The United States has been known for helping out foreign countries in a time of need, starting back to the first World War. But when it comes to war should we rethink the idea of helping out a country or to go in with no hesitations. For when doing so there maybe repercussions for our acts, the U.S should worry more towards the protection of there own people before strategizing a plan to save other countries people. A question our government should ask themselves about foreign affairs is, what US should get involved in and what they should leave up to the United Nations or other countries to intervene with?

The threats we receive from terrorist groups should be our government’s top concern. Countries around the world that are helping out the issue in Syria, and that are bringing in some of the people of refugees are being hit by terrorist attacks. The US has been involved with many problems due to terrorists throughout time, the people of the U.S fear that their lives may be at risk. If The US is aware of the risks they put on there own people should they still get involved or let others step in and give Syria help?

Elected president Donald Trump has implanted his ideas of Syrian refugees and decided to take our men out of Syria as well as close off the gates and banning  these Syrians from coming in. Already many other countries are getting involved with this crisis, and have a strong handle on the situation. By getting involved we open up the doors to much bigger problems such as dealing with Russia. Which Trump goes on to say in The New York Times, “We end up fighting Russia, fighting Syria.” Now by doing so not only are we letting in refugees that we clearly have no idea who we are, but also would be going to war with another country just because of our beliefs and ethics on society and how these Syrians should be treated.  All that has happened by getting involved with these Syrian refugees throughout the world should have convinced the government that the people of America need to be safe and let others intervene and stay out of this disaster.

Since 9/11 there has been a significant amount of refugees that the US has let in. An article By Russell Berman, called “an ISIS Terrorists Really Infiltrate The Syrian Refugee Program?” Berman asks the question such as can ISIS ruin the refugee problem and stop refugees from deporting,  “And within that population, three people have been arrested for activities related to terrorism. None of them were close to executing an attack inside the U.S., and two of the men were caught trying to leave the country to join terrorist groups overseas.” Even though those numbers do not seem like a big deal, we still have to look at it in a different perspective such as that if they were caught doing a terrorist acts there are many more of them out there who may not have been caught. As well as we don’t have a perfect government as does no one else which leads to question are there still other terroristic groups out there in the U.S who haven’t been caught, that are planning an attack on the nation? 

A giant problem with countries letting in refugees is that these refugees are coming in with have fake passports for allowing these Syrians into the countries, and trying to realize the difference between fake passports and real ones. After the bombing in Paris the French had found a the passports from one of the bombers, that France had no information of from this man ever being allowed into the country. “The fingerprint was not in the French database, the senator said, and therefore officials believe the man was among a group of refugees and migrants.” France could have prevented this tragic accident from happening. The U.S should learn from Frances mistakes and realize many people in France that got very hurt by this attack. The U.S should protect their people and do whatever it needs to ensure the safety of the people and one way to ensure that is by cutting off the borders to these refugees.

The fertilized egg within a woman is looked at by various groups in today’s society differently. Religious groups, among others, believe that from the moment of conception, the fertilized egg should be considered a human with human rights. Those who believe in science for the most part agree that a fertilized egg does not necessarily mean that the zygote should be considered a human yet. To understand which of the two would be correct, the term human must be closely analyzed.

Humans are considered to be different from other species on this planet. Religions such as Christianity, state that God created man in his image and was the ruler over the beasts of the Earth. This simple testament of god would be considered the reason why humans are more intelligent. Science indicates that humans have a more complex nervous system, which in turn allows for the consciousness that makes humans more intelligent. The nervous system is vital to being a human. Without it, humans would be like any other beast on this planet. Both religious groups and scientists believe that what makes humans human lies within the intelligence humans hold. With that being stated, the area where the spinal cord, brain, and backbone would form is not present until about four weeks after conception. This area known as the neural tube. Although the organs nor the spinal column have been developed, around the 4 week period after conception would be about when the zygote could begin to be considered a human being. Before this period, it lacked the vital difference between humans and the rest of the organisms on the planet.

Religious groups believe that the intelligence humans obtain stems from the spirit or soul humans are given from God. Which should be an acceptable statement, but on multiple occasions in the Bible, it states that god breathed breath into mans body and then became alive. These statements could be found in Genesis 2:7, Job 33:4, Ezekiel 37:5 & 6, etc. This indicates that according to the bible life begins upon birth not conception. A human does not receive their soul making them human until they are born and take their first breath. This in itself shows that a fertilized egg could not be considered a human based off the Bible alone. Some form of outside support must be applied.

Before the first four weeks after development of the zygote, the neural tube does not finish taking form. This zygote could not be considered a fetus, because it has not met the eight week mark after conception to have this neural tube completely developed. The word fetus is normally associated with just the word unborn child indicating it applies to a zygote as well. Since zygotes are simply fertilized eggs, they should not be considered a fetus, unborn child, nor a human being.

 

Sources:

1. Knapp, Julie. “Your Developing Baby, Week by Week.” Parents. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.
2. “The Bible Tells Us When A Fetus Becomes A Living Being.” The Christian Left Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.

“(Medical)  Heroin”

In my own words heroin is an illegal drug that is a chemical blend formed from morphine, which is a natural substance that is taken from a poppy plants seed. This drug is usually in a white or brown powder that can be injected into a vein which is considered mainlining, injected into a muscle, placed on tinfoil and inhaled as smoke through a straw or snorted as powder via the nose. Heroin is a narcotic powder (C 21 H 23 NO 5) that was formerly used as an sedative/pain killer. In 2011, 1.6% of people used heroin at lest once, but 23% who used it became dependent on it.   Heroin abuse is associated with many serious health conditions which include fatal overdose, spontaneous abortion, and infectious diseases such as hepatitis and HIV. The problem is how is medical heroin better than something regular heroin users have.  They are both harmful and people are still addicted to it.  Although when given by a doctor, it prevents  the crime of getting it off the street and its more likely to be clean.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/heroin

http://www.drugfree.org/drug-guide/heroin/

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin/what-heroin

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin

“Assault Weapons”

People love to use the word assault weapon. Reporters utilize the phrase as a buzzword, to deliver fear into your heart and the hearts of your loved ones. The word gets tossed around during debates as if nobody really knows the definition of an assault weapon. What exactly constitutes an “assault weapon”?

First we need to define the term assault rifle. An assault rifle can only be a selective-fire weapon that utilizes an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. To fall into this category, a firearm must be capable of selective fire, have an intermediate-power cartridge with more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle. Its ammunition must come from a detachable box magazine, and have an effective range of at least 110 feet. Any weapon that does not meet all of these requirements may not be considered an assault rifle.

Making matters even more confusing, legislation coined the term “Assault weapon” in an attempt to rush the idea of fear into certain firearms. Bruce Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson explain, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of ‘assault rifles.’” Assault weapons are usually defined as semi-automatic (one shot per pull of the trigger) firearms that utilize attachments commonly assumed to be affiliated with military firearms. A firearm may only be considered an assault weapon if it reflects a rifle type weapon, fires semi-automatic, has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and two of the following; folding/telescoping stock, a pistol grip beneath the action of the weapon, a bayonet mount, flash suppressor/ threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher.

Automatic firearms are also called machine guns which were made illegal to sell or transfer in 1986 under federal law. A machine gun can only be a fully automatic, mounted, or portable firearm such as the M4A1 Carbine. A machine gun rate of fire varies from 300 to 1800 bullets every minute. Machine guns are then sub-divided further as submachine guns, assault rifles, battle rifles, automatic shotguns, or autocannons. This information proves useful to expose the differences between (so-called) assault weapons, assault rifles, and a typical machine gun.

The Colt AR-15 has no choice but to fire one bullet per pull of the trigger; for this reason, the rate of fire proves much slower than the M4A1 does with only 45 rounds per minute which is comparable to all other semi automatic rifles. David Kopel explains in the Wall Street Journal, “What some people call ‘assault weapons’ function like every other normal firearm- they fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed… Some of these guns look like machine guns, but they do not function like machine guns.” Through his words, Kopel stresses the fact that weapons such as the AR-15 functions just as a typical hunting rifle does, and does not hold the ability to induce the damage that an assault rifle will create.

Not only do “assault weapons” such as the AR-15 work just like a regular hunting rifle. They also work in a similar fashion to every other gun sold in America; shotguns, ranch guns, and even pistols. However, the design of the gun affects the perception of many citizens who do not know any better, which insights a stigma around them. According to a 1998 report by the Violence Policy Center, “The weapon’s menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” A large portion of the population does not hold knowledge towards the subject of guns and do not understand the difference between the “menacing” AR-15 and any machine gun.

In 1989, after the Cleveland Elementary School shooting in Stockton California left thirty-two injured and five children dead, anti-gun lobbyists and the media began campaigning against AR-15’s and other “military style” firearms. This caused the public to believe that these ordinary rifles are as dangerous as fully automatic, militaristic, machine guns. The suspect, Patrick Purdy, used a semi-automatic weapon to fire 106 rounds in 180 seconds. Purdy then took his own life with a pistol; not an assault weapon. These numbers are easily recreated by all semi-automatic weapons, regardless of the aesthetics of the firearm. The number of dead and injured children would have skyrocketed had the gun been fully automatic because more shots would have been fired. Although semi-automatic weapons are undeniably dangerous, to govern some of them as illegal (although they each posses the same amount of power and danger) based off it’s appearance instead of its functionality is erroneous.

On September 13th 1994, Bill Clinton signed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The purpose of the assault weapons ban was to prohibit the manufacturing and civilian transfer, possession, or use of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines for ten years. The NRA (National Rifle Association) opposed the ban, stating, “‘Assault weapons’ are used in only one percent of all crimes,” which was then proven by the Department of Justice’s crime statistics in 1999. The ban also penalized the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. These devices are defined in the act as, “any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after [September 13, 1994] that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition,” which sounds absurd upon realization that many guns typically take more than ten bullets. However, the Assault Weapons Ban incorporated a grandfather clause which declares that possession or transfer of weapons or ammunition that was possessed lawfully before the date of enactment will not be punished. This means that while the manufacturing of these guns have ended, the same amount of these weapons are still on the streets within the hands of people; still capable of abuse.

As one can see, an “Assault Weapon” does not differ from it’s semiautomatic counterparts. Although they may seem intimidating compared to other guns on the market, they do not function differently. A pistol that just missed the classification may be just as dangerous as any assault weapon. To conclude the assumption that they are more dangerous to our society followed by attempts to remove them from the hands of families requiring protection may be the most illogical and frightening portion of the situation. Our government means well, which makes this situation counterintuitive.

Works Cited

Anonymous. “The Truth About Assault Weapons.” The Truth About Assault Weapons. Anonymous, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016. <http://www.assaultweapon.info&gt>;

“Assault Rifle.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016.<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Rifle>

“Federal Assault Weapons Ban.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016. <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&gt>;

“Assault Weapon Truth: The Facts about Assault Weapons.” Assaultweapontruth. Assault Weapon Truth, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016. <http://www.assaultweapontruth.com>.

What’s the Difference?

Some sports can be very similar or different to each other, like softball and baseball or tennis and badminton. Sports like tennis and badminton are also a pair of sports that are modified towards each other. They both have the same concept, but many differences. The shape of the court, using rackets, hand/eye coordination, having a player on each side of the net, etc. are all aspects of the two sports that are similar. Softball and baseball both have the same general rules, like needing to get three outs and using a ball to pitch to a batter. They both have a first, second, and third base that runners run to so they can score. Though these basic and simple rules are a few aspects what these sports have in common, their differences are increased. For a badminton play to succeed in tennis would require extra skill practice and new coordinations to be formed. New skills would still be needed when a baseball hitter goes up against a softball pitcher and succeeds. The athletes, no matter how hight their skill level, are not prepared to face a kind of sport so similar, yet so different at the same time.

When baseball is compared to baseball, the obvious difference is the gender of each sport. Baseball has boys on the field and softball has girls. There is no actual law that says girls can’t play baseball and boys can’t play softball, but this is mainly just how it is. Another difference is the size of the field. Both sports have dirt and grass, but the softball field is smaller than the baseball field. In baseball, the standard base distance is 90 feet from base to base, but in softball they are 60 feet apart. The fence in softball are usually about 220 feet or so. Baseball’s fence is about 400 feet from home plate. The pitching distance from home plate is also different. They softball mound is only 43 feet from home, and the baseball mound is 60 feet. The baseball mound is also higher because of the extra dirt under the mound, where as in softball it is flat. This effects each sport’s pitching as well.

The size of the balls are a big difference as well. The baseball is only 9 inches in circumference , and the softball is 12 inches and it is yellow too. This effects the weight of each ball. The bats that each sport uses also have differences. Maximum bats for softball are 34 inched long and weigh 24 ounces. Baseball bats have the maximum length of 34 inches and weigh 32 ounces. Though the length is the same, the weight is an important factor.

Even though there is are many differences in baseball and softball, there are also many differences in tennis and badminton. These two pairs of sports are both very similar, but require different skill levels. There is also a huge difference between the sports tennis and badminton. These sports are very similar to softball and baseball because they both are sports with the same aspect, but with different difficulty levels. Tennis and badminton are both played with a racket. Though tennis is played on a 78 feet long court, while badminton’s court is only 44 feet long, they are very different.

Tennis rackets are much heavier than a badminton racket. A tennis racket may weigh about three quarters of a pound; while a badminton racket is only just a quarter of a pound. This difference might change that athlete’s need for strength in their arms. To say that one sport is harder than the other is very difficult. A tennis player having to play a badminton match will have difficulty and vise versa.

Overall, for softball and baseball, the pitching makes the most difference. The elevated mound in baseball makes the pitch have to move downward to get into the strike zone. The baseball pitch also is thrown with an overhand motion. Softball pitching is completely different. This kind of pitching is thrown with the windmill, underhand motion. The mound is not elevated in softball. Because it is a flat surface and the ball is released low, the ball must go upward to make it into the strike zone.

All of these factors are important in playing the game. These are also important to take into when a batter is up to bat. Though these sports have big differences, they have the same concepts. Due to this amount of differences, there must also be different difficulty levels as well. This would make one sport more difficult than the other.

Works Citied

CK”s Baseball 4U, B. C. (2014, February 27). What’s the Difference between Baseball and Softball? Retrieved October 30, 2016.

H. (2014). Difference Between Tennis and Badminton. Retrieved November 23, 2016

Mann, B. A. (2011, September 30). Baseball vs. Softball. Retrieved October 30, 2016.

The Difference Between Baseball & Softball | iSport.com. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2016.

No Helmets In Football?!

In the National Football league (NFL) concussions happen a lot. Most of the players concussions comes from blind side hits by the defensive player. Hits to the helmets happen on every play for the game because of the size of the helmets and how the player tries to block their opponent. Since the outbreak of when the public actually found out about what happens to a players brain after playing professional football for years the NFL has been working to lower the rate of concussions. In the past, the National Football League was under fire when the public found that players would be put back into the game after they found that the symptoms have subsided. However, even if the symptoms have subsided it doesn’t mean the brain has completely healed because it takes at least a few days for the brain to heal completely of course it also depends on how hard the hit was and how much the brain has banged into skull. Blind side tackling is when a defensive player tackles a offensive player that isn’t in the offensive player lines of vision. It is a very dangerous hit because an offensive player can sustain a head/neck region injury depending on how hard the hit was. The symptoms for a concussion if poor balance, confusion, drowsiness or feeling sluggish, dizziness double vision or blurred vision, headache, and vomiting. When a football player usually has a concussion they lay on the ground and they look a little disoriented after a hit.

A concussion is when a persons the brain is bruised because they were hit really hard or hit something really hard. Brain injuries is a very serious decision in sports because players get injured all the time. Inside our skull we have our brain and if something happens where a players  brain bangs into the skull it could cause some harmful things depending on how hard the brain hits against the skull. Also, the brain is surrounded by spinal fluid and 3 layers (Dura mater, Arachnoid mater, and Pia mater) that’s between the brain and the skull but the layers and fluid have a limit on how hard the brain  hits against the skull. A concussion rate is how many concussions happened in a game.

A helmet is aligned with thick padding all around the helmet. It’s main responsibility (if not its only) is to protect the head from skull fractures, but head injuries do still happen. If with all of the padding in a helmet concussions come from within the brain. While the padding protects from skull fractures the brain is still moving around in our head banging against our skull and the more hits to the brain the worse it gets. Continuous hits that are making the brain hit against the skull cause the brain to function less.

Rugby is a sport that involves no pads, and older versions of the American football helmets from back in the day. Some rugby players still do receive concussions but not as much as football. Rugby is actually a safer sport than football as far as concussions go. People maybe think how but Rugby is safer because of the stricter way they tackle. Rugby tackling is strict because the defensive players can not hit an offensive players blind side. Also, Rugby player have to tackle a specific way to be able to bring their opponent down, they would have to lean in with their shoulder and wrap their arms around the player they are tackling and than they will be able to tackle the player. Rugby is played around the world from America, New Zealand, Japan to list a few. Different countries play against each other, like New Zealand versus America or Japan versus Great Britain. People say rugby is like American football but without pads, however, that is not the case the difference is:

• They use a different method for tackling a player to the ground that has the ball.
• The ball is wider in shaped than the American football.
• The scoring is different. A “try” (touchdown) is 5 point, instead, of 6 points like the NFL.
• When in the in-goal, the player has to have the ball touch the ground for the touchdown to be official, that’s called “grounding.”
• Their field goal pole is in the front and middle of the in goal line. Like American football had it in the early years of football. Plus, it’s in an “H” shape.
• The time of play is not split into 4 quarters instead it’s split into 2 halves.
• The equipment that rugby players wear is different from the NFL’s equipment.

Work Cited:

 

“Regressive Tax”

In my own words, I describe a regressive tax as a tax that affects and taxes the poor more than it does to wealthier citizens. This tax can be either income, sales, excise, or property. A regressive tax can be a tax on food, clothing, gasoline or even prescription medication.

So if the government imposes a tax on certain sales, it may sound regressive. But if the tax is only on luxury items then it is not regressive. If the sales tax does not tax  basic items that people need, the cost of essential items will not go up by being taxed.People who have low incomes will not be affected by the tax of they only buy essential items (groceries, clothing, and prescription  medication).  These items listed in the previous sentence are exempt from the New Jersey 7% sales tax, the full list is in the New Jersey Sales Tax guide.According to the article,”N.J. Gas Tax Hike Deal: Christie Demanded a Sales Tax Cut, but Will You Notice It?”, the sales tax in New Jersey will go down to 6.875% on January 1, 2017.

On November 1, 2016, the State of New Jersey raised their gas tax by twenty three cents per gallon. This is a regressive tax on the poor, because paying twenty three cents per gallon takes up more income of a person making twenty thousand a year than someone making ninety thousand a year. The reason that this new gas tax is regressive is that it taxes gasoline, which is essential for transportation. Even those without cars may have to pay more for public transportation because busses require gasoline. Most people need transportation to travel to work, stores, and to visit family.  In an opinion piece,”Op-Ed: Who Pays for New Jersey’s Gas Tax?,”Raghul Murali discusses how the new gasoline excise tax will disproportionately tax a larger percentage of income for those making less than $20,000 a year than those making more than $20,000 a year. While I do understand that the government needs revenue and taxing gasoline has been around for years, a twenty three cent hike is a lot to take in for someone who does not make a lot of money.

The sales tax only applies to to luxury items. This includes, but is not limited to: prepared meals, tobacco, alcohol, and candy.  If someone chooses to pay a tax then it is not regressive, it is voluntary. A tax only on luxury items is not a regressive tax because it does not place more of a burden on the people who can least afford to pay the tax.  People with lower incomes can avoid paying this tax all together if they do not buy taxable items which they do not need to survive because non-essential items are  taxed.I think that New Jersey should not lower its sales tax at all. People will save a penny on every five dollars they spend on taxable items, many people will not even notice the change. In the article, “N.J. Gas Tax Hike Deal: Christie Demanded a Sales Tax Cut, but Will You Notice It?,”  Samantha Marcus talk about how the sales tax cut is very low and will save people very little money that they spend on taxable items.Leaving the sales tax at seven percent is  fair because it does not place a tax burden on the people with low income. I would not define the sales tax in New Jersey as regressive. Although, I would define the increased gas tax as regressive because people with lower incomes pay a higher percentage of their income on the gas tax than those with a higher income.

Works Cited

“New Jersey Sales Tax Guide.” (n.d.): Web. 30 Oct. 2016.

What is fear?

Police whose lives are often at risk may fear for their safety even from suspects whose guns are unloaded or who brandish what looks like a weapon. The fact that they were not in mortal danger in no way diminishes their reasonable fear. Are police officer’s wrong to shoot “an unarmed suspect” or are they within their rights to neutralize a suspect whose intention was to harm? On the night of August 9, 2014, police officer Darren Wilson of the Ferguson Police Department was on patrol when he received a call about a robbery and physical dispute between an 18 year old male and a Ferguson Market clerk. A nationwide study conducted in 2013 by USA.com found that the average crime rate in Ferguson, Missouri, is 2,6885.38, which trumps the Missouri crime rate of 1,858.24 and the national average crime rate of 1,669.05. Officer Wilson spotted Michael Brown walking down the street wearing a hoodie, a red hat and yellow socks that matched the offenders description. Michael Brown’s hands were in his pockets, which perhaps gave the illusion (from a police officer’s perspective) that he could be holstering a weapon. The high crime rate alone was enough to justify officer Wilson’s feelings of uneasiness. Officer Wilson had to acknowledge that there was already a physical altercation with the Ferguson Market Clerk, so his defensiveness is valid. When officer Darren Wilson confronted Brown, Brown reached through the window of the police car, disrespecting the barrier that separates Brown from officer Wilson. Darren Wilson pleads that Michael Brown reached for his hosteled weapon forcing him to fire through Brown’s hand, which signifies the heightened severity of the situation. Because Brown’s physical gesture posed a direct threat to the safety of Darren Wilson, officer Wilson got out of his car to pursue Brown and shot him six times. While six shots seems inexcusable, we can relate to his heightened sense of perceived danger. Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown because Brown appeared to have an apparent intent to cause harm. The fact that he may not have a weapon in no way diminishes officer Wilson’s fear for his life. One of the central questions in the case of Michael Brown that was argued is whether officer Darren Wilson’s response to a situation that calls for instantaneous reactions could hold him accountable. The decision made by officer Wilson reflects an officer’s moral instinct to protect the public at any time and place that the peace is threatened.

As we learn from Chris Mooney in “The Science of Why Cops Shoot Young Black Men,” we are not “born with racial prejudices. We may never even have been taught them. Rather, prejudice draws on many of the same tools that help our minds figure out what’s good and what’s bad. In evolutionary terms, it’s efficient to quickly classify a grizzly bear as dangerous. The trouble comes when the brain uses similar processes to form negative views about groups of people.” A study conducted by Lewis Loflin, a former U.S. Army and military officer , in 2012 found that of the total 2,029 arrests made in Ferguson, Missouri, 558 were white/hispanic and 1,471 were black. It is entirely possible that officer Wilson reacted to many cues in addition to the race of Michael Brown. It has been argued that the six shots to Michael Brown’s body was both excessive and unnecessary. Perhaps police officers learn to be suspicious of individuals that the general public do not fear. Officer Wilson could have developed reflexes that we don’t have, causing him to react faster or with more force than we would.

Police officers lives are often threatened. They have an obligation to respect the rights of suspects. They also have a (sometimes conflicting) right to defend themselves against mortal danger. Under the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights, American law enforcement personnel is partially protected from investigation and prosecution arising from conduct during official performance of their duties, and provides them with privileges based on due process additional to those normally provided to other citizens. But police officers are not fully protected. This leaves them vulnerable to due process for a natural instinct. Michael Brown posed a threat to officer Wilson by neglecting to respect the barrier that separates the inside of the car from the outside of the car, while attempting to retrieve officer Wilson’s gun. As we learned from Sunil Dutta, an advocate for police safety and 17-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department, in “Column defending cops in Ferguson sparks online fury,” people should  “not challenge law enforcement — save that for lodging a complaint later. Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you.” We need to acknowledge that police officers are well trained to recognize threats and are also experts at defusing them or avoiding confrontations that might turn deadly or dangerous. If people simply cooperated with police officers, there would be fewer arrests and less violence as a result.

A study conducted by Police One showing the reaction time of a police officer when faced with different scenarios. The test subjects were 24 male volunteers recruited from an active-shooter training class at a regional SWAT conference. Each officer, equipped with a Glock training pistol, was to progress through 10 rooms in an abandoned school where an officer was to confront a suspect with a similar pistol at a distance of 10 feet. According to prior instruction, one-fifth of the suspects followed the officer’s order to surrender peacefully, whereas the rest, designated as attackers, were told to try to shoot the officer at any time they chose. Analysis showed that the suspects on average were able to fire in just 0.38 second after initial movement of their gun. Officers fired back in an average of 0.39 second after the suspect’s movement began. The officer and suspect effectively shot at similar times. Why should an officer be held responsible for a natural instinct? These numbers validate police officer’s rights to react in the way they do to certain situations. Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown’s hand out of pure response to the altercation. While the next six shots seems inexcusable, we can understand officer Wilson’s perceived sense of danger and excessive reaction to a potential violent situation. Effectively, it is either kill or be killed.

Neil Bruntrager, a lawyer for Officer McMellon, said, “According to State v. Anthony, once a defendant injects self-defense into a case, the prosecution bears the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Self-defense is an extremely difficult burden to carry in a court of law. The fear of imminent danger in law enforcement is a reasonable defense and may outbalance the burden of proof.

Finally, police officers, as a highly scrutinized group, should not be held responsible for a potential threat to their well-being and others around them. The burden we place on police officers, to protect the safety of everyone they encounter, is incompatible with their human instinct to protect themselves from danger. When we scrutinize their actions without considering how often they place themselves in danger on our behalf, we impose an unjust burden on them. The threats they recognize, that we might not, are mitigating circumstances.

Works Cited

Cassell, Paul. “Officer Wilson under Missouri law.” The Washington Post. 26 Nov. 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2016.

Levs, Josh. “Column defending cops in Ferguson sparks online fury.” CNN. Josh Levs. 20 Aug 2014. 28 Oct. 2016.

Lewinski, Bill. “New reaction-time study.” Police one. 26 May. 2011. 28 Oct. 2016.

Mooney, Chris. “The Science of Why Cops Shoot Young Black Men.” Mother Jones. 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2016.

“Ferguson, MO Crime Rate.” USA.com. 1 Jan. 2016. 9 Nov. 2016.