TexasCHLforum.com

As an active LEO, I appreciate this. On the one hand, the "hair trigger" to automatically convict the cops in the court of opinion whenever a situation arises is highly aggravating and angering. While there are bad apples out there, drawn to the badge only by the desire to exercise control over others, or jaded to the point of assuming everyone's a criminal through constant interactions with real criminals, we're not all like that. In fact, most of us aren't. Guilty until proven innocent attitudes towards cops only serve to heighten mistrust of the police and to strengthen and justify certain cops' attitudes of scorn and disdain for the general populace.
On the other hand, the instinctive support of the cops in whatever situation is also problematic, as I -know- there are bad apples out there. A couple of the local LEO departments and certain specific officers were recently the subject of a fairly lengthy thread here, and from what I know of the situation (and the officers in particular), the condemnation was rightly deserved. Automatic support for us no matter the case is as harmful to us and the public at large as universal suspicion and approbation. As we ARE in the public eye, charged with enforcing the law, giving cops an automatic pass until absolutely proven otherwise empowers and emboldens those bad actors, who then feel they can get away with all kinds of violations of law and rights.
Mixing the two, automatic condemnation with reflexive support, just makes the whole thing even worse. Any iffy situation will generate both. The condemnation alienates cops from the public, and the support tends to justify errors and violations as "for the greater good" because "the public supports it," and even further isolates the cops from reality, which usually lies somewhere in between.

We are, like any other citizen, entitled to a presumption of innocence until proof of guilt is established. By no means does that say that questions should not be raised, or that apparent impropriety should not be called out. What it does mean is that improprieties should be handled on a case-by-case basis as far as individual incidents are concerned. If there is a policy or law that facilitates impropriety, that should be brought to attention publicly, but please, don't condemn the individual officers for it; use the righteous indignation generated as impetus to change the law or policy, instead of slamming the officers, or declaring the whole authority under the law invalid because of one area of violations under color of law.

I can certainly say for myself, as an LEO, that I would greatly appreciate having fewer laws to remember, fewer crimes to enforce, and more freedoms for everyone where we simply don't have to get involved. Repealing most of the vast multitude of laws out there, most of which are utterly pointless and unjustifiable (see malum prohibim vs malum se - I hope I spelled those right), will make life easier on everyone, and help restore the faith and trust that has been lost on both sides of the LEO-public equation.