FAQ: Law Enforcement & Policing

Police officers:

• Respond to 911 calls for help
• Investigate crimes (burglary, assault, murder, etc.)
• Patrol neighborhoods to deter crime
• Enforce traffic laws and respond to accidents
• Arrest people who break the law
• Protect victims and witnesses
• Testify in court about what they witnessed
• Work with communities to solve problems
• Respond to domestic violence, mental health crises, and more

Simple answer: Police are the people you call when something bad happens and you need help immediately. They're the barrier between law-abiding citizens and criminals.

Without police, who would:

• Respond when someone breaks into your house?
• Stop a drunk driver before they kill someone?
• Investigate when your child goes missing?
• Arrest the person who assaulted you?
• Break up a violent domestic dispute?
• Catch murderers and rapists?
• Keep riots from destroying your neighborhood?
• Enforce restraining orders against stalkers?

Think about it: Every developed country has police. This isn't controversial—it's how civilized societies function. The question isn't whether we need police, but how to make policing better.

The vast majority are good.

The facts:

• There are ~800,000 police officers in America
• They have millions of interactions with the public every year
• The overwhelming majority of these interactions are professional and appropriate
• Most officers will never fire their weapon in the line of duty
• Most officers go their entire careers without a single excessive force complaint

Bad cops exist — and they should be fired, prosecuted, and removed. But judging all 800,000 officers by the actions of a tiny fraction is like judging all teachers by the few who abuse students, or all doctors by the ones who commit malpractice.

Remember: The worst incidents get 24/7 media coverage. The millions of positive interactions don't make the news.

It depends who you ask (which is part of the problem).

Some activists say it means:

• "Redirect some funding to social services"
• "Reduce police budgets but keep police"

Others say it means:

• "Abolish police entirely"
• "Replace police with community-based alternatives"
• "Dismantle police departments"

What actually happened in cities that tried it:

• Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, NYC, and others cut police budgets
• Crime spiked dramatically (murders, shootings, carjackings)
• Police departments lost officers (retirements, resignations)
• Response times increased
• Most of these cities reversed course and refunded police

Crime exploded. Here are the facts:

Who got hurt the most?

• Low-income families who can't afford to move
• Small business owners who lost everything to theft and vandalism
• Children growing up in violent neighborhoods
• Elderly residents afraid to leave their homes
• Minority communities with the highest crime increases

The people who pushed hardest for defunding? They don't live in these neighborhoods. They live in areas with robust police protection.

For some calls, yes. For most calls, no.

Social workers can help with:

• Mental health crises (if the person isn't violent)
• Homeless outreach
• Substance abuse intervention
• Connecting people with services

Social workers CANNOT:

• Arrest violent criminals
• Respond to active shooters
• Stop domestic violence in progress
• Chase down robbers
• Serve warrants
• Enforce court orders
• Handle situations that turn violent

The reality: Police often don't know what a call will be when they respond. A "wellness check" can turn into a hostage situation. A "noise complaint" can turn into an active shooting. Social workers aren't trained or equipped for this.

Better solution: Pair social workers WITH police for certain calls. That way you have both skillsets available.

There are multiple accountability mechanisms:

• Internal Affairs — Department investigates misconduct complaints
• Civilian Review Boards — Citizens review police actions
• Body cameras — Record interactions for evidence
• Criminal prosecution — Officers can be charged with crimes
• Civil lawsuits — Victims can sue for damages
• Federal oversight — DOJ can investigate departments
• Decertification — Officers can lose their license

The problem: Some of these systems don't work well enough. Police unions sometimes protect bad officers. Internal investigations aren't always transparent. Some officers just move to another department.

Solutions:

• National database of fired officers (so they can't just move)
• Easier decertification for bad conduct
• More transparent internal investigations
• Reform qualified immunity (makes it easier to sue officers)
• Require officers to carry malpractice insurance

Evidence-based reforms that reduce problems:

• De-escalation training — Teaches officers to calm situations instead of escalating
• Crisis intervention training — How to handle mental health calls
• Body cameras — Reduces complaints and provides evidence
• Early warning systems — Flag officers with repeated complaints
• Duty to intervene policies — Officers must stop other officers from using excessive force
• Ban chokeholds — Except in life-threatening situations
• Require warning before shooting — When feasible
• Community policing — Officers build relationships in neighborhoods
• Higher pay — Attracts better candidates
• Better screening — Keep out people who shouldn't be cops

Notice: None of these require defunding police. Most require MORE resources for training and equipment.

Police can use force when:

• Making an arrest and the person resists
• Protecting themselves or others from harm
• Preventing escape of a dangerous suspect
• Stopping someone from destroying evidence

The legal standard: "Objectively reasonable" force given the circumstances. This means:

• What would a reasonable officer do in that situation?
• Considering the severity of the crime
• Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat
• Whether the suspect is actively resisting or trying to flee

Deadly force: Only allowed when the officer reasonably believes there's an imminent threat of death or serious injury to themselves or others.

This sounds reasonable but isn't practical. Here's why:

• Legs are small, moving targets — Extremely hard to hit, especially under stress
• Missing endangers bystanders — Bullets that miss continue traveling
• Legs have major arteries — Femoral artery = death in minutes if hit
• Doesn't stop the threat — Person can still shoot/stab even with leg wound
• Officers are trained: center mass — Largest target, most likely to stop the threat

The reality: If a situation requires shooting at all, it's because there's an imminent deadly threat. In that split-second, officers aim for the area most likely to stop the threat immediately.

Better question: How do we prevent situations from escalating to the point where shooting is necessary?

Yes. ICE is federal law enforcement.

What ICE does:

• Homeland Security Investigations (HSI): Fights human trafficking, child exploitation, drug trafficking (especially fentanyl), weapons smuggling, terrorism, and cybercrime
• Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO): Removes criminals here illegally, enforces court-ordered deportations, removes gang members

Just like: Local police enforce city/state laws, ICE enforces federal immigration law. Every country does this—Canada has CBSA, UK has Immigration Enforcement, Australia has Border Force.

Without ICE, who would:

• Remove convicted violent criminals who are here illegally?
• Stop cartels from trafficking children across the border?
• Rescue victims of human trafficking?
• Prevent terrorists on watchlists from staying in the country?
• Enforce court-ordered deportations?
• Combat the flow of fentanyl killing 100,000+ Americans per year?
• Remove gang members like MS-13?

Answer: Nobody.

Think about it: If a judge orders someone deported and they don't leave, what happens? If there's no enforcement, court orders become meaningless. Laws become suggestions.

No. Here's why:

Who benefits from abolishing ICE?

• ❌ NOT legal immigrants (they followed the rules)
• ❌ NOT crime victims (many victimized by criminal aliens)
• ❌ NOT American workers (competing with illegal labor)
• ❌ NOT trafficked children (ICE rescues them)

Who DOES benefit?

• ✓ Cartels (making billions from human smuggling)
• ✓ Criminal aliens (avoiding deportation after crimes)
• ✓ Employers exploiting illegal labor (paying below minimum wage)
• ✓ Politicians (seeing illegal immigrants as future voters)

Ask yourself: Would we abolish the FBI? The DEA? The ATF? No—we reform them if needed, but we don't eliminate law enforcement.

No. Absolutely not.

ICE does NOT target:

• U.S. citizens
• Legal permanent residents (green card holders)
• Valid visa holders (students, workers, tourists)
• Asylum applicants with pending cases
• Anyone with legal authorization to be in the U.S.

The facts: Over 90% of ICE arrests are of individuals with criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. ICE focuses on public safety threats and those with final deportation orders from judges.

Bottom line: If you're here legally, ICE is not looking for you. Period. The fear-mongering that "ICE is coming for everyone" is propaganda designed to prevent enforcement of any immigration law.

Context matters:

Why separation happens:

• When parents cross illegally, they're arrested (like any law violation)
• Children can't be held in adult detention (required by law)
• So children are placed in separate facilities while cases are processed

Key facts:

• This happens with ANY parent arrest—not unique to immigration
• Many "families" aren't actually families—smugglers use children to gain entry
• DNA testing has revealed thousands of fake family units
• 30% of children at the border are with adults who aren't their parents

The real question: If you don't want families separated, why bring children on a dangerous illegal border crossing? Apply for asylum at a legal port of entry.

Because without it, society collapses. Here's why:

• Safety requires enforcement — Laws without enforcement are just suggestions
• Justice requires enforcement — Victims deserve to see criminals held accountable
• Commerce requires enforcement — Businesses can't operate where crime runs rampant
• Freedom requires enforcement — You can't be free if you're afraid to leave your house
• Civilization requires enforcement — Without law, you get anarchy and vigilante justice

Think about it: Would you start a business in a neighborhood with no police? Would you let your kids play outside? Would you invest your life savings? Of course not.

The pattern: Every failed state, every collapsed society, every dangerous city—they all have one thing in common: breakdown of law and order.

We don't have to guess—we've seen it:

What happened in all these places:

• Crime exploded
• Businesses closed or moved
• Property values dropped
• Middle-class families fled
• Tax revenue collapsed
• Poor communities suffered most

The lesson: When you stop enforcing laws, criminals take over. It's that simple.

The people who can't afford to leave.

• Poor families — Can't afford private security or to move to safe areas
• Small business owners — Lose everything to theft and vandalism
• Elderly residents — Become prisoners in their own homes
• Children — Grow up in violence, can't play outside safely
• Working-class people — Their neighborhoods become war zones

Who doesn't suffer?

• Wealthy people with private security
• Gated communities with their own guards
• Politicians who live in safe, heavily policed areas
• Activists who push policies they don't have to live under

Notice the pattern: The people pushing hardest to "reimagine public safety" don't live in the communities that suffer from their experiments.

Not only can we—we must.

Law and order means:

• Laws are enforced fairly and consistently
• Criminals are held accountable
• Victims get justice
• Communities are safe
• Courts function properly

Reform means:

• Better training for officers
• Accountability for bad cops
• Community policing
• Fair treatment for all
• Addressing root causes of crime

Both are essential: Law without justice is tyranny. Justice without law enforcement is impossible.

The goal: A system where laws are enforced fairly, officers are held accountable, and communities are safe. Not a choice between them.

• Say thank you — Most officers rarely hear appreciation
• Support local initiatives — Meals for officers, community events
• Attend community meetings — Get to know officers in your neighborhood
• Vote wisely — Support candidates who back both reform AND funding
• Report good policing — Call the department to commend officers who do great work
• Support families of fallen officers — Donate to organizations like Concerns of Police Survivors
• Advocate for reform AND support — Push for better training, better pay, better accountability

• Document it — Record video if safe to do so (legal in public)
• Don't interfere — Stay at a safe distance
• Get details — Officer badge numbers, patrol car numbers, exact time and location
• Report it — File a complaint with the department's Internal Affairs
• Contact civilian review boards — If your city has one
• Contact media — If the incident is serious and not being addressed
• Contact civil rights organizations — ACLU, NAACP, local advocacy groups
• Consult an attorney — If you or someone else was harmed