I am truly weary, deep in my bones, of writing these columns about the killings of unarmed people of color by the police. Indeed, you may be weary of reading them. Still, our weariness is but a dim shadow that falls near the darkness of despair that a family is thrust into when a child or parent or sibling is lost, and that family must wonder if the use of deadly force was appropriate and whether justice will be served.
And so, we can’t stop focusing on these cases until there are no more cases on which to focus.
That is how Charles M. Blow begins his column in today's
New York Times, titled
In South Carolina, Shot in the Back as He Ran.
This is onn a day when the lead editorial in his paper is titled The Walter Scott Murder and the editorial board writes
The case underscores two problems that have become increasingly clear since the civic discord that erupted last year after the police killed black citizens in New York, Cleveland and Ferguson, Mo. The first, most pressing problem is that poorly trained and poorly supervised officers often use deadly force unnecessarily, particularly against minority citizens. The second is that the police get away with unjustly maiming or killing people by lying about the circumstances that prompted them to use force.
The editorial is thoughtful, and its willingness state bluntly thatn the police get away with unjustly maiming or killing people by lying about the circumstances that prompted them to use force is important.
I would argue that Blow puts our attention where it belongs: on the police, the police culture, and the acceptance of atttitudes that can at best be described as disparate in their approach to people of color, particularly of black men.
Consider:
This case is yet another in a horrifyingly familiar succession of cases that have elevated the issue of use of force, particularly deadly force, by officers against people of color and inflamed the conversation that surrounds it.
Please keep reading.
There is an erosion of trust in communities of color towards police: Blow cites CBS New polling that
has shown that a vast majority of blacks believe that the police are more likely to use deadly force against a black person than a white person (zero percent believe the inverse.) This is not good for the proper function of a civil society.
If law enforcement is not seen as part of the community but as hostile to it, then the experience of those experiencing that hostility becomes the experience of living in a police state. There is simply no other way to put it. And that impedes GOOD police (insofar as such exist) in doing their jobs, because as Blow puts it bluntly:
And the police are needed in society, so if you don’t trust them, whom do you call when help is truly needed?
Blow spends time on the details of the case, and on the technology that can make some difference, as video evidence has often provided proof of the egregiousness and even criminality of police behavior, and in the absence of such evidence police - for example in Ferguson - get away with murder.
But video evidence is insufficient, as those of us who remember the state acquittal in the Rodney King beating well remember. We also see some cases of attempting to change the law to make it illegal to video police without their permission. That IS a movement towards a police state mentality, and it is one we clearly see on a national level with the intelligence services and the FBI attempting to prevent any public oversight of much of what they do.
The issue is one of culture, not of technology.
Blow makes that clear.
He writes that the changes in culture are in many ways more important than the necessary changes in policy:
It must start with “good cops” no longer countenancing the behavior of “bad cops.” It will start with those good cops publicly and vociferously chastising and condemning their brethren when they are wrong. Their silence has never been — and is certainly no longer — suitable. We must hear from them, not necessarily from the rank-and-file but from those higher up the ladder.
Here I disagree in part - we need to hear from both. When other including superior officers stood by silently when Eric Garner was being subdued by a BANNED choke-hold, the police culture needs to be changed, does it not? Is it not in that case the responsibility of all officers not merely to file charges AFTER the incident, but to intervene to stop the killing of Garner?
Blow does not disagree with the Police Chief in N Charleston who wants to find the good in all people wherever possible. He was hoping that race would not be a reason for such an action as the murder of Walter Davis.
Blow responds
I, too, would hope that nobody would ever do something like that, but it seems to me that the end of the line has come for hoping alone. Now is the time for fundamental change: not just in one particular case or with one particular officer, but also systemically.
He notes that a Presidential panel has recommended policy changes, and then concludes
And now is the time for not only considering the interplay of race and power in these cases, but also the ability to register and respect humanity itself. That requires a change of culture.
I agree, but would argue that change in culture is far broader than that of police departments, not when a large portion of the opposition to the President starts with the fact that he is Black and therefore must be illegitimate - all the approaches to painting him as other start with the color of his skin somehow making him less than American.
The Times editorial concludes
But states and local governments need to understand that the growing outrage over wrongful death cases, like the one in North Charleston, undermines trust in law enforcement and presents a clear danger to the civic fabric. The country needs to confront this issue directly and get this problem under control.
The country will not confront the issue properly until it honestly confronts the racism and other issues in this country that underlie policing that is brutal towards those who can be classified as "other" on grounds of religion, national origin, skin color, sexual orientation, gender, age, or any combination thereof.
That one political party is still willing to use fear-mongering as a means of getting and keeping power is bad enough.
That we have religious organizations that under the color of the First Amendment preach racism and homophobia in a fashion that encourages violence and denies protection to the legitimate humanity of those targeted undermines the very notion of a liberal democracy.
The current issue is police killing of people of color.
It is far broader, both in national policies of counter-terrorism and intelligence, and in a culture as a whole in which rather than seeing the election of a man of color as President still has major cultural and political institutions that see that election - twice by a majority of those voting, something last achieved by Ronald Reagan - as an indication of the illegitimacy of the government and as a justification for untrammeled use of force against people of color.
I know my words go further than those of either the >i>Times editorial or of the magnificent column by Charles M. Blow.
I intended that.
I think we must as a society honestly confront our failings, for if we do not, the real rot that is undermining our society will continue.