Political Statement in Book Seven: Reconstruction 2020

What has been truly horrifying for me this year is how many people are aghast at my perspective on Law and Order. And that is horrifying because my stance is in support of Law For All.

I find it a genuinely necessary part of my job to strive to make sure that we are applying the law equally. If the law states (Iowa is Stand Your Ground) that an intruder can be shot without warning, that is the law. If an Officer kicks in a door without identifying themselves, I expect that Officer to be fired upon. If the officer shoots back, killing the homeowner, that Officer needs to be investigated immediately and charged. Because there had better be a DAMM GOOD and well documented reason for his actions; which the law would likely classify as an Affirmative Defense and thus would require at least a hearing to establish. Because if ANYONE kicked a door down in this state and invaded someone’s home… everyone would understand the homeowner shooting them. People are aghast that a prosecutor can think this way. Because, to them, if I claim to be for Law and Order, I have to support the officer no matter what. Which I have always said “bullshit” to. Was the officer doing their job kicking in the door with no announcement? Were their actions reasonable? Were their actions authorized? Was this a cop who made a mistake? Is this a cop who was pissed off? Is this a cop enforcing for a cartel? Is this a cop with a history of violence or racism? THESE QUESTIONS MATTER and the hand wave “But Law and Order?” is the kind of surface understanding you would expect from a toddler. Law and Order means to respect The Law and Keep Order. If someone violates the law… supporting them saying “Law and Order” seems pretty stupid, hypocritical, and childish.

Let’s take this further and get to the real issue. I run into dozens of people every day who are in “full support of The Invasion of Portland” because that city had just devolved into violence and anarchy and lawlessness and nobody was protecting those poor people. I listen to their arguments, provide counter examples, listen to their counter-arguments, and thank them for the discussion. At which point they are often horrified (aghast) that I don’t seem to openly support The Invasion myself.

So here is how it usually goes:

Other: “generic statements about lawlessness and anarchy in Portland so thank God Trump did something about it!”
Me: Statements about how for the most part the protests have been fairly peaceful and the residents of the City and the Mayor were in support of the protests.
O: You must be watching CNN or MSNBC! Statements about their news source of Fox or Drudge or Social Media.
M: Well, I just think that since you have The Wall of Moms and the Dads with Leafblowers and the Navy vet who was assaulted and the Mayor being tear gassed… it just looks like unmarked Federal Goons using violence to suppress lawful protests.
O: Yes, that’s because your news sources aren’t showing you the violence, the looting, the neighborhoods being burned, and the Statues being torn down. I mean, that takes it right there. Tearing down Federal Statues and the City refusing to do anything…of course the Federal Government was going to respond!
M: But are the unmarked Feds investigating the alleged fires and violence then lawfully arresting THOSE perpetrators or are they just rounding up anyone protesting in the area?
O: I don’t know, but if they are out there protesting they should he picked up.
M: Statements attempting to explain the First Amendment Right of Speech and To Assemble
O: That’s all well and good, I suppose but we have to be able to deal with these people somehow!!

And that is when it dawns on me everytime. The people so aghast at my stance? Don’t honestly care about Law and Order because they don’t see it as anything other than “A Contract to Protect Me and My Comfort.” And upon understanding that? EVERYTHING ELSE MAKES SENSE, TOO!
The libertarian pushback on cigarette bans in schools? The conservative push to reduce taxation to a point where we HAVE NO INFRASTRUCTURE? The demand that facemasks and quarantine restrictions are “unconstitutional” despite the Constitution being readily available to read this proving them COMPLETELY WRONG. It is because all of these people screaming Law and Order don’t actually care what the Law is. The Law, to then, is whatever they WANT it to be or think it SHOULD be and anything else is unacceptable. So if they want to walk around a school campus with an AR15 and we arrest them, that is a violation of their 2and Amendment rights!! But if we don’t arrest protesters exercising their 1st Amendment right, then we’re promoting anarchy.

And that is the world we live in. Where people with power, the voting public, believe that the law is “whatever they want it to be”. So when I, the official in charge of actually knowing and enforcing the law as it is written, argue that SOMEONE ELSE’S constitutional rights are just as important as YOURS, they look at me strange. And because being a Prosecutor is an elected job in Iowa… these voting individuals need to be catered to by our decisions (some would argue). And yes, I find that truly horrifying. That for political reasons, for the reasons of “an uneducated electorate”… we would likely be required to find Maximum Sentencing for someone who sabotaged a groundwater polluting farm, while being told to “be creative” in sentencing the County’s biggest businessman in an OWI case. :(