racism

A Perspective on Sandra Bland and the Issue of Resisting Arrest: Perception versus Law

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 2 Comments

My friend, Kent Harrop, wrote the following editorial on his blog about the Sandra Bland incident. I encourage you to read it before you read my response. You can find it here, https://greenpreacher.wordpress.com/2015/07/24/a-moral-emergency-the-death-of-sandra-bland

The issues raised about the circumstances surrounding the arrest and subsequent suicide of Sandra Bland are genuine. Racism and the difference in treatment of black people by many, but not the majority, in law enforcement is a fact in this country. Yet, having watched the entire video, I am struck by the fact that if the woman signed the ticket and fought the issue in court, this would not have ended the way it did.

I am not trying to explain away the officer’s actions or blame the victim, but we need to look at the incident in context and as a whole. Since we lack all of the facts at this point, a fair and complete analysis is impossible.

Nevertheless, we certainly can examine the incident as it underscores the issue of racism. Clearly, racism is a scourge in this country. It is rampant, insidious, and destructive. It is difficult to understand how people come to hold these beliefs, unless we glimpse into their past. Racism is a learned behavior.

I disagree with Ty Burr’s words mentioned in Kent’s article, ‘This is the tale of two stories, the official version and the one we can see with our own eyes’.

There is only one version recorded on video. Our reaction is a combination of our own perceptions, experiences, and opinions. What happened in the incident is there for all to see and hear. What transpired after, and why she was in jail for three days, remains unclear. The full investigation is not complete and there should not be a rush to judgment.

Up to the point the Officer decided to remove her from the car, he was polite and professional. Once he asked her to step from the car, she contributed as much to escalating the situation. Like it or not, we bear a responsibility to act in a civil manner despite what we may perceive as someone else’s failure to do so.

Assuming for the sake of argument the officer was wrong does not justify resisting arrest. It is not in the best interest of our society to think such resistance is acceptable; it is too susceptible to a range of interpretation.

None of us have seen the officer’s report. None of us know the reason for his deciding to remove her from the car. However, an officer can ask someone to step from the vehicle if he or she has concerns about safety, both the officer’s and the driver’s.

There is no constitutional right to resist arrest. If the officer says you are under arrest, then you are under arrest. There are a number of legal avenues to pursue if an arrest is unlawful, through the courts. That is the proper place, not in the street.

No one is in any position at this point to determine if the officer was justified. The reports of the stop and the reasons behind officer’s actions are still not public. If the agency deserves any criticism, it is in its failure to make those reports immediately available. We have seen this time and time again. Delay adds to the conspiracy mentality. That arrest report, unquestionably a public document, should have been made public.

I do know that officers deserve the benefit of the doubt during the incident to protect themselves. Once the matter is in the court, they can then be held to a high standard to justify their actions.

The issue of Bland being arrested for a minor traffic offense is not accurate. She was not arrested for the motor vehicle infraction; that was the reason the officer stopped her. She was arrested for failure to comply with what appeared to be a lawful request to get out of the car. That is all we have at this point. Why did he do that? What was his justification? All legitimate questions. The officer bears the burden of proving it in court, detailing the probable cause, and validating the arrest. The street is not the place to argue that.

Since the medical examiner ruled the death a suicide, I can only assume there were other issues in that woman’s life we are not privy to. Having had hundreds of encounters on the street with people in all sorts of circumstances, I know officers develop a sense for people that are in a stressful or emotional state. From what I saw on the video, the officer’s initial conversation was polite, professional, and geared to evaluate the person. Doing that is critical to surviving as an officer.

Did Bland pose a threat? Probably not. Should the officer have demanded she put out the cigarette? No. Yet it doesn’t alter the fact that Bland contributed to the escalation. In her own words, “I can’t wait to get to court.” She should have, she would be alive and, perhaps, in the near future cashing a check for a violation of her rights.

None of the above alters the fact that on a daily basis in this country, Police Officers target minorities. Not all officers, not even a majority. However. if even one officer targets a person based on race that is a crime. There is much room for open and honest discussion of this issue. Much room for demanding change within our society.

It starts with education. Learning that despite differences in appearance or cultural norms or social standing we are all human beings entitled to fair and equitable treatment.

It is important we evaluate incidents once we have all the evidence. To do so prematurely leads to misinformation or worse. Recall the Michael Brown “Hands up don’t shoot” phenomenon that caused so much destruction. It did not happen the way it was initially portrayed, and the truth got lost in the media storm.

Knowing the full story, recognizing the deleterious affect racism has on us all, and using the courts to right all wrongs is the only way to deal with these incidents with any hope of eliminating them.

 

Hobbling Justice to Satisfy a Bloodlust

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

By now the whole world knows something of the situation in Baltimore.  A man in custody of the Baltimore Police department dies and the inevitable peaceful protests turn violent.

The reaction in the country spans the entire spectrum from “send in the National Guard and start shooting people to Baltimore brought this on themselves.”

Depending on where you fall in this spectrum, either the cops are thugs or those throwing rocks, looting, and burning buildings are.

As with most things, it is much more complicated than that, but complex problems and the required complex responses do not make for good TV sound bites. 

Most wouldn’t, or sadly couldn’t  read it anyway which is another part of the problem.

It is impossible to sum up the issue, let alone propose a solution, in a 140 character Tweet or other such social media forum.  That doesn’t stop them from trying.

What I am about to say will likely be viewed by some of my friends and colleagues in Law Enforcement as heresy, but it falls upon them to refute it.

The character and nature of law enforcement has changed over the last several decades, mostly for the better but in several significant ways for the worse.

There was a time when the majority of law enforcement had daily, personal contact with the public not because of calls for service or responses to 911 calls, but from being out on the street walking the neighborhoods.  That all began to change with the movement to motorized patrol in a quest for efficiency and speed of response.

But the laws of unintended consequences kicked in.  We became faster in responding to problems at the cost of our separation from the public on a day to day basis, making us blind to the little problems as they developed. Those little problems eventually become big ones.  

We didn’t see the gangs taking over corners until it had already occured.  

We didn’t see graffiti growing until it was everywhere.

We focused on Patrol officers writing summonses for traffic violations and other such minor offenses as a way to measure efficiency.  When crime statistics went down we claimed it was embracing the “broken window” theory, if they went up, we attibuted it to factors outside our control.

The second error we made, or at least went along willingly, was the war on drugs.   The single biggest waste of resources ever.  Police departments that had one or two officers assigned to drug units suddenly assigned two and three times that amount.

Federal task forces were formed. Federal, state, and local law enforcement officers brought in.  The resources of the FBI, normally not tasked with drug cases, were added to the mix.  We seized larger and larger amounts of narcotics.  Put more and more people in prison.

We also created opportunity and incentive.  An incentive to sell drugs and the opportunity to generate an income with little or no education or skills.  All one had to do was accept the possibility of  the occasional arrest and stint in prison.

We also created a need for those in the business to protect themselves and their territory, thus the proliferation of weapons.

And, we let natue take it’s natural course.  If one is born into an environment where your family business is narcotics distribution, it is likely you’ll follow in those footsteps.

And you know what happened as a consequence of this policy?

The price of drugs dropped, the availability increased.  Yet we all went happily along.

And do you know why we did these two things?

Money.  

State and Federal Civil Seizure laws proliferated.   Police departments siezed the cash, vehicles, and property of those we investigated.  Sometimes, we moved to seize the property without even pursuing criminal cases because the legal requirements in court were easier than proving a criminal case.

Cities, towns, and states brought in revenue from motor vehicle violations and whole departments were created to deal with the influx of cash.

We did it with the best of intentions. No one embraced the philosophy of strong drug enforcement more than me when I was on the job.  Being away from it and having the benefit of hindsight and mountains of evidence to validate this opinion has changed my perspective.

You cannot arrest your way out of a health problem. Just look at the number of overdose deaths from opiates, the numbers are rising despite our enforcement efforts.

What does this have to do with Baltimore? The riots and rage arising from these incidents involving the police are symptoms of the problem.

Whenever there is a violent encounter with the police, those that live in an environment of hopelessness see it as another example of how things never change.  The system is stacked against them.

Those that are fortunate enough to live outside that environment only see the violence, they do not see the cause.

In the case of the Baltimore cops, there is another troubling aspect. The rush to judgement.   These six officers are innocent of these charges and will remain so until such time as a jury finds them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

It is the foundation of our criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence.   No one should forget that.

Opinions of their guilt are not only meaningless, they are dangerous.  It is dangerous for anyone to assume the guilt of anyone absent a conviction in a court of law.   It would serve us well for everyone to remember that.

Police officers assuming that those they have arrested are guilty and entitlted to less than humanitarian treatment by virtue of that arrest are as wrong as someone standing on the street hurling bricks at the police because they assume all cops are racist and prone to brutality.

Cops are human beings subjected to the same flaws as everyone else, although most learn to rise above that and perform admirably.

I hope that those in the position of authority in Baltimore, the prosecutor and those responsible for investigating what happened in the back of that police van, remember that truth is the goal not a politically expedient path of least resistance.

If the evidence supports the charges, and these officers are one day convicted then that will be justice.  If, on the other hand, the evidence contradicts these charges then these officers are pawns in a game of politics that perpetuates the very problem of those in power deciding what is the truth.

If power determines truth, then this country is in deep trouble.

Those Opposed to Displaying the Flag

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

I came upon a troubling story out of California, the University of California at Irvine to be specific.  The story concerned a proposal by six members of the University’s Legislative Council (Student Government) to prohibit the display of the American Flag in the lobby of the Student Government building.

Even more troubling was a letter, signed by a number of professors and other academics, in support of the resolution. (http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/03/11/uc-irvine-professors-sign-online-letter-support-campus-flag-ban/).

The line that caught my eye was this one.

“The resolution recognized that nationalism, including U.S. nationalism, often contributes to racism and xenophobia, and that the paraphernalia of nationalism is in fact often used to intimidate.”

These professors claim that nationalism, including US nationalism, contributes to racism and xenophobia.

They are correct and, sadly, they still miss the point.

What they miss is the Constitution of this country guarantees the freedom to express these opinions. A Constitution supported and defended at a high cost; one symbolized by that same flag.

The problem is not the flag or other symbols; the problem stems from the meaning and values we assign to them. That some attribute any semblance of xenophobia or racism to the American flag means they have never read, or understood, the Constitution and the ideals the flag represents.

When I see the flag, when I stand during the National Anthem, when I watch a flag draped coffin coming home, I am thankful I live in a country where some of us are willing to die to support and protect those that may hold a different opinion.

In this country, freedom of expression is the key to everything.  Those six members of the legislative council, as well as the professors signing the letter in support, are entitled to their opinions and every opportunity to express them.

Instead of proposing a ban on displaying the flag, perhaps they should focus on the underlying issues that do need to be addressed.  Xenophobia, racism, and discrimination are alive and well in this country.  Focus on addressing the causes of those attitudes. Do not attack a symbol that, for most Americans and those that want to become part of this great society, represents the best of this country, our guarantee of freedom of expression.

That symbolism, represented by the flag, is worth keeping on display as a reminder to us all that this freedom comes at a cost.

Cold Memories and Critical Thinking

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

The recent cold brought back memories of when I was a young boy growing up in Cumberland. We had a trash barrel in the backyard where, a few times a week, we would burn our trash.

I know this is giving the environmentalists among you nightmares, but it was a different time.

During the cold months, my father and I would stand close to the flames.  He sometimes told me stories of the Korean War, fighting in temperatures of minus 30 degrees.  He hated the cold.

I was thinking about this in light of some recent headlines.

In one headline, state legislatures want to eliminate funding for Advanced Placement History classes, because these classes are critical of America.  According to one of the Oklahoma lawmakers, these classes only teach what is “wrong with America.”

The other headline is from Rudolph Giuliani talking about President Obama.

“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America. He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up, through love of this country.”

Giuliani believes Obama is too critical of past American policies and decisions.

How does this all relate to Cumberland, Rhode Island in the winters of the 60’s you ask?

It matters because our government made decisions, against the evidence, sending my then 18-year-old father to Korea.  These decisions put him, and thousands of other Marines, at the Chosin Reservoir in North Korea in November of 1950, surrounded and outnumbered by the Chinese.

General MacArthur ignored evidence of a sizeable Chinese presence on the border.  He ignored his own intelligence reports that the Chinese might enter the war; in fact, they had already crossed the Yalu River.

The Truman administration ignored a message from the Chinese, delivered by the Indian Ambassador to China, that if the US crossed the 38th parallel, China would respond militarily.

The horrors experienced by my father haunted him his whole life.

I have another memory from those years; my father screaming in the middle of the night, thrashing around on the bed, my mother desperately trying to hold him until the nightmares, reliving the battles, drove him to exhaustion and he fell asleep.

I believe those experiences contributed to my father’s battle with alcoholism and death at the relatively young age of 65.

To argue that we need eliminate classes that educate our future leaders in critical analysis is ludicrous. This country needs more critical thinking, not less.

The decisions in Korea were not an aberration.  In 1965, we did it again, sending American troops into the wrong place, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons despite knowing the impossibility of the mission.

During WWII, we supported Ho Chi Minh against the Japanese yet, twenty years later, we sent our soldiers and Marines to fight him. It cost the lives of almost 60000 Americans, along with millions of Vietnamese. We failed to understand the nature of the conflict.

We did it again in Iraq, ignoring or fabricating intelligence, in pursuit of a doomed policy.

In each case there was evidence against the efficacy of those decisions, we knew it, we ignored it, and we did not learn from it.

Giuliani says President Obama does not love this country because he is often critical of it. Giuliani has it all wrong.  No one demonstrates love of country better than through a willingness to seek the truth, no matter how critical or difficult, in pursuit of improving our future decision-making processes.

I understand sometimes going to war is inevitable.

However, critical analysis shows there are opportunities to avoid them. Perhaps, if critical thinking took center stage rather than blind patriotism or hubris, we might have found such an alternative.

The freedom to criticize government is the foundation of our political system. Freedom of speech is the First Amendment for good reason. The founders recognized the absolute necessity of open and free discourse without fear of governmental intrusion.

Critical analysis of past actions can lead to a better future.  Many of the founding fathers owned slaves.  It took almost 70 years after the creation of the Constitution before we abolished slavery.

“All Men are Created Equal.” When these words first appeared on paper, All Men meant white men.  Black men were not included until the Civil War and women not until much later.

It was critical analysis of the errors of the past that righted those wrongs.

Legislative discussions should not be about reducing funding for advanced courses; it should be for increasing the funding.

Perhaps, with a stronger understanding of all the good this country does, tempered by recognizing our weaknesses and mistakes, future generations will not send young men and women into the nightmares of warfare absent full, and continuous, critical analysis.

Really? ‘Liking’ on Facebook is Now a Racist Act

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

I came across a headline yesterday (December 2, 2014) that caught my eye.  The headline, from Boston.com, read

Internet Turns on Once Beloved ‘Ferguson Hug’ Cop

The link to the article is here. The ‘Ferguson Hug’ Cop is the one from the photo of the white Police Sergeant hugging a crying black youth.

The section that caused me a great deal of pause was the following;

“Writer Yesha Callahan questioned Sgt. Barnum’s sincerity in a piece today on The Root. “You have to wonder if this is just an act for Barnum and a way to gain notoriety. Because liking a profile photo that states ‘I am Darren Wilson’ seems to contradict his views on police officers and their relationship building with black people. Especially when you choose also to side with a police officer who killed a black man and those who support that officer,” Callahan wrote.”

Are you kidding me?  Suddenly some innocuous act on a social media board translates into an act of Racism.  Unbelievable.

The vitriolic level of the response to any support of now former Officer Darren Wilson is shocking.

The officer in the now famous picture, Sgt. Barnum, hugging the teary-eyed Devonte Hart, is a more accurate indicator of how the overwhelming majority of Police Officer interact with people of color.

But this doesn’t sit well with those that choose to perpetuate the falsehoods of the Ferguson incident.

This wasn’t a shooting of an innocent, harmless person in the act of surrendering, arms raised in compliance.

This was a terrible situation in which an officer was forced to fight for his life. There was no color line here.  It was all one of survival.

Yet, because Sgt. Barnum showed his support for Officer Wilson, after he went through the Grand Jury process that returned a No True Bill on criminal charges, despite his actions in that photo, the sincerity of his comments, he is a racist.

Unbelievable.

The line in the quote from writer Yesha Callahan that is the most troubling is the last one “Especially when you choose also to side with a police officer who killed a black man and those who support that officer,”  The “black man” conveniently leaves out certain aspects and actions that day of that ‘black man’.

This may be an unpopular concept among those violently protesting this incident, but if Mr. Brown hadn’t assaulted and robbed the store owner, had submitted to the arrest, he’d be alive today. He bears much of the responsibility here.  We need to remember that.

No don’t misunderstand me.  Racism is alive and well in this country.  On both sides of the color divide.

Many people of color find it hard to believe white people are not racist.  Many white people do, in fact, hold prejudices based on race.

These are learned behaviors.  Taught by our upbringing, but not immune to change.  The violent protests, flag burning, and looting only serve to reinforce those stereotypes, not ameliorate them.

And believing that every Police Officer is a racist is judging someone for what they are, not who they are.  No less an embracing of a false stereotype than any other held prejudice.

If change is the goal, it will only come from education and understanding.  As long as the nightly news shows people running from looted buildings carrying televisions and Nike sneakers, the stereotype will only persist and flourish.

Instead of standing in a line blocking interstate highways, stand in a line and vote. Stand up for what you believe in with thoughtfulness and reason, not violence.

And be careful what you “like” on Facebook.