Chicago is the latest city to propose a hate crime law for attacks on police, firefighters, or other emergency personnel. Proposed last week and scheduled for a hearing in late June, the Chicago ordinance would also include persons whose past employment was in law enforcement or emergency medical services. Although other personnel are included in the proposed ordinance, the move would essentially be a “Blue Lives Matter” law—legislation intended to send a message of support for cops. The state of Louisiana passed the country’s first Blue Lives Matter law in late May, and the state of Tennessee is considering one as well.
In Chicago, as in most cities and states in the U.S., hate laws currently on the books apply to individuals targeted based on their race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, religion, national origin, prior military status, ancestry or age, not on the jobs they hold or used to hold—or can quit at any time. Also in Chicago, as in most cities and states in the U.S., existing law provides sufficient penalties for assault of police officers. In other words, “blue lives matter” bills are bullshit.
Activists in Louisiana and elsewhere view these legislation attempts as both a reaction to and a distraction from grassroots demands for accountability when it comes to law enforcement violence.
“ … when a law says that cops can be victims of “hate crimes,” the implication is that cops have been the victims of a sustained campaign of intimidation. That’s bullshit, of course. ‘This bill is a direct response to the work of Black Lives Matter,’ LaToya Lewis, co-chair of the New Orleans chapter of the activist group Black Youth Project 100, told MTV News. She added that [Louisiana’s ‘Blue Lives Matter’ bill] would ‘mock and criminalize those who work to end police brutality.’”
“The misguided thinking behind the bill stems from how we’ve been taught to view police work. It is a dangerous job. That’s not now nor has it ever been in dispute. But the fact remains that officers are more often perpetrators than victims of violence, and that police brutality — especially against people of color — is a very real and very pressing problem. The Louisiana bill not only wrongly positions police officers as the true victims in the Black Lives Matter era, but also infers that calls for police reform are somehow dangerous to the officers themselves.”
Distraction is one word that’s been used. Intimidation is another, according to activists in Chicago.
“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.