In a recent article written by Justin Fenton and Justin George ("Violence surges as Baltimore police officers feel hesitant," May 9), retired police colonel Edward C. Jackson argues against the arrests of the Baltimore Six. "It's very dangerous to say the intent is criminal if the officer is simply wrong about probable cause," he is quoted as saying. "I don't think the response to that should be a criminal indictment of the police officer. Cops make mistakes all the time with arrests about probable cause. They're not lawyers. That's why we have courts to determine if the probable cause was sufficient."
So if you don't know if there's probable cause, arrest them (disrupting their lives, ruining their job prospects, taking them away from their families, depriving them of income, etc.) and let the courts determine the outcome. Then would not the same logic apply to the arrest of the police officers? Shouldn't we arrest them and let the courts determine the outcome? That is exactly what we are doing.
It's not as if people are making up the idea that Baltimore police officers are regularly abusing citizens. We have paid out $5.7 million from 2011 to 2014 in "cap-limited" damages. We are paying people who are paralyzed for life because of police "rough rides." There is an extensive history of documented abuse, and there seems to be no interest among police officers in turning their backs on fellow officers who abuse civilians — in fact, quite the opposite is true.
Somehow, we seem to forget that we are paying these good people to serve and protect us, not the other way around. We are their bosses — they are not ours. And, given their positions of authority, police officers should be held to a higher standard of behavior, shouldn't they? All of the rest of us have to ask ourselves if behaving in a certain way might lead to our being arrested. Should police officers be held to a lower standard?
Paul Kilduff, Baltimore