A THOUGHT FOR NOW - ARE ALL INNOCENT LIVES OF EQUAL WORTH?

The life of all humans are of equal worth, irrespective of their roles in society, as non has any intrinsically different value

Is the life of the leader of a nation, of any greater value than that of any of its ordinary citizens?

Is, for example, the life of President Obama, or any member of Congress, of greater worth, than, say, the life of Alton Sterling or Philando Castile, or any ordinary white American?

My contention is that the answer is an emphatic and uncategorical, no; all lives are of equal value.  The fact that a rich or powerful man or woman can temporary 'save' his/her life by paying someone to protect them, does not make their lives more worthy than the ordinary citizen who goes about his/her business without the airs or aura of the rich and the powerful.  The President is, by virtue of the fact that he is head of the nation, a very powerful man, but, his life, when all is said and done, is just as valuable as that of any other man or woman or child.

And what of the lives of ordinary citizens and that of the police officers who are sworn to 'serve and protect them? Are their lives of greater worth than those they are sworn to serve and protect; including the African American citizens? It does seem to be the case that Americans have a tendency to 'hero-worship' their police officers; placing them on a pedestal and sanctifying them. Yet, it is not self-evident why American police officers should be accorded this apparent special privilege; especially in a country where the gun is king, and the police does have a tendency, in some areas, to shoot first and then consider whether the dead person really did pose a threat to their lives or not.

It seems to me that the establishment and some citizens will automatically give the police the 'benefit of the doubt' in any or most cases of the police deliberately or accidentally killing innocent citizens.  As if it is to be expected that such events will happen and that it is 'a price worth paying' to support the police. I am not sure what those people who take this 'over supportive' approach towards the police, would do, if it was there fathers, brothers, uncles or cousins being murdered in the manner meted out to innocent men such as Sterling and Castile.  

Would they be as accommodating and apologetic about corrupt and murderous police action?

Probably not.

We have seen the callous murdering of 5 police officers in Dallas, which seems to have been precipitated by police officers murdering Sterling and Castile. In each of these 7 cases, innocent men have pointlessly lost their lives because of the callous actions of other men. None of these 7 acts of murder can be justified, and will have resulted in 7 families being bereaved, children and other relatives being deprived of the happy and supportive times they would have had with their loved ones. On a wider level, these tragic deaths will have resulted in adding fuel to America's already poor race relations challenge. 

I wonder whether the American police have come to take the goodwill and support of the citizens whom they profess to 'serve and protect', for granted, and is simply not doing enough to earn and maintain their respect anymore? That they have become too complacent, too arrogant, too much like 'cowboys' playing with their guns, but shooting real people, and, it could probably be argued, practising a new form of ' 'legalised' lynching of black folks?'

Of course, it could also be argued that the American police, as an institution, does not care about public support or validation of how they carry out their policing or repressive role, because they can rely on their guns and the support of the judiciary.

I have heard of men such as Rudy Guiliani talking about Black Lives Matters being "racist," apparently for no other reason than that it dare to tell the police and the government to stop murdering  black Americans. He is talking rubbish. 

BLM is part of the solution; Rudy is a big part of the problem, especially in his insistence on denying the problem of the endemic racism and oppressive mindset which lies within the American DOJ. It does not help, of course, that people like him have the intellectually dead Fox News organisation to propagate their ostrich-life perspectives.

So, in summary, my position is that the lives of police officers are not of greater value than that of ordinary citizens, and that it is not self-evident that their deaths, tragic as they might be, do not warrant a greater out pooring of grief and hand-wringing than the deaths of innocent black men - or white men - negligently, criminally or, cowardly - as in cases where they killed people because 'I thought... murdered by the police. 

That it is not unreasonable to think that members of the police force, if they are to live up to their oat to 'serve and protect' - not just themselves, but the ordinary citizens - will and should take risks in doing their duty, which could, on occasions, result in them losing their lives. That police officers should exercise the same thoroughness in trying to protect the lives of ordinary citizens, that they employ in trying to protect their own lives.

When police officers begin to demonstrate the same kind of heart felt sorrow they display when one of their colleagues is murdered or otherwise dies tragically, towards the innocent citizens their deviant colleagues murder, it is then that the police and citizens will be able to come together cooperatively and work successfully.  

For now, the law of the gun is poisoning the relationship between the police and the citizen; even if, as some people are never tired of telling the world, 'it is only a minority of bad cops responsible for the criminal behaviour.' It is not; the minority is likely to be supported by a sizeable proportion of the 'good cops' and they receive massive support from the judiciary system, which is not surprising, considering that the system is, in its essence, the embodiment of the historical racism, and elitist interests which the American government is primarily meant to serve.




If you are an American cop, consider endeavouring to make using your gun the exception to how you carry out your policing duty; placing the emphasis on having a relationship - an 'all of us', instead of 'us and them' scenario - with the people you are professing to 'serve and protect.'  If you have to resort to your gun, except in exceptional circumstances, I suspect that that is not really 'policing' but 'controlling and repressing.'

If a person has to resort to his gun it means resorting to compulsion and induced fear, with the opportunity for human and rational engagement being forfeited.