “whole” (minus the government’s administrative cut, of course). 

The claims by government that lost wages, lost jobs, and lost businesses will be paid for is a ruse.  These costs may be paid.  But they’ll be paid by ourselves, to ourselves.  No magic money fairy will swoop down to reimburse us for the costs of these governmental actions.

The stock market dropped precipitously since the coronavirus outbreak began.  This was due far more to the uncertainty of how governments will respond, rather than the impact of the disease itself.  This will probably throw us into a recession or depression, and will adversely impact the retirement savings of almost everyone who holds a 401(k) account, not to mention the ability of businesses to acquire the capital needed to grow.

Unfortunately, there will be no mechanism available to determine which, if any, of the government’s actions were effective in arresting or delaying the spread of this virus, and which were merely superfluous window-dressing.  If the spread of the virus abates quickly, or if the effects of the virus are less severe than predicted, many people will make the assumption the eradication of the disease correlates with the government actions, when in fact any such relationship may merely be coincidental.

If the virus doesn’t abate quickly (and in all likelihood, it will continue to spread at an increasing rate for a while), the hysteria will continue to grow to demand the government puts even more draconian restrictions on public movement and commerce.  Some won’t be satisfied until there is a complete lockdown and everyone is subject to marital law. 

Eventually, the virus will abate, like every virus before it.  And these desperately scared people will ascribe the disappearance of the virus to restrictive governmental actions, when the virus’ natural progression would just as likely be the cause.  With a lack of empirical data to gauge effectiveness, the public may reflexively accept greater governmental intrusions into their lives in the future.

Ironically, even though a frightened public may be currently begging the government to micromanage their lives, they will soon tire of the restrictions and begin to resist and openly defy them.  This will begin to occur in mere weeks, and not months or years.  As people exhaust their savings, they will demand to be permitted to go back to their jobs.  Cabin fever and social isolation will compel people to ignore restrictions and venture out in public again.  Small-business owners will rebel against restrictions that slowly (or quickly) strangle their businesses.  If stores can no longer source and stock goods demanded by the public, there may even be civil unrest.  Just as social pressure has forced the government to enact restrictions on commerce, movement, and assembly, the same public pressure will force the government to abandon these restrictions, even if the viral threat has not abated.

In essence, the government has less than a month before people start to rebel against the current restrictions.  The powers that be may attempt to engage in more incendiary propaganda to engender fear and compliance, but the impact of these measures will diminish rather quickly.

There is no doubt that coronavirus has the potential to be a serious malady, but it is unlikely the most dire predictions will come to pass.  Admittedly, any death from the virus is a tragedy, but unfortunately this is a natural process that regularly occurs with any viral outbreak, including regular seasonal influenza. 

Will coronavirus impact more people than influenza?  It may, and it may not. 

However, the fear of our nation’s medical system becoming overwhelmed by serious cases is largely the result of the Italian experience.  We cannot, and should not, compare our health care system to Italy’s antiquated and bureaucratic system.  Nor does our population mimic the health demographics of Italy.  The likelihood of coronavirus cases overwhelming our nation’s health infrastructure is remote, and even if certain areas experience problems, providers will quickly emerge to address the need. 

There will likely be a substantial number of coronavirus cases and deaths, with numbers that may exceed those of this year’s seasonal flu.  But even that is questionable, considering that many of those exposed will exhibit minimal symptoms, yet develop the personal immunity that will contribute to the herd immunity.  It is very likely that a much larger proportion of the population has already contracted the virus than documented, and that the viral curve is farther along on the horizontal access than expected.

From a long-term perspective, the social lessons coming out of this outbreak are troubling.  There are certainly evil individuals paying attention to the way the public is influenced by sensationalistic fear-mongering, falling prey to the herd mentality, paralyzing themselves with fear, demanding others reassure them, and blindly following the dictates of those presented as “authorities.”  The public so desperately craves the illusion of security that they are willing to ask the government to imprison them so they may avoid a perceived threat.  These are valuable characteristics that may easily be exploited by a nefarious individual.

The single-minded fealty given to the loudest alarmists is troubling.  There is no doubt that coronavirus is an infection that should concern each of us.  Obviously, we should all engage in the basic actions required to minimize or mitigate exposure to COVID-19, just as we should be every other viral infection.  We should also carefully assess the political responses to the outbreak, supporting those likely to be effective and exposing those that are merely examples of political opportunism or window-dressing.

A rational, balanced approach to the outbreak is necessary.  Succumbing to unwarranted hysteria by panic buying, hoarding goods, or blindly accepting the dictates of self-styled “experts” is dangerous and unproductive.  We must examine and adjust our personal actions to address the outbreak, while also critically and fully assessing recommendations and dictates emanating from our elected officials or medical experts.

There is no unanimity among medical professionals of the likely progression, impact, and effects of the coronavirus.  The politicians and bureaucrats crafting public policies to address the outbreak are far from infallible, and often driven more by political calculus and public pressure than actual need.  The press engages in sensationalistic coverage that emphasizes worst cases and anecdotal stories over actual facts.  And the public has been conditioned to be fearful, and is confused by conflicting information.

Nonetheless, it is the duty of every citizen to carefully assess that which is being requested and dictated.  Blindly accepting the dictates of every “expert,” “authority,” or politician out of fear or insecurity benefits no one.

Despite their differences over the years, until recently, every major political party was in agreement about one thing – the definition and nature of rights.  The Federalists, the Democratic-Republicans, the Democrats, the Whigs, and the Republicans all subscribed to the philosophy of natural rights, as introduced in the Declaration of Independence and enumerated in the Constitution.  Respect and acknowledgement of natural rights is a prerequisite for individual liberty – the cornerstone value upon which our nation was founded.

In recent years, however, many in the Democratic party have moved away from the concept of natural rights in favor of a statist view of rights.  As a result, the concept of individual liberty has been deemphasized, if not abandoned, in favor of the domination of the collective.  Although these Democrats do, on rare occasions, provide lip-service to the concept of individual rights, this belief in individual rights is very limited and exclusive to narrow and specific partisan preferences.  As a general rule, Democrats are increasingly viewing rights as an artificial construct created by the state, rather than a natural condition of mankind.

The dichotomy in the definition of rights is causing political polarization that will not be remedied until and unless there is a common consensus on the nature of rights between the major political parties.

The United States of America was founded upon the concept that every individual possesses natural, equal, and inalienable rights, which are bestowed upon each person by our Creator.  These rights precede and take preference over any government or governmental structure.  Governments have no ability or authority to create rights; rights already exist solely on the basis of our humanity.  Governments may help protect and preserve rights, or governments may infringe upon rights.  But governments cannot, by definition, create or modify rights.

Natural rights, which, on a general level, recognize humanity’s rights to life, liberty, property, and self-determination, are universal.  Every human possesses them as part of the inherent nature of humanity.  No government may legitimately limit them to specific groups of people or create new rights for other groups of individuals. 

In addition, rights, by definition, cannot impose any obligation upon anyone else, with the exception of the obligation to respect and not infringe upon others’ rights.  Rights are the exclusive province of each individual, and it is up to each individual to assume responsibility for his or her exercise of such rights.  For example, one of the enumerated rights in the Constitution is the right to a free press.  Although this right recognizes that every individual may express and publish his or her opinions, it does not automatically imply that everyone be given a printing press. Each individual is independently responsible for acquiring the means to exercise his or her rights.

Political leftists, who have increasingly seized control of the Democratic party, do not recognize the concept of natural rights.  Instead, they view rights as artificial constructs that may only be granted by benevolent governments, and that those rights may be amended or repealed based upon the preferences of that government.  Individuals are not independent beings, each with their own liberties acquired at birth.  Instead, all individuals are subjects of a collective government, whose whims and preferences supersede the rights or desires of any specific individual.

The concept of rights as an artificial construct that may be granted or repealed by the will of governmental leaders is a European concept, shaped by its monarchical and feudal history.  Most Europeans, regardless of the term actually used, are subjects of their governments, rather than citizens.  This is an important distinction because it reflects the hierarchical perspective of a society.  In the European model, the state takes supreme precedence, and all individuals in that state are fundamentally vassals laboring for the collective. 

The United States of America broke away from British rule primarily because it did not agree with this hierarchy.  As a product of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason, the United States rejected the European concept of government and rights.  The Declaration of Independence illustrates that Americans consider individuals to be supreme, and that governments only exist through the consent of the governed.  Rather than being vassals to the state, individuals even have the right to “alter or abolish” governments as they see fit.  An essential part of the American experience is the belief that rights precede and transcend governments, instead of being the products of the state.

The question that must now be explored is how the differences in the perception of rights really affects society, and how these differences contribute to the increased polarization of politics in today’s America.

In general terms, Republicans, particularly those who identify themselves as true Conservatives, endorse the vision of our nation’s founders and the concept of natural rights.  This means that Republicans generally believe in individual rights, the liberty of individual to do as they please (provided they don’t infringe upon the rights of others), the sanctity of private property, individual initiative and responsibility, and limited government (particularly the Federal government).

The Democrats, on the other hand, are increasingly adopting the Progressive/Socialist perception that the collective, as manifested by the state, is superior to any individual.  Any rights that individuals possess are granted by the state, and may be limited, expanded, or revoked depending upon the perceived needs of the state.  In essence, rather than following the United States’ Constitution and its insistence that rights “may not be infringed,” Democrats are more apt to recognize the conditions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which in its first section, explicitly states, “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Note that the Canadian approach, representing its historical and present ties to Europe, denies the inalienable nature of rights and instead declares that rights are subject to law and must be “justified” by that law.  This is the characteristic of the current dogma of the Democratic party in the United States.  Rather than viewing rights as natural, universal, and absolute, the Progressives/Socialists believe that rights are conditional – based upon the goals and desires of the state.  If public policy, or the ostensible “public good,” is to be served, rights must be subject to restriction or abolition in order to accomplish social goals. 

As such, rights that were once universally acknowledged by all Americans are openly rejected by many Progressives/Socialists.  The rights of free expression and conscience enumerated in the First Amendment of the Constitution should be restricted, according to many on the left, in order to ensure that such expression is not offensive to anybody and supports the implementation and expansion of their social goals.  Rather than recognizing that the First Amendment protects and recognizes the right of any and all expression, the left hopes to limit it to advance their social agenda and restrict criticism of their goals.  Ideas in opposition to Democratic dogma are increasingly coming under attack if such ideas may be considered “triggering”, a “microaggression”, “offensive,” or “hateful.”  Naturally, there is no universal consensus of the meaning of these terms.  Instead, any thought in opposition to the social desires of the left are subject to censure or prohibition.

The left endorses significant restrictions, if not prohibitions, of other natural rights in the Constitution.  The right of individual defense, enumerated under the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear Arms” should be solely a state, rather than individual right, according to many on the left.  Others even advocate to have this amendment repealed from the Constitution, thereby denying individuals the natural right to protect their persons and their property.  Likewise, large groups of Progressives/Socialists have attacked the concept of due process and the right to confront one’s accuser in cases in which the accuser may feel “uncomfortable.”  They deny the existence of rights not enumerated by the Constitution, unless such rights actually reflect their political preferences.  The left also attacks the general principals of Federalism, in which the bulk of political sovereignty is held by the states, which only ceded limited powers to the federal government.  The Progressives/Socialists prefer a large, monolithic, all-intrusive federal government that severely constrains the powers and sovereignty of individual states.

In line with their belief that government, rather than our Creator, grants rights, the Progressives/Socialists conjure rights out of thin air when it suits their purpose.  In just about every instance, the left misuses the term, “rights.”  Anything the public may want or desire, or anything the government determines that people need (particularly if it’s offered for free) is labeled a “right.”  If one looks at the most recent Democratic platform, they claim that Americans should have the following “rights:”

• Right to Education
• Right to Retire with Dignity
• Right to Paid Sick Leave
• Right to Healthcare
• Right to Special Accommodations for the Disabled
• Right of all “life forms…to exist, persist, maintain, and regenerate its vital cycles”
• Right to abortion
• Right to clean air and clean water

None of the above a true “rights.”  In order to be rights, they must exist naturally, be independent of governmental fiat, and not create an obligation or rights infringement on any other party.  For example, if healthcare is to be considered a “right,” who is responsible for providing that right?  Who is responsible for financing that right?  Unless we are speaking of someone providing a healthcare procedure on him or herself, healthcare is a service, not a right.  The same holds true for education, paid sick leave, special accommodations, abortion, and even air and water.  These may be desirable goods and services, but they have to be financed and provided by someone. 

If a good or service must be provided by someone else, it can not be defined as a “right,” because it inherently infringes upon the rights of others.  If healthcare is to be called a “right”, it would violate the right of a physician to practice as he or she sees fit, and of a taxpayer financing this “right” of the right to keep his or her own property.  Some may argue that healthcare should be made available to all.  While some may see some merit in this idea, it does not make healthcare a “right.”  At best, it makes healthcare a government-controlled, taxpayer funded service. As a rule, Democrats believe that individual rights should take a backseat to implementing their concepts of “social justice.”  Naturally, programs supporting these concepts must be funded, requiring that the government seize the fruits of people’s labor in the form of coercive taxation.  In essence, the Democratic party believes that wage earners in America should be forced to work about 40% of their hours (or whatever they momentary consider an individual’s “fair share”) as slaves to the desires of social justice warriors of the left. 

The left increasingly argues that individual expression should be limited, as is seen most prominently on American college campuses.  Students are not permitted to express themselves freely; instead they are subjected to speech codes to ensure that no person or group can possibly be offended by an idea.  Democrats also tend to favor the expansion of “hate” crimes, in which an action is not punished, but instead the thought and motivation behind the action.  For example, Democrats seem to think that murder is somehow more heinous just because a perpetrator utters a racial slur while committing the crime, as opposed to remaining silent.  I’m guessing that the thoughts going through the murderer’s head are actually far less important to the victim than the act itself.

The natural right of property is one of the primary rights ignored and infringed upon by Democrats.  Essentially, Democrats don’t believe that property should belong to any specific individual.  Instead, they view property as a community resource, and that it may be expropriated by the state for any reason or any purpose.  It is only through the benevolence of the state that wage earners are permitted to retain even a portion of their property.  In fact, the direct redistribution of wealth is often instituted as a policy in and of itself, for the ostensible purpose of reducing wealth “inequality.” 

The left also tends to confuse social justice with charity.  In the view of the left, social justice defines any goal they may have, to be provided by compulsory “charity.”  Charity is not designed to be compulsory; it is intended to be voluntary, for both the donor and the recipient.  The left, however, believe that their personal social goals are charity, and that donors must be compelled to fund that “charity” and recipients forced to accept it.  The right to self-determination, also known as the right to choose, is ignored and infringed upon by the self-righteous Progressives/Socialists.  In fact, many Progressives/Socialists believe that private charity should be outlawed, because it limits their power to determine who is worthy of assistance, who should fund that assistance, and the form which that assistance should take.

In essence, the modern Democratic party no longer recognizes universal, inalienable rights, as instituted by our nation’s Founders.  Instead, they believe the end justifies the means, and as long as their preferred programs are instituted, the fact that it may or may not have infringed upon individual rights are of little to no consequence.  The left believes that rights are fungible and transitory creations of the state.  Republicans, on the other hand, tend to view most individual rights as inalienable and sacrosanct.  Individual rights, and the protection of those rights, generally takes precedence over the implementation of specific programs.

It should be noted that the perception of Republicans and Democrats on the issue of rights is not always consistent.  There is ample hypocrisy and willingness to deviate from a consistent philosophy in both major parties.  There are areas in which Republicans are perfectly willing to dispense with rights in order to pass certain favored legislation, and there are instances in which Democrats suddenly discover a fidelity to natural rights when it suits their purposes.  In broad terms, however, Republicans tend to follow in the footsteps of our nation’s Founders by defending and preserving natural rights.  Democrats, on the other hand, tend to ignore the values that contributed to the American Revolution, and favor a more European approach to government and rights. 

With such a wide gulf between their respective values, and a complete dichotomy between representing individuals and representing a collective, it will be very difficult to minimize the political polarization that now exists between the major parties.  In order to have a productive working relationship and compromise, all parties must share certain basic values.  In today’s political reality, there are very few shared values between the major parties, and their essential premises and philosophies are in violent opposition to one another.

Another week has gone by, and with it, another very questionable shooting of an innocent person by a police officer has occurred.

In Dallas, an off-duty police officer, Amber Guyger, after allegedly working a 15-hour shift, returned to the apartment complex in which she lived.  Instead of returning to her apartment on the third floor, she walked into an apartment on the fourth floor, directly above her own apartment.  She claims the door was ajar when she put the key into the lock, and when she entered the apartment, it was dark and she “saw a large silhouette” across the apartment who she thought was a burglar.  She fired two shots, killing the man, who was later identified as Botham Jean.

The only problem was that this was Botham Jean’s apartment.  He was in his own apartment, minding his own business, when this reckless police officer burst in and killed him.  She had no business being in his apartment.  In fact, there was a very unique and distinctive red floor mat outside of Mr. Jean’s apartment that other units lacked.

Yet, somehow, the other responding police officers let the killer go home immediately after the killing.  It was not until the public outcry grew that Amber Guyger was finally arrested and charged with manslaughter three days later.  Even after these charges, there are doubts as to whether she will be convicted because of two legal doctrines available only to police – qualified immunity and reasonable fear.

Unlike regular citizens in similar situations, police who use deadly force on other people are immune from prosecution or culpability if they demonstrate that they had a “reasonable fear” that they, or someone else, might be in imminent danger.  It doesn’t matter if that danger is real or not – the police officer just needs to believe it is.  The standard for this “reasonable fear” is set ridiculously low; it is must be seen in the context of what reasonable officers would do in the same situation, given the danger and stress of police work.

One must keep that definition in mind, particularly the phrase, “given the danger and stress of police work.”  This means that a skittish police officer has carte blanche to use deadly force just because he or she might be fearful in a given situation because the job of a police officer is “stressful.”  No other citizens can claim this defense in similar situations, regardless of the stress of their own jobs or personal lives.

If Amber Guyger can convince a jury that she was operating in the role of a police officer, and felt genuinely in fear of her life, she might very well be acquitted of the charges against her.  This is in spite of the fact that she was essentially trespassing in Mr. Jean’s apartment, if not outright breaking and entering.  If, on the other hand, the jury recognizes that she was off-duty and treats her as a regular citizen, it is difficult to see her being convicted of anything less than manslaughter.

The vast majority of police officers go through their entire careers without ever removing their firearms from their holsters.  Yet, this has been the second time that Amber Guyger has shot somebody, even though she is only 30 years of age and has only been with the Dallas Police Department for four years.  It is quite obvious that she is a skittish, fearful, trigger-happy officer who has no business holding a position of public trust.

An investigation of the 50 largest police departments by Vice found that 20% of all police shootings are against unarmed persons.  And in proportion to their total population, black citizens are more likely to be shot by police than any other group.  It is hard to believe that there is not an overt or subconscious racial bias among many police officers.  But even so, innocent victims of police shootings span different ages, genders, races, and walks of life.  These shootings aren’t confined to inner cities or “dangerous areas;” they have claimed the lives of pastors, people in their own homes in good neighborhoods, and people innocently walking down the street.

Even when the victims of these police shootings are innocent of any crimes, the police officers responsible are very rarely held accountable for their actions.  Even when the shooters are prosecuted, conviction is difficult because of the qualified immunity and reasonable fear doctrines.  Rather than being held to a higher standard than the rest of the population, those entrusted with keeping the peace and enforcing the law are actually held to a lower standard!  The qualified immunity and reasonable fear doctrines grant police officers the carte blanche power to use deadly force in all but the most egregious situations.

Apologists for police officers argue that their jobs are stressful and difficult, and that police are often targets of criminals.  That is true, but police officers take their jobs voluntarily, with full knowledge of the risks involved.  Normal citizens, on the other hand, have no reason to suspect or believe that they may arbitrarily become victims of an overly skittish or fearful police officer, or that a rogue officer will escape charges just because he or she believed, in his or her own mind, that there might be some kind of imminent danger.

In fact, very few police officers are killed each year, particularly when compared to the number of people killed by police.  In 2017, for example, 46 police officers were killed.  Yet, in that same year, police officers killed 987 people.

As difficult as police work may be, there is no excuse for police officers harming or killing innocent individuals.  And there is certainly no reason to exempt police officers from accountability for their actions just because their jobs are “stressful.”  If a police officer can’t handle the stress of the job, that individual should seek out another career.  And if a police officer harms an innocent person, that officer should be held fully accountable for his or her actions.

There have been arguments that these unjustified police shootings could be reduced by requiring police officers to undergo racial sensitivity training, more training on police procedures, or by having police departmental policies updated.  But the fact remains, none of these proposed remedies will make a bit of difference until police officers are held fully accountable for their actions.

Police officers must be held to the same legal standards as regular citizens.  They should not be granted any special immunities.  The laws must be revised to abolish the qualified immunity and reasonable fear doctrines granted exclusively to police officers.  Why shouldn’t those responsible for enforcing our laws be held to same legal standards as the citizens they are charged to protect?

Stephon Clark, Alton Sterling, Terence Crutcher, Philando Castile, Walter Scott, Eric Harris, Tony Robinson, Rumain Brisbon, Laquan McDonald, Michael Brown Jr., Eric Garner, Daniel Shaver, James Scott, Andrew Thomas, Dylan Noble, Andrew Finch, Rev. Jonathan Ayers, Justine Damond, Botham Jean – the list of innocent victims of police shootings goes on and on.  If we fail to abolish the qualified immunity and reasonable fear doctrines, we will continue to mourn the deaths of innocents at the hands of those who are supposed to protect and serve us.