Statement on
Copaganda.
RJPMC sees the United States as a police state wherein federal and local law enforcement agencies are armed with weapons of war, some of which are banned under the Geneva convention, which they routinely use against their own civilian population. Police, politicians, media, and the legal profession engage in societal gaslighting to obscure the reality of the police state and utilize smear campaigns and victim blaming to excuse violence against civilians. We refer to this system of misinformation, gaslighting, and victim blaming as “copaganda.”
A common copaganda claim is that being a police officer is dangerous, and officers must use lethal force to defend themselves. The reality is that cops kill civilians at rates vastly disproportionately higher than cops are killed “in the line of duty.” Vancouver, Washington provides an illuminating example. In a 25-year span, the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) killed 16 civilians. Yet, in the 142 years VPD has existed, there has never been an officer killed by a civilian “in the line of duty.” There has only been ONE cop killed “in the line of duty” and that officer was killed by a Clark County Sherriff deputy, NOT A CIVILIAN.
As we’ve seen time and time again, law enforcement officers are perfectly capable of de-escalating and detaining mass shooters (armed with military grade weapons) without the use of lethal force. In other countries, like England or Wales, the vast majority of law enforcement officers are unarmed, yet these countries have lower rates of crime and lower rates of police deaths on the job. The myth that law enforcement require lethal weapons and that there are circumstances requiring lethal force is a lie propagated by the police state.
Many civilians who have survived or lost family to police violence and misconduct struggle to find legal representation because the legal system, and otherwise well-meaning attorneys, actively reinforce copaganda. Attorneys often reiterate copaganda talking points as reasoning for rejecting a case (you failed to comply, you resisted, you had a gun, you have a criminal record, etc.). By rejecting cases based on copaganda, attorneys not only reinforce and legitimize copaganda, but they indirectly communicate to law enforcement agencies that they can continue harming specific communities in specific circumstances with little-to-no legal consequence. In turn, law enforcement agencies have grown more emboldened.