The problem here, ultimately, is that policing is provided by a monopolist. It's even worse when you take the police union into consideration. As is pointed out in the comments, policing is a hard job, and exactly what cops should or should not be doing in that job is tricky. That's why a monopolist provider is such a bad idea. Basic economics teaches us the monopolist will charge too high a price and deliver too low (or too poor) a service. The normal dynamism of market pressures and competition simply do not exist in this system. We must rely on the political means to enact change, and that's a wretchedly thin reed.
Great article, Jon, as usual. When I was younger, I automatically sided with Rambo. As I get older, a crack opens where I'm siding with the sheriff a little at first - but not the torture and abuse, obviously.
Freedom of association allows us to sort these sorts of things out, but of course, the state disallows that as a matter of principle and law. Too bad.
So, in order for that to be an argument, you have to establish, in detail, what is and what is not a "victimless crime." So, what, constitutes a victimless crime?
Only if they were determined to have occurred in the investigation of an accident. (Similar to how seatbelt laws were initially sold to us, that we'd never be stopped JUST for not being buckled, but only as an additional citation.)
Often times, a broken tail light is in inconsequential. How about two? How about two and deep tinted windows? The cops play the odds.
That’s how they catch drug runners on I 10, the major drug highway in the US. Of course, maybe we should let them pass. You state that a number of people get killed in a minor traffic stop, or infraction, without filling in the missing information. Lots of important backstory left out on this one. Maybe the wrong story.
The Sandra Bland case is a dumb example. I hate it when people don’t signal, and I think it’s fine to ticket people who don’t use them. Enforcement of this minor law is good!
What’s not good is being a jerk when she refuses to put out her cigarette. I mean, it would have been polite for her to comply, but she did have every right to smoke in her own car.
The officer is quickly assessing the risks here. If she tosses the cigarette in his face to distract him she could take off. They just don’t know. High speed chases are discouraged now. I’m on the cops side.
Disagree, partly, in that in Rambo the Sheriff had zero reason for harassing Rambo, then his deputies tortured him in jail.
The traffic stops are technically crimes, and never result in violence if the people being stop simply act like decent human beings.
Policing is a very dangerous job, and many cops have been killed in routine traffic stops, because those stopped are violent criminals engaged in a crime, fleeing warrants, the car is stolen etc.
Be polite, cooperate with the officers, and no body is hurt, not to mention the police are not a court, they are not who you argue your case against, the courts are, yet people feel they have every right to verbally abuse, resist, even assault officers without serious consequences, claiming racism, and a myriad of other excuses for their poor behavior.
Police are armed, be polite, go about your business, don’t be a criminal, or intoxicated in public, and you have no issues.
Rambo was polite, he was sober, and did absolutely nothing wrong, so imho, is not even remotely comparable to the cases you mentioned, or the myriad of famous cases over the last couple decades, in all of which, the police were in the right, yes even with Floyd.
This is a horrible example to use, especially if you read the book. In it Rambo is way beyond PTSD'd out, he kills a lot of people and the Sheriff is a vet too, from the Korean War. In the end the Colonel puts him down like a rabid dog. Horrible example to use.
Onto your more general point about abuses in policing. There were roughly a million sworn full and part time police in the US before the George Floyd debacle. There are roughly a little under 900k full and part time sworn police now and roughly ten million police interactions on an annual basis. Abuses like the ones you use do happen, but are exceedingly rare.
The biggest problems facing police right now are recruitment, how are you going to attract people to a job that no longer has much in the way of prestige and while it pays a good wage, is not worth it to the lack of respect you get from the same general public you are sworn to protect. Once more, that same general public, yourself included, have very little idea of what they see on a day to day basis, especially in high crime areas. Put that together and ask yourself why would anyone want to be a cop?
A constant problem with policing is lack of training, especially in terms of tactics and firearms. Most of the tragic shootings, such as the one you mentioned, or ones like Tamir Rice and many others, are the result of poor reactions from poorly trained, scared cops or poorly trained cops having a negligent discharge, which I would be my bottom dollar happened with the Rice shooting. No one wants to pay for the training though, they want well trained and well prepared cops, but no one wants to train them for their jobs. Many states do not even mandate an annual shooting qualification, it is that bad. This needs to change.
This article highlights tragedies and abuses, but it is a small sliver of policing. Think about this. an average of 10 million police interactions per year and there is truly very little in the way of crazy abuses or tragedies that occur. Articles like this do not enlighten, they just try to highlight screw ups instead of looking at the bigger picture. Can policing do better? Always, but won't happen until people are willing to pony up for recruitment, selection, retention and training. Even without what I would consider adequate recruitment, selection, retention and training, most police still do a good job.
Bottom Line: Broken windows theory works, the only arguments against it are that it effects minorities more than caucasions, so many folks try to frame it as racist. Please provide a study that disproves the theory that does not rely on accusations of racism. The theory can go to far if enforced by fanatics that do not allow officers to use discretion on enforcement, but the general theory works. I will listen if you can provide a study that does not use race as the primary reason one should not use the broken windows theory.
Side note:
One great thing about cameras, they show the idiocy that those guys deal with on a daily basis.
I love your reply! This article was an awful example and it really jerked my chain. Terrible way to paint the police. I guess if they just give everyone a free pass everything would be fine. Right.
It seems to me that the problem is before it gets too the police. If we (as a society) want fewer stops, then there should be fewer laws, yes? Three Felonies A Day was about exaggerated, but the concept holds.
To just point out ONE issue here, I’ll point to the tinted windows. I pass cars everywhere with deep tints that are deemed illegal in my State, and for good reason. Maybe because I haven’t had a bad experience with the police, for the most part they do a great job. How confident would you be walking up on a driver when you can’t see him or how many people are in the car. They have families too. Maybe just bite your tongue and do as they say? That would be a novel approach.
The problem here, ultimately, is that policing is provided by a monopolist. It's even worse when you take the police union into consideration. As is pointed out in the comments, policing is a hard job, and exactly what cops should or should not be doing in that job is tricky. That's why a monopolist provider is such a bad idea. Basic economics teaches us the monopolist will charge too high a price and deliver too low (or too poor) a service. The normal dynamism of market pressures and competition simply do not exist in this system. We must rely on the political means to enact change, and that's a wretchedly thin reed.
Great article, Jon, as usual. When I was younger, I automatically sided with Rambo. As I get older, a crack opens where I'm siding with the sheriff a little at first - but not the torture and abuse, obviously.
Freedom of association allows us to sort these sorts of things out, but of course, the state disallows that as a matter of principle and law. Too bad.
Now I'm going to have to go read the book!
The book does not make Rambo look like much of a hero.
What is your suggestion to fix policing?
"...the role of police should be narrow, and they should not be asked to enforce laws against victimless crimes."
So, in order for that to be an argument, you have to establish, in detail, what is and what is not a "victimless crime." So, what, constitutes a victimless crime?
Voluntary conduct between consenting adults that does not violate the person or property of another individual.
So drunk driving should be legal unless you hit someone? Just being drunk harms no one
So no traffic stops for crap vehicles? No brake lights or not signaling is basic stuff. This Rambo take on the situation is so off.
Only if they were determined to have occurred in the investigation of an accident. (Similar to how seatbelt laws were initially sold to us, that we'd never be stopped JUST for not being buckled, but only as an additional citation.)
So, no traffic enforcement? What about vanadlism? What about building codes?
Vandalism is a clear violation of property rights (unless someone is violating his own proprty)
Oh, you'd hate my suggestion: https://hamannature.substack.com/p/a-day-in-the-life-of-alex-in-ancapville
Often times, a broken tail light is in inconsequential. How about two? How about two and deep tinted windows? The cops play the odds.
That’s how they catch drug runners on I 10, the major drug highway in the US. Of course, maybe we should let them pass. You state that a number of people get killed in a minor traffic stop, or infraction, without filling in the missing information. Lots of important backstory left out on this one. Maybe the wrong story.
drug laws are unconstitutional under the 9th amendment, as well as the laws upholding govt. backed theft.
Ok. You might want to stick with what the article is about.
The Sandra Bland case is a dumb example. I hate it when people don’t signal, and I think it’s fine to ticket people who don’t use them. Enforcement of this minor law is good!
What’s not good is being a jerk when she refuses to put out her cigarette. I mean, it would have been polite for her to comply, but she did have every right to smoke in her own car.
The officer is quickly assessing the risks here. If she tosses the cigarette in his face to distract him she could take off. They just don’t know. High speed chases are discouraged now. I’m on the cops side.
Disagree, partly, in that in Rambo the Sheriff had zero reason for harassing Rambo, then his deputies tortured him in jail.
The traffic stops are technically crimes, and never result in violence if the people being stop simply act like decent human beings.
Policing is a very dangerous job, and many cops have been killed in routine traffic stops, because those stopped are violent criminals engaged in a crime, fleeing warrants, the car is stolen etc.
Be polite, cooperate with the officers, and no body is hurt, not to mention the police are not a court, they are not who you argue your case against, the courts are, yet people feel they have every right to verbally abuse, resist, even assault officers without serious consequences, claiming racism, and a myriad of other excuses for their poor behavior.
Police are armed, be polite, go about your business, don’t be a criminal, or intoxicated in public, and you have no issues.
Rambo was polite, he was sober, and did absolutely nothing wrong, so imho, is not even remotely comparable to the cases you mentioned, or the myriad of famous cases over the last couple decades, in all of which, the police were in the right, yes even with Floyd.
Broken windows policing has never been disproved or debunked. I echo @glitterpuppy; you haven't proved your point.
This is a horrible example to use, especially if you read the book. In it Rambo is way beyond PTSD'd out, he kills a lot of people and the Sheriff is a vet too, from the Korean War. In the end the Colonel puts him down like a rabid dog. Horrible example to use.
Onto your more general point about abuses in policing. There were roughly a million sworn full and part time police in the US before the George Floyd debacle. There are roughly a little under 900k full and part time sworn police now and roughly ten million police interactions on an annual basis. Abuses like the ones you use do happen, but are exceedingly rare.
The biggest problems facing police right now are recruitment, how are you going to attract people to a job that no longer has much in the way of prestige and while it pays a good wage, is not worth it to the lack of respect you get from the same general public you are sworn to protect. Once more, that same general public, yourself included, have very little idea of what they see on a day to day basis, especially in high crime areas. Put that together and ask yourself why would anyone want to be a cop?
A constant problem with policing is lack of training, especially in terms of tactics and firearms. Most of the tragic shootings, such as the one you mentioned, or ones like Tamir Rice and many others, are the result of poor reactions from poorly trained, scared cops or poorly trained cops having a negligent discharge, which I would be my bottom dollar happened with the Rice shooting. No one wants to pay for the training though, they want well trained and well prepared cops, but no one wants to train them for their jobs. Many states do not even mandate an annual shooting qualification, it is that bad. This needs to change.
This article highlights tragedies and abuses, but it is a small sliver of policing. Think about this. an average of 10 million police interactions per year and there is truly very little in the way of crazy abuses or tragedies that occur. Articles like this do not enlighten, they just try to highlight screw ups instead of looking at the bigger picture. Can policing do better? Always, but won't happen until people are willing to pony up for recruitment, selection, retention and training. Even without what I would consider adequate recruitment, selection, retention and training, most police still do a good job.
Bottom Line: Broken windows theory works, the only arguments against it are that it effects minorities more than caucasions, so many folks try to frame it as racist. Please provide a study that disproves the theory that does not rely on accusations of racism. The theory can go to far if enforced by fanatics that do not allow officers to use discretion on enforcement, but the general theory works. I will listen if you can provide a study that does not use race as the primary reason one should not use the broken windows theory.
Side note:
One great thing about cameras, they show the idiocy that those guys deal with on a daily basis.
I love your reply! This article was an awful example and it really jerked my chain. Terrible way to paint the police. I guess if they just give everyone a free pass everything would be fine. Right.
Interesting 🤔
It seems to me that the problem is before it gets too the police. If we (as a society) want fewer stops, then there should be fewer laws, yes? Three Felonies A Day was about exaggerated, but the concept holds.
To just point out ONE issue here, I’ll point to the tinted windows. I pass cars everywhere with deep tints that are deemed illegal in my State, and for good reason. Maybe because I haven’t had a bad experience with the police, for the most part they do a great job. How confident would you be walking up on a driver when you can’t see him or how many people are in the car. They have families too. Maybe just bite your tongue and do as they say? That would be a novel approach.