I have so few words--but lots of thoughts--about the ongoing deaths of Black people at the hands of police. Let's have a conversation in the comments section, shall we?
I just heard a very interesting interview with reporter LZ Granderson on ABC News that reads strongly on Claire's wonderful prompt. Here's a link but note that you'll have to skip to 9:00:46 to hear what he has to say (i.e. nine hours and 46 seconds into the clip).
Among a number of remarks I found valuable, his suggestions for removing obvious conflicts of interest necessary for building trust between minority communities and law enforcement) through legislation was especially strong for me.
(The interview references an LA column by Granderson; here's a link to that:
The most practical measure that would have an immediate effect would be to disarm the police. But like every proposal related to gun control, practicality is almost a deterrent to making changes. But the idea is worth pressing. It would take just one police force to do this to break the dam. Also, disarming would sort out those who are cathected to guns as part of the policing profession and those who are not. A mini step in this direction would be to only permit the carrying of weapons after a long probationary period (5 years), which would compel novice police to learn and master the arts of conflict de-escalation without the use or threat of deadly force.
Because we’re dealing with Americans, and Americans usually have to be incentivized financially to do the right thing, perhaps police could incentivized not to draw/use weapons. For example, raises and promotions would be contingent on not using or threatening deadly force.
I know nothing about Brooklyn Center, but I do know about St Louis MO, which is probably a generalizable case. From NYC to small communities, police forces serve as revenue collectors, by handing out tickets for various violations and apprehending those who fail to pay fines. It is in this context that deadly events such as the one in Brooklyn Center are likely to occur: the ubiquitous traffic stop for a bad tail light, the running of plates to see if there are outstanding unpaid fines, etc. Racial profiling is what leads to the targeting of specific individuals, but the revenue collecting function is the motivating factor. So another suggestion would be to abolish the revenue collection function from policing.
I share your concern. I have no answers. I am also, however, concerned about how we are discussing race and issues around race. There is no air in the room and we seem to have settled into a dichotomy— either you are a virulent racist or a rabid anti-racist— that is regressive and potentially dangerous (indoctrination). I cannot believe all of this is happening as Chauvin is on trial and I was alive for Rodney King. If Chauvin walks, I fear that all hell will break loose and it may anyway if he is found guilty. Both sides have armed militias. I see some progress with Chauvin because people are testifying against him from within— but I don’t count on it making a difference. I am also concerned that when it comes to issues of race, we are too easily divided and fearful and thus easily played. I have taken your lead and engaged with smart conservatives and listened to them— and listened to Ben Shapiro and the like. The only way out of this mess that I can see is conversation, or debate, or negotiation where both sides of the aisle start listening to each other instead of shutting each other up. And calling each other names. Unambiguous murder caught on tape should land you in jail, but we also need to talk about guns and cops and people who can carry guns. I am not anti-cop. Anti excessive force. Anti racial profiling but we are not going to move forward on issues of race if we cannot discuss the issues more honestly and openly.
I love Jamie Raskin's proposal, but wonder how it can be implemented? Here in the South, specifically in North Carolina where I live and can therefore speak about with some real-world understanding, white supremacists in law enforcement is a serious problem. They are not only in local police forces, but in Sherriff's departments (especially in Sherriff's Departments), state police, and even campus police, particularly in the UNC state system. All of these levels of policing are paid for and managed by different levels of government. That said, according to Investopedia, "Between 1977 and 2017 police budgets grew from $42.3 billion to $114.5 billion, according to analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Police spending at the local level varies enormously by place and has become more reliant on federal money in recent years." So restricting funds at the federal level is absolutely possible. That is, I propose a kind of Title IX for policing that would empty police pockets for certain violations. How shall these violations be discovered? Well, a noninvasive step would be to make all police officers sign an agreement on a annual basis indicating that they understand that any participation in white supremacist activities, including but not limited to displays of insignia at their homes, on their vehicles, on their clothing, and on their skin (tattoos) will result in immediate dismissal and loss of pension. Now, how do we find out who they are? One way would be a state hotline run by a non profit human rights group 888-BAD-COPS to receive tips (Remember: if you see something, say something after 9-11?) We treated terrorism seriously with such actions after 9-11. Police violence against people of color is terrorism. We should have the same tools in place. Further, I would argue that we need required anti=hate curricula required in all elementary and secondary education, also a big receiver of federal funds. Systemic racism continues not just because white people have privilege or because of small groups of haters: it also continues because people of color, specifically poor people of color, do not receive education about racial hatred in school. We need to stem the flow of new bigots as well as addressing the problem of those who are slinging guns today. And please Feds: stop sending military gear to our town and cities! Enough!
Thank you for this.
I offer this link today from The Guardian, one of the best sources of news there is, in my opinion: US Police and Public Officials donated to the Defense Fund of Kyle Rittenhouse who murdered two Black protestors in cold blood. See here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/16/us-police-officers-public-officials-crowdfunding-website-data-breach
I just heard a very interesting interview with reporter LZ Granderson on ABC News that reads strongly on Claire's wonderful prompt. Here's a link but note that you'll have to skip to 9:00:46 to hear what he has to say (i.e. nine hours and 46 seconds into the clip).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At49xyRhcH8
Among a number of remarks I found valuable, his suggestions for removing obvious conflicts of interest necessary for building trust between minority communities and law enforcement) through legislation was especially strong for me.
(The interview references an LA column by Granderson; here's a link to that:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-04-13/daunte-wright-shooting-police-race-justice-lz-granderson
A few random, disorganized thoughts.
The most practical measure that would have an immediate effect would be to disarm the police. But like every proposal related to gun control, practicality is almost a deterrent to making changes. But the idea is worth pressing. It would take just one police force to do this to break the dam. Also, disarming would sort out those who are cathected to guns as part of the policing profession and those who are not. A mini step in this direction would be to only permit the carrying of weapons after a long probationary period (5 years), which would compel novice police to learn and master the arts of conflict de-escalation without the use or threat of deadly force.
Because we’re dealing with Americans, and Americans usually have to be incentivized financially to do the right thing, perhaps police could incentivized not to draw/use weapons. For example, raises and promotions would be contingent on not using or threatening deadly force.
I know nothing about Brooklyn Center, but I do know about St Louis MO, which is probably a generalizable case. From NYC to small communities, police forces serve as revenue collectors, by handing out tickets for various violations and apprehending those who fail to pay fines. It is in this context that deadly events such as the one in Brooklyn Center are likely to occur: the ubiquitous traffic stop for a bad tail light, the running of plates to see if there are outstanding unpaid fines, etc. Racial profiling is what leads to the targeting of specific individuals, but the revenue collecting function is the motivating factor. So another suggestion would be to abolish the revenue collection function from policing.
I share your concern. I have no answers. I am also, however, concerned about how we are discussing race and issues around race. There is no air in the room and we seem to have settled into a dichotomy— either you are a virulent racist or a rabid anti-racist— that is regressive and potentially dangerous (indoctrination). I cannot believe all of this is happening as Chauvin is on trial and I was alive for Rodney King. If Chauvin walks, I fear that all hell will break loose and it may anyway if he is found guilty. Both sides have armed militias. I see some progress with Chauvin because people are testifying against him from within— but I don’t count on it making a difference. I am also concerned that when it comes to issues of race, we are too easily divided and fearful and thus easily played. I have taken your lead and engaged with smart conservatives and listened to them— and listened to Ben Shapiro and the like. The only way out of this mess that I can see is conversation, or debate, or negotiation where both sides of the aisle start listening to each other instead of shutting each other up. And calling each other names. Unambiguous murder caught on tape should land you in jail, but we also need to talk about guns and cops and people who can carry guns. I am not anti-cop. Anti excessive force. Anti racial profiling but we are not going to move forward on issues of race if we cannot discuss the issues more honestly and openly.
I love Jamie Raskin's proposal, but wonder how it can be implemented? Here in the South, specifically in North Carolina where I live and can therefore speak about with some real-world understanding, white supremacists in law enforcement is a serious problem. They are not only in local police forces, but in Sherriff's departments (especially in Sherriff's Departments), state police, and even campus police, particularly in the UNC state system. All of these levels of policing are paid for and managed by different levels of government. That said, according to Investopedia, "Between 1977 and 2017 police budgets grew from $42.3 billion to $114.5 billion, according to analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Police spending at the local level varies enormously by place and has become more reliant on federal money in recent years." So restricting funds at the federal level is absolutely possible. That is, I propose a kind of Title IX for policing that would empty police pockets for certain violations. How shall these violations be discovered? Well, a noninvasive step would be to make all police officers sign an agreement on a annual basis indicating that they understand that any participation in white supremacist activities, including but not limited to displays of insignia at their homes, on their vehicles, on their clothing, and on their skin (tattoos) will result in immediate dismissal and loss of pension. Now, how do we find out who they are? One way would be a state hotline run by a non profit human rights group 888-BAD-COPS to receive tips (Remember: if you see something, say something after 9-11?) We treated terrorism seriously with such actions after 9-11. Police violence against people of color is terrorism. We should have the same tools in place. Further, I would argue that we need required anti=hate curricula required in all elementary and secondary education, also a big receiver of federal funds. Systemic racism continues not just because white people have privilege or because of small groups of haters: it also continues because people of color, specifically poor people of color, do not receive education about racial hatred in school. We need to stem the flow of new bigots as well as addressing the problem of those who are slinging guns today. And please Feds: stop sending military gear to our town and cities! Enough!