“This is an attempt to intimidate the movement for community control of the police by suggesting that protests against police crimes are hate crimes,” said Ted Pearson of the Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression in an interview with Chicagoist. “The intention is to suggest police are somehow being victimized by rhetoric and agitation against police crimes/for police accountability and they need this law to protect them.” “Pearson also noted that many of the cosponsors on the bill are former officers themselves, such as Ald. Willie Cochran. CAARPR has been pushing for an elected civilian police accountability board—something that would go much further than some of Emanuel’s proposed reforms—and Pearson says they’ve received a large amount of support from Cochran’s ward.” “Do we really need this bill? Is there any evidence?” asked Pearson. “Why do we need this if it’s not for intimidating the movement?”

Pearson asks an excellent question: “Is there any evidence?” Where are the studies that point toward increased deadly, physical attacks against police officers? All available evidence shows that attacks against police officers have decreased. When ordinary citizens are impacted by violence—especially when those citizens are of African descent—empirical study upon empirical study is called for in order to enact legislation and impact legislation. Not so with blue lives matter bills.

Earlier this year, a state senator from Virginia put forth a bill to completely hide the names of police officers from the public.

State Sen. John A. Cosgrove Jr. (R-Chesapeake) — citing that he knew many police officers and their families — said: “The culture is not one of respect for law enforcement anymore. It’s really, ‘How, how can we get these guys? What can we do?’ . . . Police officers are much more in jeopardy. There’s no nefarious intent behind the bill.” … Although other states have made moves to shield the identities of some officers, none would go as far as the proposal in Virginia. … Kevin Carroll, president of the Virginia Fraternal Order of Police union, said he knew of one instance when a citizen had taken an officer’s name and committed financial fraud, adding that the potential existed in other cases for danger to an officer’s family. “This is not about trying to keep information from the public, to have secret police,” Carroll said.” But it is about wanting to keep our officers safe.”

“One instance.” Once again, the deference shown to law enforcement is mind-boggling.

Cosgrove’s bill, which had been passed by the state Senate, was allowed to expire by a House subcommittee in February of this year. It would have made the names of police part of their personnel record and thus private. The Police Officer’s Bill of Rights in California makes the disciplinary records of police officers part of their personnel record—thus private, and out of the reach of the public. While Cosgrove’s attempt was unsuccessful, there are undoubtedly others waiting in the wings for their shot.

Police officers seek to shield themselves and what they do from scrutiny and accountability at all costs. If they really cared about their own safety, they would be bending over backward to prove that the safety and well-being of the communities and neighborhoods they patrol was their main concern. If they really cared about their own safety, they would be overwhelmed at the level of support they would receive from communities that feel like they are under siege, from communities that simply want safety. But since it’s not really a part of their job description to serve and protect communities of color in particular, this is where we find ourselves.

It’s not shielding—it’s hiding. And it will continue to be a point of strife.