Heritage Foundation Legal Policy Analyst Amy Swearer co-authored an article about ambush attacks on police, which they call “sadly predictable,” and the results of “lies and overheated rhetoric.” Swearer joined Newell on the program Tuesday morning to discuss what she wrote.
“The most difficult thing in my law enforcement career was making sure every night before I went to bed was making sure that our men and women were coming home safe,” Newell began. “That seems to be something that’s harder and harder to accomplish these days.”
“Certainly in the last couple of months we’ve seen this, it’s very problematic,” Swearer said. “Even during normal times, officers have a very difficult and dangerous job, and what we’re seeing over the summer and into the fall that sense of danger has been heightened very, very dramatically. We’re not just seeing the normal dangers law enforcement officers face, but also targeted attacks against them and an increase in threats of targeted attacks as well.”
“This was something I predicted would happen, going back early on to Colin Kaepernick’s comments,” Newell said. “He said police are put on paid leave when they kill someone. He said that not understanding the system, not understanding how it works, not understanding the utility of the services provided by the police, not understanding that police are required and have a duty to interject themselves into some of the most volatile situations we face in our country today.”
“This idea that law enforcement officers should be arrested right away after every shooting - arguably, there are some times where there is clearly no legal reason for what an officer did, sure,” Swearer said. “But a lot of times it’s a lot more complicated than other investigations, because the job of a law enforcement officer is very different from what you and I are allowed to do as civilians. There are a lot of things like the power to arrest and use of force that we intentionally enable officers to use, so it makes sense that these investigations are quite a bit different than what would happen if I were to shoot a law enforcement officer. A lot of this is just misunderstanding of the legal system, how it works and why.”
“In your article, you make observations about a number of different famous athletes and individuals making comments, and look, I’m all about people standing up for social justice,” Newell continued. “But don't these folks have an obligation to their followers to do their homework before they start talking about these things? You called it ‘super heated rhetoric’ that spreads completely dishonest narratives.”
“Absolutely. We’re dealing not just with well-intentioned people dealing in incorrect information, but we’re dealing with things that are downright reprehensible and irrational,” Swearer agreed. “We see things like sports commentators saying they’d rather not have police officers protect them at games because they fear those officers might turn around and shoot them. That’s insulting and irrational to these officers who have sometimes spent decades protecting people at sporting events, to assume that they’re going to turn around and shoot you for no reason - that’s irrational, borderline insane rhetoric that has no place in a conversation about police reform.”
Hear the rest of the interview in the audio player below.
