The Ever Expanding Role Of The Oval Office

When an issue arises from a police officer's actions or in-actions, it is not unusual for the department's Command Staff or local political figures to make the mistake of publicly denouncing an officer's actions without any substantive knowledge of the incident. It is well known among all in the profession that anyone above the rank of Captain has become more of a political figure than a law enforcement officer. You see, publicly sacrificing an officer is easier than reserving comment for a time when you are informed on the matter. You can always backtrack later with a short statement that makes the public forget the matter, but leaves the officer's career irreparably damaged. If you later find that the officer has violated legal authority, you have already taken swift action against them. It is a win/win situation for the political body. Any officer is replaceable, as long as the political seas are steady. However, it is unusual for the President of the United States to use his office to engage in such practice relative to a local officer.

The President did a grave disservice to every law enforcement officer by making a determination before having substantive knowledge of the incident. First, he once again interjected the federal government into a local jurisdiction's issue. Second, although he would deny doing so, he made a determination as to what happened without knowledge of the incident by stating the police "acted stupidly". He later tried to change history by excusing the comment by saying he "could have calibrated his words differently" and that his friend may have "also overreacted". Words only need to be calibrated differently when they disclose one's true predispositions and biases.

Perhaps even more distressing is the President's invitation for the officer to meet privately with him and his friend for a beer. In Presidential politics, such invitations are usually reserved for the coercion of party members with dissenting positions from the administration. Make no mistake about it, the officer will undoubtedly receive pressure from the local politicos to subject himself to this meeting. Rather than allowing the President to again supersede the role of his own office, my suggestion would be for the officer to agree only to a public meeting. Whatever is wished to be said individually can be said publicly. After all, the officer is the only one to have already been publicly tried. Why would such a meeting now have to be private?

Every officer knows that, with the exception of family and their beat partners, there are very few people who have a legitimate concern for their well being. The oath to protect and serve the law (yes the law) is often a dangerous one that is undertaken willingly. There will always be those with a bias against law enforcement, and admittedly a much smaller number, with a bias in favor of law enforcement. In the case of President Obama's actions and words, I will simply apply the legal term res ipsa loquitur which means "it speaks for itself".