The Police Exception and the Domestic Abuse Law

Beating a spouse is wrong. Fighting is wrong. Domestic Abuse is wrong. This
is a very simple concept and lawmakers, police officers, and citizens of our
country for years have been in majority agreeance with these concepts. One of
the punishments our government has come up with for convicted domestic abusers
is revoking the privilege to carry weapons in public. This prevents convicted
abusive citizens from having the ability to tote a potentially murderous weapon
around, at any time ready to be assistance to their destructive and unstable
personalities' wishes. Police amendended. Officers have recently been added to
the list of people who are not allowed to carry guns in public if they have been
convicted of Domestic Abuse. Some precincts are outraged, however this seems to
be the proper law and should stay as it is

Law officers are human, and just like everyone else, they make mistakes. An up-
and-coming officer could get in a skirmish at the local bar and be charged with
Domestic Abuse. This same officer could become one of the most effective law
enforcers in the country. With this law, this officer would not be allowed to
continue his services for his county and his fellow police officers. Many
people feel that this officer is being done a great injustice and should be
allowed to continue his otherwise flawless career as an officer of the law.

One simple conviction could ruin the lives of every cop in the country. Hard
working, one-time offensive policemen and women would be barred from police work
forever. Many people think that this is entirely too harsh for a poke in the
chest or a slap to the face of a spouse. Many people think that the law was
produced in haste and that the solution is simple-make the judgement of each
officer's career jurisdictional and personalize each case. Interesting.

Finally, some people believe that by swiping the badge of a convicted Domestic
Abuser the government is causing two totally new problems. The first problem
caused by the new law is the decline in officers on the street and the resultant
increase in criminal behavior. The second problem is the fact that the
policeman or woman that is dismissed is probably expecting that income to
support a family. Interesting.

Criminal behavior is wrong. Proponents of reinstating the convicted police
officers and abolishing the amendment have not fully considered the
circumstances that provoke such measures. The law does not apply to those
people whom have been charged with Domestic violence. The law applies to those
officers (and citizens) that have been convicted of the crime. This means that
the action had to be so serious that someone pursued a lawsuit against the
alleged criminal and a servant of the public's best interest had to see that the
action was worthy of punishment. A "poke in the chest" at the local bar with
very unlikely draw a conviction of Domestic Abuse. If the action was serious
enough to be brought to court, someone was very effected by the actions of the
future protector of the peace. If a judge found the person guilty of a crime,
and the same mind that produced the rage to commit the crime still exists, it's
hard to put faith it the ability of that criminal to protect citizens from bad

Spouses who are victims of Domestic Violence probably experience one of two
different types of abuse. The first, and extremely rare, is the isolated
incident where the abuse only occurs once. The second type is the repetitive
and continual occurrences. In the first type, it is probably minor and
certainly not worthy of someone potentially losing their job years down the road.
However, there is extremely little likelihood that the spouse of the abuser
will prosecute the abuser and have them convicted. With the more frequent type
of abuse, the spouse is much more likely to attempt to prosecute the offender
and have them punished. So if the police officer was convicted of spousal abuse
in the past, the incident was probably not isolated no minor.

We should not be so sympathetic toward criminals. A convicted criminal has no
right to be enraged because his job was taken away. If these police officers
are our leaders in upholding justice and moral actions, they must certainly have
the demonstrative characteristics necessary to set examples. It is almost
hypocrisy to have someone make on-the-scene judgments as to whether or not a
person will be spending the night in jail for a domestic crime if the judge
himself has done the same crime.