Wheeler’s Reluctance to Use Violence to Quell Violence

Ted Wheeler of Portland, Oregon is a strange mayor when it comes to maintaining order; and there are others like him who are soft on riots, arson, vandalism, looting, etc. He refuses to use violence to deter and stop them. What’s wrong with officials like him?

A child can tell the difference between a peaceful protest and a crowd that’s crossed the line into criminal acts. Why does a clown like Wheeler allow 100 nights of rioting and mayhem? Mayor Jane Durkan of Seattle allowed rioters to take over a district called CHAZ/CHOP. Why? Why didn’t Mayor Lightfoot stop the looting in Chicago? Why are prosecutors letting go lots of people that police have arrested?

These morons elected to office are afraid to use violence. They are afraid to be accused of police brutality. They are afraid that good people will be horrified at their using brute force. But it is only by bashing some heads that mobs can be deterred, be scared off and dispersed. Good people will tolerate police violence directed at obvious lawbreakers like arsonists, looters, mobs throwing bricks, people hammering away at plate glass windows, etc. Brutal methods are sometimes needed to counter the criminality of brutes.

These morons know no history of wars, battles and conflicts. They do not realize what levels of violence human beings are capable of. They do not understand the mentality of the rioters they’re dealing with. They do not understand that the peaceful conditions they’re used to require the threat of violence to keep bad actors in line and subdued; and sometimes the threat has to be carried out with tangible force. Wheeler and Durkan talk as if they were dealing with people around a conference table discussing whether a developer should get a zoning variance or not. They are talking around some abstract idea of protest, justice and democracy when what’s facing them are threats to do away with all of that and them too. Lightfoot seems to have gotten the message of the reality somewhat.

These officials need to inform potential rioters in no uncertain terms what awaits them if they do anything criminal. Imaginary speech: “I will keep law and order. I have authorized the police to use strong measures of force to this end. If rioters smash windows or start fires or manhandle innocent people or loot, they will be rewarded with immediate pain and injury. Heads will be cracked. Ribs will be broken. Arms and knees will be smashed. Active rioters will be beaten to the ground and arrested. People resisting arrest will be subjected to violence until they are subdued. We will not handle you with kid gloves. We will not read you your rights if you are engaged in a criminal act. We will immediately use force to stop you from so engaging.”

A message like this is necessary, but it cannot be delivered unless police are protected from lawsuits. Police need immunity. Police can’t bash heads if they are going to be dragged into courts. However, there actually is movement in the opposite direction, which is to qualify the immunity or restrict it. Oregon is a case in point. Governor Kate Brown has just signed a new law that qualifies police immunity further, passed on the heels of the Floyd chokehold. The Virginia House is reconsidering a bill to end qualified immunity in that state. Toothless police can have only one result, which is to turn the country over to mobs.

The issue of qualified immunity is real and topical. “Asked how a Biden Administration would address the issue of police brutality, Senior Advisor to Joe Biden Symone Sanders says, ‘Vice President Biden believes that qualified immunity needs to be significantly reined in. He believes that abuses of power should not currently be covered by qualified immunity. Take chokeholds for example. That is an abuse of power.'” Biden would remove tools of violence that police require in order to face individuals acting violently. For Trump, qualified immunity is a non-starter, off the table.


2:48 pm on September 2, 2020