Why Should We Trust The Police?

Minnesota

My mother's father-in-law was a Minneapolis cop in the 40s through the 60s and, after he retired, spoke to her of a code between policemen. This code required one policeman to help shield another policeman from consequences for wrong actions. Policing the public has become an "us vs. them" proposition, which has bred defensiveness on both sides.

In Bolingbrook, IL there is now a question whether or not the police are (or were) covering for Drew Peterson, who is a suspect in the disappearance (and presumed murder) of his 4^th wife. According to AP writer Don Babwin, "Eighteen times in two years, Bolingbrook police were called to fellow officer Drew Peterson's home because of trouble between husband and wife. But Peterson's wife could never get authorities to arrest him. In fact, she was the only one ever charged." http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071130/D8T7PDKO1.html

Does any thinking person not find it believable that there is "a wink and nod" from one policeman to another? This fraternity of people who face danger and the potential for harm every day; those who must interpose among the most dangerous gangs of our area, and who must be in a heightened state of awareness for every traffic stop, have a bond that few can understand or appreciate. They are brethren; and we all know that their blood is thicker than water as if they were born of the same womb. We are not their brethren, so the tendency is that we become the necessary element to their existence, and not the focus and purpose for it.

I don't want to vilify all cops - certainly not! In fact, it is really only a few, who garner the negative headlines and notoriety, which bring this sense of distrust from the people at large. That notwithstanding, it is and always will be "us vs. them" and, as a consequence, will foster distrust that comes with the authority and power of having a badge and a gun.

Considering the police are the front end of the prosecution of crime, could it be this "us vs. them" attitude spills into the Prosecutor's office and then into the courts? Ideally and in original intent, there is suppose to be a presumption of innocence and neutrality among law enforcement, from police to courts; but is this presumption and neutrality there? That is the question we are fundamentally asking in this series of articles. Is it really unreasonable to suggest the possibility that the police frustration with plea deals, slaps on the wrist punishment, and outright (inexplicable) acquittals, that there is a joining of the ranks of the "us" among prosecutors and judges? Perhaps that takes an accurate peek into the psychology of the situation, but is it relevant? Not really. We expect those sworn to uphold the law to do just that - uphold the law, not make laws to suit their own purposes. The only solution is to be clear and forceful with a call to do what is right, and what is LAWFUL. Until the public makes that clear call, there will be nothing more than what we've come to know - us vs. them.