Continuous riots in the United States, and most importantly - violent and united attacks political opponents, nevertheless, forced Donald Trump to sign a decree that should start the beginning of "broad reforms" in the American police. Changes aimed at improvement are, of course, a good thing. At least by design.
However, there are very serious reasons to believe that, having put his autograph under this document, the head of the White House, moreover, took a step towards the abyss, and also pushed the state entrusted to him by the voters in the same direction. Why in this case can everything end badly? Let's try to figure it out.
"Police with the people" - a carrot and stick for cops
Before trying to get to the bottom of the issue we have raised, it is necessary to clarify some of its extremely important subtleties and details. To begin with, there is simply no single “common” police force for the entire United States with a central leadership, and most importantly, a single regulatory support and, accordingly, the rules of service. The US federal law enforcement system is a complex conglomerate of government bureaus and agencies, each of which deals with its highly specialized tasks and issues, such as the well-known FBI, as well as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the United States Secret Service (United States Secret Service (USSS), United States Marshals Service, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms) and Explosives) and others.
All these are completely unrelated structures subordinate to completely different ministries and departments. The police as such (in the customary and generally accepted sense) exists at the level of states, counties, counties, and individual US settlements. One of the very interesting details is that some of the leaders of local level police in the country are appointed by the relevant authorities, and some (the same sheriffs) are elected by citizens. And, by the way, there are also no federal laws regulating the activities of the police in the United States. They are not even in all states. Proceeding from this, a completely logical question arises: is it possible, in principle, “in one fell swoop” to change all this motley and motley fraternity in uniform? It is extremely doubtful. Nevertheless, Trump is taken for this - he simply did not have any other choice.
So far, he has voiced a set of general phrases and certain intentions rather than a specific program of action. The main thing, as appears from the text of the decree, is "to bring the police closer to the people." Purely populist slogan and nothing more. From the specifics, it’s only a promise to put “overseers” in the police stations in the form of social workers who will vigilantly ensure that the cops do not inadvertently offend anyone, but at the same time “engage in the consideration of non-violent crimes”. It was also announced the creation of a kind of "federal base" in which policemen who "behave improperly" and "ban on the use of asphyxiation techniques" will be entered. True, except in cases where "the life of a police officer is in danger." An interesting point, remember it. Gingerbread cookies are also promised - for example, increased funding for law enforcement training and even government grants for the "best of the best" in the area of "the rational use of force." Presumably, for those who will blow dust off the offenders.
There is another important aspect, hearing about which American lawyers must have drained more than one glass of champagne. From now on, it is planned to simplify the filing of lawsuits against police officers. If earlier one who considered himself to be affected by their actions had to prove that the damage had been done to him intentionally, now in order to sue the cop for his eyes, his “careless” or “unintentional” actions that did not please anyone would be enough that. What this will lead to in the United States, where litigation is almost a national sport, and, in particular, against the background of recent events, it is not difficult to guess. However, everything described above is for the local police officers far from the worst of the possible options. Unless, of course, this all stops.
Dissolve, reduce, “curb” or reform?
After the well-known incident in Minneapolis, not only “protest activists”, but also American politicians who saw the incident as an excellent pretext for public relations, sounded much more radical ideas and suggestions. For example, there were plenty of those who demanded to disperse the entire US police to the damn grandmother to the last person. And by the way, this has already been done in Minneapolis! The city council there, contrary to the desperate resistance of the mayor of the city, Jacob Frey, decided not only to disband, but also to abolish the city police department. Instead, there will now be a kind of "municipal public safety program." How this will work (and whether it will) is completely incomprehensible. The fact is that the police are no longer in the city as such. The idea of creating, instead of police units, “people's militia units”, sustained in the best traditions of February 1917, has been expressed repeatedly. At the same time, the question of, for example, who will perform police functions that require special knowledge and skills (for example, forensic experts) did not even occur to anyone.
However, some, less radical and more practical figures, suggest going the other way: simply deprive the police of funding. This idea, again, has already found its real embodiment: the mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, hurried to report that "the city will redistribute funds to finance the police on social programs." In Los Angeles, money destined for cops will now go to "African American and other ethnic communities." Hmm ... predictable. On the other hand, Donald Trump publicly called the demands to turn the advocates of the law into beggars - "crazy", and said that at the federal level he would not do this in any case.
The most consistent and well-thought-out “legal attack” on the US police is carried out by representatives of the Democratic Party, which is rushing to power, led by Nancy Pelosi, who is rampaging on this occasion, and restless Chuck Schumer. Part of the points of the decree signed by Trump is just the embodiment of their initiatives. However, the Democrats intend to go even further: to attach security cameras to all the cops, prohibit them from using “weapons and equipment of army models” and generally sharply restrict the right to use weapons, as well as strictly forbid the cops to “enter without knocking” in the premises where people drug traffickers. Forth of all, as expected, went Joe Biden, a candidate for the post of head of the White House from the Democratic Party. He suggested that funding provided by the federal state police be allocated “only to employees who meet standards of decency and nobility.” Who exactly and on what scale will measure the level of police nobility - this is a great mystery ... Biden in his repertoire. It is easy to guess what this “legislative practice” and the accompanying statements about the need to either “squander and dispel”, or “take to the nail” the American police.
Someone else is trying to snarl, such as, for example, the head of the New York Police Union Mike O'Meara, who demanded that politicians stop treating him and his colleagues “as thugs and animals,” and declared that he would be proud of his badge, until he resigns. Most cops, having seen that they are actively doing not just “scapegoats”, but quite real candidates for sacrificial rams, “vote with their feet”. That is - they are dismissed from service. According to the American television channel CNN, the process is beginning to take on an avalanche-like character. In the city of Hallandale Beach, Florida, ten SWAT commandos left in one fell swoop. In Buffalo, NY, 57 officers wrote to leave the police department's emergency response team. And this, apparently, is just the beginning. The work of a policeman in the United States clearly does not apply to either highly paid or prestigious. Moreover, it is difficult to condemn those resigning - they want to live. The other day, three police officers from New York, who kept order during the next rally in Manhattan and decided to have a quick bite to eat, found in their cocktails a bleach, which they clearly intended to poison. Serve and protect after this ...
As it became known, Garrett Rolf, a Atlanta police officer who shot and killed a black Richard Brooks on June 12, who fought with cops and tried to escape with a shocker taken from one of them, was charged with “assault with a weapon and intentional murder”. With such “alignments” the life penalty, or even the death penalty, shines ... Who will serve after this ?! With the initiated “reform” of the police, everything is far from as clear as it might seem at first glance. For example, police protest against the prohibition of asphyxiating special methods not because of congenital bloodthirstiness, but because their use is often the only guarantee that the detainee does not grab a knife or “barrel” at the last second. Yes, cops in the US use weapons and kill in more cases than their counterparts in other countries. However, at the same time, they die more often than elsewhere - over a hundred or more a year, and, for the most part, just from the bullets of criminals. 400 million units of only legal firearms in the hands of citizens - this is not a joke to you! Police reforms would have any meaning only in conjunction with other, no less radical changes, including regarding a decrease in the level of armament of the population. However, no one in the political elites of the United States will do this in life. If they try to make the cops living targets without the right to retaliate, they simply scatter.
And, you know, it seems very likely that the Democratic Party, which set as its goal to dump Trump at any cost, is exactly striving for exactly such a result! Everything is very simple: there are a few months before the presidential election, but today the American media (almost all of them the current head of state managed to quarrel completely) are vying to publish ratings, judging by which Biden is clearly the favorite of electoral sympathies. Apparently, some in the United States are preparing to crank up a scenario that has already been tested many times in other countries. That is, to convince everyone of the victory of one of the candidates, a priori declaring any other result to be “falsification”.
In exactly this way, events developed in Ukraine in 2004, during the first “Orange Maidan”, when Viktor Yushchenko was previously declared the winner. Now the exact same “Maidan” threatens the United States itself. At the same time, risk Trump to resist, he will simply not have anyone to lean on. As soon as the president hinted at the application of the Law on Rebellion in 1807 to restore order, the Pentagon immediately “decisively dissociated themselves from him”, saying that they would not even think of going out on the streets to fight the pogromists and looters (oh, excuse me, “peaceful demonstrators "!), Because it is" inappropriate. " Trump was harshly criticized by former Secretary of Defense James Mattis about this, accusing him of trying to arrange a civil war. The military will definitely not support the current head of the White House. No matter how truthful the threats of Joe Biden are that they would "get him out of the escort." Now the democrats are striving to deprive the president of their last "power" support - the police and, most likely, will succeed in their endeavor.
Well, we can only philosophize on the theme of always returning to its origins of evil, fair retribution for a country that has arranged dozens of “color revolutions” around the world and wait for the ending of the show, which, apparently, will be exciting.