In 1969, I was a journalist for a local CBS affiliate television and had just completed an assignment shortly after noon. As I was enroute back to the station, I received a call from the station that a possible house fire was in progress at a location they provided and asked if I would check on it. The location of the possible fire took me through residential neighborhoods, so I was careful to watch my speed I case there were children playing along the street. As I was making my way through this one neighborhood, I noticed a motorcycle officer parked down the block facing in my direction. I checked my speed again, and continued on my way. Just as I was about to pass him, he turned on his flasher lights and proceeded to pull me over. The car I was driving was clearly marked with the television station’s call letters and large CBS letters as well. I parked the car next to the curb, notified the station what was happening, and waited for the officer to approach. He dismounted from his motorcycle and came over to my car. He said that he stopped me because I was speeding; asked for my driver’s license and asked where I was going. I informed him that I was on my way to a possible house fire not too far from our present location. He wrote out a ticket, asked me to sign it, gave me a copy, and rode off.
When I arrived at the location of the fire, it was no longer an active fire and little damage had occurred, so I again notified the station that I was on my way to the station. Once I arrived at the station I took the occasion to look at the ticket the officer had given me. To my surprise, the ticket had my name and driver’s information, but identified me as “white” and “female.”No one on the planet would ever mistake me for a white female, so I knew something funny was going on. After I showed the ticket to my editor, I asked if the station would cover the cost, because I did not feel obligated to pay it with the false information. He disagreed with me and urged me to pay it, which I did under protest.
The reason for this little trip down memory lane was to underscore the point made in my last blog relative to the stops, tickets, and arrests of people of color. My brother, Jim, agreed with my assessment of the problem and suggested a way to collect accurate data concerning who, when, where, and why the stops are made. He noted, “I think the answer may lie in technology. Cruiser cams can now scan and record a license plate while detecting speed, direction, and location panoramically. More importantly the camera isn’t biased. Let the technology determine ‘probable cause.’” The data collected via the Cruiser cam can provide the information necessary to discover where and what kind of attention is needed to correct problems.
The reason for focusing on the stop is because it provides the best opportunity for a comprehensive assessment of three primary areas relative to law enforcement and officers: training, knowledge of the law, and cultural awareness, including implicit biases. With the data from the cam discernments of officer and citizen actions can be made and verified. The in reputation of the actions, however, should be the work of independent, but legally informed, citizen groups or committees. Caution is necessary to prevent preferences for either officer or citizen.
Officer training can be ascertained from the collected data that reveals whether the officer’s actions are related to the mantra “to protect and serve,” or intent to “intimidate and coerce,” the citizen. He data will also indicate the officer’s action to control the situation and manage it reasonably or if the officer’s action serves to escalate and disrupt an orderly exchange. Transparency is important and necessary in order to protect the rights of all concerned, so if the data indicate that more work should go into the training of the officers, there should be no confusion or conflict concerning the issues.
Knowledge of the law is a part of an officer’s preparation for service and includes the rights of the officer and citizen as well. With the data recorded from the Cruiser cam, provided the sound is activated, any problem regarding the knowledge of the law should become apparent to any observer. Knowledge of the law is required of the officer and should dictate how each stop is managed. Citizens are encouraged to know the law, but their knowledge is generally limited in many cases. In some case, however, a citizen can posses an extensive knowledge of his or her rights and privileges. Data will show officers’ actions when confronted with citizens exercising their legal rights relative to being stopped. The data will show what needs to be done in the training and preparation of officers before they are graduated from the academy or program.
Probably the most important element of the stop is the officer’s knowledge of the culture they are to protect and serve. No amount of training can prepare an officer to acknowledge and address long-held cultural and ethnic biases; that revelation must come from education. No one in society escapes the conditioning of biases that come from living in a society that knows bigotry as one of its fabrics. In order for officers to be prepared to serve any community, they must first acknowledge and address their own personal biases in order to replace them with a concern for the well-being of all human beings. If individuals are unable or unwilling to make this transition, they should not be acceptable as candidates for law enforcement. The data from the cam should provide information relative to an officer’s conduct involving individuals of ethnic identities. Based on the officer’s conduct, actions regarding education or more education relative to cultural bias are required.
While the focus of this discussion has been on the officers involved in the stops, the ultimate responsibility for effect preparation of officers’ training, knowledge of the law, and cultural awareness, rest at the top. no�S3�_�
7Chris Lehman, James Lehman and 5 others3 Comments1 ShareLikeCommentShare
Several years ago a number of local police chiefs from the surrounding metropolitan area got together and held a public forum. The forum was held in a predominately African American community in a local church’s auditorium. Each police chief was introduced by the moderator, also a police chief, and given an opportunity to share information about how his department was addressing community relations, the various programs and projects they were administering. After each chief had spoken, the audience was invited to share their concerns and experiences relative to law enforcement. A long line was formed in the auditorium and one by one each individual related his or her concerns. When the line had shortened to the last two individuals, I decided to bring up the rear, and joined the line.
When my turn to speak arrived, I addressed a question to the entire group of chiefs. My question was what programs or activities are you conducting to educate your officers to treat me as a member of the community and a human being? I said my reason for asking the question was due to the fact that each time I or any person of color is stopped, we automatically lose all our rights and privileges because we are generally viewed as suspects, thugs, or criminals and treated as such. Anything we might say is ignored except in response to an officer’s request or command; any movement, remark, gesture is interpreted as disrespectful, threatening, or fearful. We are totally at the mercy of the officer.
All of the chiefs in turn tried to discredit my remarks saying that their officer training does not include that type of behavior and that there were no problems in their departments. Their remarks continued until the moderator stopped them and admitted that I had a legitimate concern. The general response from the chiefs was that they would look into the problem. When the forum ended everyone in the audience went their separate ways most knowing that nothing in the criminal justice would change because of this program.
The fact that bigotry is a part of the American fabric and is maintained systematically is well known. What else is true is the knowledge that no one segment with problems of bigotry can be addressed without affecting other segments. That is why trying to rid bigotry in any one segment of society fails. Nevertheless, corrective changes can be made in some segments that might have a positive impact on other tangential parts. The usual question asked is where do we start? With respect to the criminal justice system, my answer is start with the stop. Permit me a hypothetical example.
In a small community of approximately one-hundred-thousand residents, twelve percent of that population is people of color. According to recorded police data, forty percent of the stops, tickets, and arrests fall in the people of color community. So, according to the data twelve percent of the population commits forty percent of the crimes. How does that happen? If we check the police date relative to the calls to the police and 911 services from the people of color community, we find the total number less than four percent. So, how does forty percent adequately reflect crime in the community?
One answer is the designation of the community where people of color live as a high crime area. Well, how does it get to be a high crime area? The data collected and reported by the officers are derived from the stops, tickets, and arrests made by the officers, but that data does not support a designation of a high crime area. So, what happens? The high crime designation is a manufactured one that allows the police force to send more men to patrol that area. When we check the data from the officers, we discover that most of the stops are for minor offenses that do not involve more than a fine. However, when we check the data for reasons for arrest, we discover that the reasons for the stop are not the same for the arrest. The numbers tell the story that when a small segment of the community is patrolled frequently by officers, stops, tickets, and arrests will result. Why? Officers are not generally rewarded on their record of protecting and serving the community as one would think; they are rewarded on the basis of the number of stops, tickets, and arrest that are made. Communities of color are generally low socio-economic areas, so officers are not usually concerned with legal challenges to their actions which can serve as an incentive to develop more data.
The above example is hypothetical, but for evidence of the real thing is action, one needs look no further than Ferguson, Missouri. Rather than parade a litany of stats about Ferguson, lets us look at the point in question. Why are people of color stopped, ticketed, and arrested more than any other American citizens? The answer is systemic bigotry in the criminal justice system, and it all starts when an individual of color is stopped. We know from studies, books, and reports that a disconnection exists between law enforcement and people of color, but not necessarily of the peoples’ making. More than enough videos exist to underscore the attitude and behavior of officers involved with people of color and how thing escalate from a minor infraction to an arrest. If we want to try and correct the disparity between the data and the population, then we must begin with the stop.
No one answer will fit all the problems, but developing data from each officer’s stop focusing on who, when, where, why would be a good starting place. Another concern about how areas become designated as high or low crime area based on independent data, not officer generated data. The number of calls into the police department and 911services from the community of color should be relatively easy to collect and record. We know that entry into the criminal justice system begins with a stop. Let us work to make certain that those stops are based on law, not bias.
The mob attack on the nation’s capital should not have come as a surprise to anyone who knows American history. Why? Because American history has from the beginning fostered the concept of America being an Anglo-Saxon, European American, white, only country. Other people living in America are here only by permission, even the Indians. If we were to follow American history from the arrival of Christopher Columbus, we would recognize the superior attitude exuded by him and the other Europeans towards the non-European people they encountered, especially the Indians.
When the pilgrims and Puritans arrived in the 1620s and 1630s not only did they bring with them the superiority attitude but also a religion that told them they could use their superiority to take by force whatever they believed their God wanted them to have. The history books pictured initially an America that was simply virgin territory with little evidence of civilization present. This description was accompanied by references to the native people as savages. One of the first things the Europeans built in America was fences, not relationships with the Indians.
To further the myth of America belonging to Anglo-Saxons, European Americans, whites, when we learn about President Thomas Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana Territory what we were not told is what Jefferson wanted to do with the land. He thought that he could kill two birds with one stone-the Indian problem and the slavery problem. He would force all Indians and African Americans into the new territory and have them fend for themselves, and hopefully, die out and thereby make the country all Anglo-Saxon, European American, white.
The myth of America belonging to the European Americans was underscored in society and the government through language and actions. The language invented, instituted, and promoted the concept of human sub-species by using the word race. Races were then divided into two groups, one black and one white with the white race given dominance, power, and privilege over all other races. The primary difference between the Anglo-Saxons, European Americans, and white and the so-called other races was that all the other races were considered sub-species and therefore inferior to the Anglo-Saxons.
The idea of European American (white) ownership of America has been consistent throughout history as indicated by the actions taken to preserve its superiority myth through the laws governing the behavior of its citizens relative to interpersonal relationships among ethnic groups. Although major efforts were taken to keep the superior and inferior concepts constantly in the citizen’s life and mind, the fights by African Americans to gain their full participation in American society has brought to the surface the hypocrisy of ethnic bigotry that undergirds much of the American psyche. Consequently, many European Americans feel threatened and a sense of loss of some of their power whenever non-European American citizens acquire elements of their rights and privileges.
Over the years, for example, since Reconstruction, when African Americans began to realize some of their liberties as free Americans, serious efforts were set in motion by bigots and their organizations to prevent any progress by African Americans in that regard. The preventive efforts included physical abuse, property destruction, and death to people of color simply because of the threat they represented to Anglo-Saxon loss of power. We must note that the government was complicit in supporting much of the adversity visited on the African Americans. Their complicity came in the form of segregation, discrimination, incarceration, and other social sanctions; these actions strengthened for the European Americans the concept of ownership and dominance in America.
When Barack Obama, an African American, was elected President of the United States of America, many European Americans felt as though a dagger had pierced their hearts; the bottom had fallen out. What were going to happen to them and their power and privileges? Their fears were alleviated by their congressional friends in high offices who promised that Obama would not be able to damage their objectives. The Congressional Republicans kept their promise and deprived America of the growth and success it could have acquired under Obama.
When Donald Trump was elected President the myth of Anglo-Saxon dominance and ownership of America was revitalized. The myth would no longer be hidden, but brought out in the open along with the far-right groups and organizations that supported and promoted it. The Americans who held fast to the myth were strengthened and emboldened by a President that represented and supported their views. The evidence of this new presence was reflected in the fact that Trump tried to undo every piece of presidential action made by Obama, and the reports from organizations like ADL, ACLU, NAACP, and the SPLC, among others relative to the growth of hate groups. A national division based on ethnic bigotry and liberal politics was encouraged and any attempt to strengthen democracy and diplomacy towards national unity was ignored and/or discouraged during the Trump reign. What happened?
When the people of the United States of America elected Biden and Harris to be the next president and vice president, they sent a strong and hard message to those proponents of the myth; America would keep its republic and its democratic form of government. That message was more frightening to those supporters of America belonging to European Americans (white) myth because now their leader and representative would no longer be in power. What was even more terrifying was that the country’s new leaders were promoters of national unity and one was an African American.
America and the world experienced the actions of a mob of frantic, frightened, and frustrated people whose worst fears were coming to fruition—they were not only losing their national source of power and support in the president and some members of Congress, but because of the rapid demographic changes in America, the value, power, and privilege of their identity. They realize that America is changing into something that will debunk the myth and neutralize their illusion of power. They will not go quietly away, but their public presence should become less acceptable in a society where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the right of all citizens. t
In 1969, Edwin Starr recorded a popular song that still resonates with us today. The song asked and answered an important question: “War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.” The significant phrase in the question is what is war “good for,” and forces us to place a value on the loss of life and justifying its loss. The answer “absolutely nothing,” can also be the appropriate response to the question what is “equal justice under the law” good for? The phrase is a very popular and often used one when it pertains to the law enforcement establishment. More often than not the phrase is used to protect someone in law enforcement that has been accused of a crime and the system wants to justify the results of the finding by the court, judge, jury or grand jury. Under close examination we discover that the phrase “equal justice under law” is an oxymoron and simply sounds appropriate to a purpose.
The first word in the phrase is “equal” and a mathematics or arithmetic term that deals with fixed elements like numbers. When the word is used relative to human beings, it loses its fitness because no two individuals are or can be equal. Using the term equal suggests that somehow a fixed assessment can be associated with human beings. Unfortunate, that is not the case. For example, in a family of four, the mother, father, and one girl and one boy. The parents can in no way treat them equally simply because one is a male the other female. Their individual needs and wants are different. To treat the equally would mean that every time the girl get a new dress, her brother would receive the same dress or whenever the boy got a new suit, his sister would also receive a new suit. The best human being can hope for is fairness, because equality is impossible. Too often we hear that the law treats everybody equally, but all one has to do is look at the facts of people incarcerated to disprove that statement. We know for a fact that the state of Oklahoma incarcerates more females than any other state in America. Would the females incarcerated in Oklahoma be treated equally in other states? We cannot answer that question because equal has no fixed definition.
The term “justice” is as elusive as equal when one attempts to associate a fixed definition to its applications. Justice in one state is not the same justice in all the other states. Take, for example, the use of marijuana and the fact that in some states it is legal while in other states people go to prison for mere possession. The word justice is often used as an excuse or justification for a questionable action that challenges common sense and logic. For example, many juries and grand juries find that police officers are justified in shooting and killing unarmed individuals, especially people of color when videos and eyewitnesses reveal the contrary. The local criminal justice authorities in Louisville, Kentucky determined that only one of the officers that fired more than twenty rounds into Breonna Taylor’s apartment where she was struck numerous times and died was found to have committed a crime, and that crime had nothing to do with Breonna. So, one wonders just what does justice means when it defies logic and common knowledge?
The last phrase, “under the law,” is closely associated with the word justice in that too many questions are left unanswered relative to the law. In my childhood days when an argument presented a challenge to any one of use we could always win the argument by using the phrase “it’s in the Bible.” In other words, because it was in the Bible, it was the law and the final word. Unfortunately, throughout the history of America the law has been used to control, discriminate, punish, abuse and kill its citizens, especially those of color. More often than not, we are conditioned to accept the laws with the understanding that they will be administered fairly. One has to ask the question how can equal justice under the law be available when the people who have the responsibility to uphold the law also use their own judgment to determine what laws to apply? The attorney general in Louisville commented that the officers who fired the more than twenty shots at Taylor could not be charged with murder because there was no law that applied to their actions. So, does that mean that somehow no one can be held accountable for the death of Breonna? The actions of the officers firing their weapons were said to be justified because Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired the first shot, so the officers had a right to protect themselves. The fact remains that Breonna is dead and her death was the result of bullets shot into her body. The criminal justice agency of Louisville has yet to mention the death or cause of Breonna’s death as though it did not happen.
Facts and the truth are usually the elements that form the basis of most legal decisions, but sometime they seem to get in the way of the law. The police officer, Betty Shelby, who shot Terence Crutcher in the back while he was unarmed with both hands held above his head some ten feet or more in front of her was acquitted of a crime under the law. She later was allowed by Tulsa officials to teach a class in how officers can avoid charges when they shoot someone and what to do when they are bothered by anti-police groups. When the family of Crutcher complained to the law enforcement agency about Shelby teaching the class, they were ignored.
The case of Breonna Taylor seems to underscore the lack of meaning for the phrase “equal protection under the law” except when it involves a member of law enforcement. Then, it appears that the phrase is used to protect only those whose job it is to serve and protect others. So, when it comes to citizens of color, the phrase is good for absolutely nothing.
African American men specifically and men of color in general, put their lives on the line every day when they walk outside of their residence or simply appear in public. For the people that are not of color in America, this statement might seem somewhat amusing or offered in jest. On the contrary, the statement is not an opinion, but a fact. The reason for this experience comes directly from the social conditioning of European Americans generally and law enforcement agents specifically. Society and by extension, the governments, local, state, and national have given the law enforcers the power to exercise total control of its citizens without fear of reprisal; that is, they have no fear of repercussions for their actions against citizens. The attitude and action of many of these law enforcers seem to be that people of color have no rights that the officers should respect. For the people of color, once they are stopped by officers, they lose all their rights and privileges while the officers exert total control over the individuals.
The criminal justice system works in favor of the officer, not the citizens of color because the word of the officer is taken over that of the citizens. Historically, the relationship between the African American community and the European American one has been one of dominance and control by law enforcement. According to Danielle Sered, “The racially inequitable legacy of policing stretches back to the formation of this nation, and police have not only failed to protect communities of color from harm, but they have enacted enormous levels of harm.” She continued by noting that “This [harm] is not simply or most importantly about individual police officers, many of whom have the best intentions and even behavior in their work. It is about an institution with a history of enabling and enforcing the worst disparities in our country’s history.” More specifically, she added that “It is about officers who returned escaped people to the plantations they were fleeing, officers who publicly announced the times of lynchings to be carried out in the backyards of their own precincts, officers who drove black residents out of neighborhoods where they had bought homes,” and finally, “officers who continue to arrest, assault, and shoot black people at glaringly disproportionate rates.” So the question of trust in the criminal justice system has never been one that people of color readily embraced.
Americans have been socially conditioned to fear African Americans generally, but especially one with whom they are not familiar. According to one source, new scientific research provides some data into how African American men are perceived: “When people see black men they don’t know, they have a physical response that is different from their response to other people. Their blood pressure goes up and they sweat more. When a white person sees an unfamiliar black male face, the amygdala, the part of the brain that processes fear, activates.” (American Values Institute, March 2013) When European Americans join the criminal justice system they do not leave their fear of African American males at home, but bring them to their workplace. This fear might explain why many European American law enforcers become excited and aggressive when engaging with an African American male.
Fortunately for the Law enforcement agents, their actions against people of color are not often questioned, so the fear of having to suffer any consequences for their unreasonable treatment of people of color is not usually scrutinized. The public record of their actions speaks for itself and supports the fact that officers are not held to the same standard of behavior as other citizens. So, they often misuse and abuse the power granted them by the system. A recent incident underscores the power given to law enforcers who are free to profile, stop, and detain men of color without offering any reasons for their actions. A recent New York Times article noted that an African American man wearing a protective mask and working outside near a white van when a Miami police officer drives up next to this man. Next, “The officer steps out of his squad car. Words are exchanged. Then the officer handcuffs and detains the man, Dr. Armen Henderson, who was recently featured in a Miami Herald article about volunteers who provide free coronavirus testing for homeless people in downtown Miami.”Rather than seeking information from the doctor regarding his actions, the officer ignored the doctor’s informing him of who he was and what he was doing. The doctor did not have any identification on him and would have been taken away had he not called for his wife who came out of their home and confronted the officer. Once the officer realized that he had made a mistake, he removed the handcuffs from the doctor and left the scene without any word of his actions or an apology.
What this incident shows is the vulnerability of African American males to the justice system that ignores everything but skin color in administering their control. The fact that Henderson is a doctor, a volunteer risking his life in helping to fight the coronavirus or the fact that he was working in front of his home wearing a protective mask made no difference to the officer who did not take the time to inquire about or grasp the nature of Henderson’s presence at that location. One wonders what kind of education the officer received at the academy regarding the treatment of citizens.
If society can benefit from this crisis of the coronavirus it should be in the fact that to the virus we are all one. The virus does not discriminate on the bases of ethnicity, age, economic or educational status, social position, religion or health. We, hopefully, understand that by working together even though we are sometimes put in harm’s way, that our combined efforts and sacrifice will help us to finally successfully control and manage this crisis thereby contributing to our mutual survival. We must learn that our strength is our unity.
americasraceproblem
America's Race Problem 