"For the children" is a rallying cry for subversion of rights that usually causes an alarm to go off in the frontal lobe of libertarians and criminal defense lawyers alike.  A therapist used it here a couple of days ago, bringing down a rain of criticism that shocked him, because he thought it was a powerful justification.  While the knee-jerk reaction is to evoke immediately harsh scrutiny on any claim that a law is vital "for the children," there are indeed times when it's true.

Radley Balko at the Agitator told this horrible story about a 12 year old that makes the point, though coming from the opposite direction than one would ordinarily expect.

[Dymond Milburn] a blue van drove up and three men jumped out rushing toward her. One of them grabbed her saying, “You’re a prostitute. You’re coming with me.”

Dymond grabbed onto a tree and started screaming, “Daddy, Daddy, Daddy.” One of the men covered her mouth. Two of the men beat her about the face and throat.

What would you do if this was your child?  If you're anything like me, the possibility that you would do these men as much harm as possible to protect your child is strong.  There is nothing more worth fighting for than my child, and there is no risk I wouldn't assume for my child's protection. 

As it turned out, the three men were plain-clothed Galveston police officers who had been called to the area regarding three white prostitutes soliciting a white man and a black drug dealer.

After the incident, Dymond was hospitalized and suffered black eyes as well as throat and ear drum injuries.

Three weeks later, according to the lawsuit, police went to Dymond’s school, where she was an honor student, and arrested her for assaulting a public servant.

Her father was arrested as well, presumably for trying to protect his child.  As it turned out, the police made a mistake and were two blocks away from the location where they should have been.  They concede the error, but as usual contend that the officers behaved properly and followed all procedures.

Law and order types will explain that the police, albeit mistaken, were just doing their jobs.  While this is questionable as a matter of fact, given that three police officers couldn't manage to seize a 12 year old girl without beating her and causing her substantial harm, let's assume that this is relatively accurate.  Are we, as a society, prepared to sacrifice an innocent child on the alter of police compliance?

Consider: Had Dymond been carrying a stick of some sort and been perceived as presenting a threat of harm by a weapon to the officers, causing one to pull out his handgun and demand compliance, would her father have been justified, watching this from his front door, in using his legal sidearm to shoot and kill the officer?

Most people would struggle with this hypothetical, as no one would want to see an officer killed over a mistake. On the other hand, from the father's perspective, a man (regardless of whether or not he knew the man to be an officer) appears to be about to shoot and kill his daughter.  Does the hypo change if the bullet about to strike his innocent daughter comes from a police officer's weapon?

If the answer is that no civilian can justifiably shoot and kill an officer in the performance of his duty, would you have Dymond's father left with a dead daughter by dint of a police mistake while he stood there doing nothing.  Is anyone ready to let an innocent child die to avoid a violent confrontation with police?

Radley entitled this story "another isolated incident," noting the irony of how these situations are invariably described as "isolated" while comprising nearly daily fodder for the blawgosphere.  We have a never-ending stream of isolated incidents.  That mistake happen is obviously true, and possibly beyond the control of police officers as they, like us, are human.  But how mistakes alter the dynamic is important to recognize.

Those who apologize for the police, and see their errors as having no discernible impact on the propriety of reactions by civilians, are hiding their heads in the sand.  While we may have a constitutional right to defend ourselves, I would argue further that we have a moral obligation to do so, and our children as well.  No one should be compelled to suffer a dead child because a police officer erred.  In this case, the worst that came of it was an arrest for assaulting a police officer, which can be easily dismissed by any prosecutor who isn't entirely brain-dead.  A dead child can't be fixed as easily.

But when the police make a mistake and put the life of an innocent person at risk, they create the potential harm that befalls them.  As such mistakes happen regularly, it presents a very real legal scenario.  I would propose that the proper rule is that any action taken to protect the life and physical safety of a person, particularly a child, from police engaged in the mistaken performance of their duty should be fully protected to the same extent it would be against any other person.

The primary fault belongs to the police, who alone are responsible for their error.  It provides an incentive for police to be accurate in determining that the individuals against whom they act are the correct ones, at the correct address, for the correct reason.  Civilians cannot do this for the police, and should not suffer the consequences of each "isolated" incident of harm following police mistakes.

The rationale for this rule is that we need to have it "for the children." 

Update:  From the Agitator, one of the police officers, Sean Stewart, who attacked Dymond Milburn named Galveston 2008 "Officer of the Year!"  Perfect.