"If there was no underage drinking, there would be no underage drinking busts, and the cops would have that much more time to serve and protect against more serious crimes" ... Why in the world should the police prioritize this way? Allow me to rephrase with a little hyperbole (since I have already participated in "hypocrisy of the highest order." "If there were no jaywalking, there would be no jaywalking busts, and the cops would have that much more time to serve and protect against murderers" ... Shouldn't our police protect us against major crimes before protecting against minor crimes? Is it unreasonable to expect to be protected from others before being protected from ourselves? Breaking into a vehicle is a perfect example of a crime that is harmful to the rest of society. Unless drunks are spilling out of a house or there is an unacceptable amount of noise coming from a party, there is no real harm that is being brought to society by throwing a party. Once the police force decides to protect us from external harm, I will stop complying about them misappropriating their resources.
I am not saying it is a good idea to break the law. I am not saying you should ever fight a police officer, especially one with a warrant. I also understand that the excise police are not responsible for general law enforcement, so I am not concerned with their actions in this case. What I am saying is that we should not feel terrified by both local crime and the local police force. I don't think it is hypocritical to expect safety in my community while partaking in socially harmless behavior in the comfort of my private residence.
Michael Carter
senior
off campus
Sept. 2
