Jim Baker's letter “When not to obey cops” cannot go unchallenged.
Mr. Baker uses two pathological examples (an officer orders a person to jump off a bridge, an unwarranted entry into one's home) to justify his argument that police officers have “no right to give, or expect obedience to, illegal orders” and therefore, someone given such police orders “has the lawful right to defend himself, including using deadly force if necessary.” I have problems with these issues in his position:
• Baker's claim that “Violation of law by law enforcement is a widespread occurrence” implies that our neighborhoods are patrolled by cadres of rogue policemen, which I do not believe.
• Even if one is foolish enough to accept Baker's position that there are times when an “on the spot” challenge, including deadly force, to an officer is justified, the practical issue remains: It is simply not smart to forcibly challenge an officer and it is patently stupid to challenge one who is holding a weapon.
The recent rash of deaths resulting from actions of police all have one element in common — a complete lack of respect for authority. Contrary to Baker's position, those who are pressing for behavior modification by police should be arguing instead for behavior modification of those who challenge the police.
Wayne Baughman
Salem
