What is a Police Officer?

With the rash of violence targeted toward police officers in the last couple of years I’ve seen many question why so much attention is given to line of duty deaths. After all, the argument goes, they are just another individual murdered. There’s no difference between the officer and another individual gunned down on the street in terms of humanity, is there? There are other dangerous occupations out there as well. However, to understand why an attack on a police officer captures the attention of the community we must understand exactly what a police officer is on the practical level and in the abstract.

What is a police officer? On its face, the answer to this question seems simple. A cop is just a guy who got a job with a police department, carries a gun and a badge, and puts bad people in jail, right? Certainly that’s a part of what a police officer is. Obviously he (or she) is just a human doing their job. But what is their job? They enforce the laws of society, obviously. But do they really do this job as another individual amongst equal individuals? No they don’t. When a regular citizen attempts to do similarly, except in exigent circumstances, that regular citizen will find himself in legal hot water. This tells us that there is something abstract which sets the police officer apart from the rest of society.

That abstract idea which sets the officer apart from John Q. Public is the fact that when he takes his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and his home state and to enforce the laws of his state and community he becomes the personification of society at large. His authority is derived from the trust placed in him by his community. When he arrests someone, he is not arresting them, the community is arresting the individual. The officer embodies the authority of the community. The authority delegated to the officer is the authority to use force, even deadly force, to ensure that those who violate the community’s laws can be brought to justice in the court system. This is why police officers are held to a higher standard in terms of conduct. Officers can be held criminally liable if they execute the duties of their office improperly or neglect certain aspects of their duties. Effectively a police officer is two persons in one: John Q. Public and Officer Public.

Instinctively we recognize this to be true. When an off-duty police officer is assaulted or killed in a home invasion robbery with no connection to his occupation we consider it to be a shame and a tragedy, but likely very little additional attention is given to the events apart from a blurb on the 6 o’clock news and a story in the paper. Yet, when an officer is gunned down in the line of duty we instinctively recognize that something very different has happened. We may not be able to articulate this difference and we may not understand this difference, but we know something unusually heinous has occurred.

When one individual chooses to take the life of another there is really only one direct victim of the crime: the one whose life was ended. Certainly there are other “victims”; friends, family, dependants, etc, but the crime itself has one victim. This is not so when an officer is assaulted or murdered. There is a similarity of course between the two crimes, but what distinguishes between them is the second victim: society. When someone murders another he demonstrates a lack of regard for that individual. When someone murders or attacks an officer, not only do they demonstrate a lack of regard for the individual but also the rule of law and society as a whole. In effect, the assault is a treasonous act of sorts. The perpetrator is declaring that they are in opposition to society, that society’s laws have no authority over them, that they have no fear of society’s justice.

We recognize intuitively that when an officer is attacked we are also victims. An individual we have entrusted with our authority has been attacked simply because that authority has been vested in him. We feel a degree of responsibility for this attack – we have a minor case of survivor’s guilt. This individual lost their life because they chose to act on our behalf. This is what is different. This is what makes a police officer a police officer. He is a public servant; he enforces the law so we don’t have to. As a result, when an officer is killed during the course of their duties, we recognize that in a very real sense he has died in our place.

I'm not sure if I've conveyed my thinking as clearly as I would like, or if my thinking makes any sense at all. But this matter has been on my mind for about a week since the death of Kalamazoo Dept. of Public Safety Officer Eric Zapata. I really think that there is something that definitively sets a police officer apart from the average citizen. Not that his life somehow intrinsically more valuable than anyone else's, but that by virtue of his duties there is another element to his life distinct from his individual self which in the abstract represents all of us.

Public Safety Officer Eric Zapata – End of Watch: April 18, 2011

Late Monday night, Kalamazoo lost one of its heroes. Public Safety Officer Eric Zapata was shot and killed while investigating a shots fired call in the Edison neighborhood. Upon the arrival of the first officer, he encountered Leonard Statler on his front porch and questioned if he had heard any shots fired in the area. Statler then produced a handgun and began firing. The first officer returned fire, sought cover and called for assistance. Statler then retrieved a long gun and ran down a back alley where moments later he encountered Officer Zapata and took his life and then turned the gun on himself. Officer Zapata is the first Kalamazoo Dept. of Public Safety officer to have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty – protecting the people he swore to serve.

What does one say in the face of such a tragic and senseless loss? What can one person do to adequately express their sorrow? As the son of a law enforcement officer, every time I read about or hear about another line of duty death it hits very close to home. The fact that Officer Zapata is local to me makes matters worse. I can only imagine the torment that his family is going through right now. Though to the best of my knowledge I have never met Officer Zapata I have shed many tears in the last day due to his passing. My prayers go out to his family, his friends, and his department as they mourn the loss of a faithful father, friend, and peace officer.

While Officer Zapata is understandably and rightfully at the forefront in the community’s thoughts and prayers at the moment, we must remember that he is not the only casualty of Leonard Statler’s selfish and senseless act of violence. Innocent children are now without a father, a wife is now without a husband, a mother without a son, and forever there will be an empty space at the table where Officer Zapata’s friends sit. The presently unnamed first responding officer will carry a burden for the rest of his life. There will always be a lingering doubt of whether he did all that he possibly could, whether he did his best, whether he shares some of the blame for Officer Zapata’s death. He will likely suffer from an acute case of survivor’s guilt for many years to come. To that officer, should he ever read this: Do not blame yourself. You did all that you could. The only person to blame for this is Leonard Statler. He alone made the decision to take Officer Zapata’s life. Only he could have prevented what occurred. There are other officers who have been exactly where you are today. If you can’t carry this burden alone, seek these men and women out, seek counsel. There are people who will help you carry this awful burden. I pray that God will grant you peace and that He will comfort you in this time of distress.

I ask that anyone who reads this post will please take the time to pray for Public Safety Officer Eric Zapata’s family, friends, and coworkers. Please pray that God will grant them the strength that they need to make it through this challenging and trying time, that Officer Zapata’s family will have their needs provided for, and that each would be comforted and granted peace in time. I also ask that you pray and continue to pray for our law enforcement officers who daily pull on body armor and strap on a gun and handcuffs. Pray that God will keep them safe throughout their tour of duty; that they would be granted the wisdom, strength, courage, and compassion to do their duties; and lastly, that if their life should ever be required of them, that God would please watch over their children and spouse. They sacrifice so very much for all of us, and our prayers are the very least that we should give to them in return.

Officer Zapata, Kalamazoo will miss you.

Public Safety Officer Eric Zapata

Biting the Hand that Feeds

Recognizing that few people - if anyone at all – read this blog, I understand that the post I am about to make is likely only somewhat less productive than spitting into the wind.  However, I have noticed that in recent discussions on policies being debated in various state legislatures, as well as those in Washington DC, there are some fundamental disconnects in relation to the stated desires of liberals (the creation of jobs) and their opposition to legislating lower corporate taxes or the creation of corporate incentives.

In most of these debates, individuals decrying lower corporate tax rates refer to such policies as “corporate welfare”.  Additionally, they suggest that the legislature’s time would be better spent crafting legislation that would “create jobs”.  Unfortunately, these individuals do not seem to understand that the reason why many states – like Michigan – have such high unemployment rates is due to the fact that the present corporate taxation policies have created incentives for corporations to do business elsewhere.  Simply put, the corporate tax rates (and often labor policies in Union states) have created a situation where it is simply too expensive to continue to do business in that state or nation (remember, the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world).

There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the purposes of corporations.  Most on the Left, and in fact, many on the Right seem to believe that corporations exist for two reasons: the creation of jobs, and the manufacture or provision of products and services.  This is simply not the case.  The sole purpose of a corporation (or for that matter, any business) is to produce a profit for the ownership.  To that end a corporation may manufacture products and create jobs, but those are simply the means utilized to get to one end: profit.  When states or nations enact policies which cut into the profit margins of a corporation or business they are also enacting disincentives to do business in that state or nation.

To demonstrate how this works, allow me to use an analogy that I believe that we can all relate to: filling up our gas tanks at the local gas station.  When it comes time to fill up our gas tank, where are we most likely going to fill up?  Is it the station where gas is $3.25/gallon, or is it the station that is charging $4.05/gallon?  The obvious answer is the first station, the one that is charging $3.25.  Corporations and businessmen make similar calculations.  When they choose to start or relocate a business, or to expand their operations they shop around.  They take several things into consideration when making their decisions: political and economic stability of the location, the cost of labor, governmental regulation, and the corporate tax rates.  When a particular locality has enacted high corporate tax rates, has unsustainably high labor costs (as in most union states), is politically or economically unstable, and/or has excessive governmental regulation they will most likely choose to do business elsewhere.  The costs of doing business are simply too high.

For the last few decades, businesses in Michigan as well as the United States have been voting with their feet.  They have increasingly moved operations outside of Michigan, and in many cases, outside of the United States.  While the popular narrative is that this is simply the result of “corporate greed”, it is simply wise business practice.  Like individuals, business have a responsibility to utilize their limited resources in the manner that provides for the greatest return on investment.  In much the same way that a family on a limited budget will purchase groceries at a discount grocer, corporations move operations to “right to work” states like the Carolinas or to other nations who have lower costs of labor and corporate tax rates.  The primary responsibility of that corporation is to provide its ownership with the largest possible return on investment.

However, in the rush to demonize these corporations for simply doing their fiduciary duty, many people forget that they themselves are also the very same corporate ownership they themselves are demonizing for so-called “corporate greed”.  If you are the owner of a 401(k), mutual fund, share of stock, or any of many other forms of investments you are, in fact, a corporate owner.  The company that you may despise for “obscene” profits is actually conducting itself in the manner that it must to ensure that you, the shareholder, receives the greatest possible return on your investment to create the incentive for others to invest in the corporation.

The legislative policies that discourage or punish so-called “corporate greed” ultimately are harmful to individuals and employment because they make business too expensive.  They also play a part in devaluing the investments of the citizenry.  Not only is John Q. Public likely to one day receive the harm of a lay-off or pink slip as his company moves out of the state or country; but to add insult to injury his investment portfolio will also take a hit as corporate profits decrease over time due to the increased costs of doing business in an environment hostile to profits.

Businesses have repeatedly signaled that the status quo in corporate and labor policy is harmful.  This has been repeatedly seen in Michigan where several businesses, even the “big three” automotive manufacturers, have continued to move operations out of the state or shut down operations at certain plants altogether.  We are presently dealing with the simple economic repercussions of creating a hostile business environment.  The reason we have high unemployment is because companies cannot make enough money here to justify the costs of operations.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is good for the average individual to have corporations making “obscene” profits.  In fact, the more obscene the better.  If a company is making large profits in the locale that they are in, it provides additional incentives to continue operations in that locale.  If you enact policies that make creating profits difficult, you provide that same corporation the incentive to move operations (and jobs) elsewhere. 

If we, as a people, want to continue to have a high standard of living, we need our corporations to continue making “obscene” profits.  Not only do we benefit through the creation or at least maintenance of jobs, we benefit through the expansion of our investment portfolios.  I believe that it is safe to say that most Americans who are employed full-time have some sort of investment portfolio, whether a 401(k), personal mutual funds, or other retirement account.  That means that most Americans make up corporate ownership to some degree.  When corporations profit, we profit ourselves.

We must begin to recognize the simple economics of job creation and corporate taxation.  Jobs are not created in a vacuum.  There are a multitude of factors that determine whether a corporation will create jobs, but it can generally be boiled down to one simple question: “Does the creation of a job here help or hurt me?”  Unfortunately, if those who advocate high corporate tax rates and unsustainably high labor costs have their way, the answer to that question will more often than not be that job creation hurts the corporation.  When the expense of hiring a worker is greater than the benefit they provide to the company, or the costs of operations in a locality become so high as to eat away the profit margins of that corporation, they will cease to do business and hire workers in that locality.  It is an ugly truth, but truth nonetheless.