Sadly we live in an age where feelings tend to trump reason. Consequently genuine discussion on things like change and what those changes need to be tend to emotive. So the assertion that the murder of Floyd must have been a racist act? I’ve read a comment that states that policeman wouldn’t do that to a white man. The murder of Tony Timpa who was murdered in eerily similar circumstances would suggest otherwise. What there is evidence of in both instances is terrible policing and in my opinion murder. Can one argue that had Floyd been white then he wouldn’t have met the same fate? General testimony suggests he had issues of aggression and was poor as a policeman and as a bouncer. Other suggestions are that they knew each other so there may have been a personal element to the murder.
There are very useful and importantly both realistic and practical suggestions for reform but the prominent debate is riddled with problems. There isn’t a debate but statements. So comments like police would never shoot an unarmed white man. Again the murder of Daniel Shaver suggests otherwise.
Cops never get charged when they kill a black person. Guess what. In the two white cases I just mentioned the cops didn’t get charged either. That cops get away with criminal acts is a legitimate conversation. However again is this something that only happens to blacks?
The major issue with the debate is how does one prove racism? It’s a subjective claim. Well it’s because black people are disproportionately targeted by police. In the Floyd case however he was correctly identified as the suspect, so this isn’t a case of being wrongly targeted. He was correctly targeted but what followed was obviously incorrect.
But let’s stick to the argument presented about disproportionate targeting. That it is racist for example that blacks are targeted more by police. Well sadly the answer is blacks commit more crime, a heavily disproportionate amount.
Now the argument made against this is only black crime is discovered because only black neighbourhoods are policed, so let’s focus on serious crimes which are the ones where statistics are most applicable for. Gun violence for example. That in New York despite being 23% of the population blacks commit 71% of gun violence. A black New Yorker is fifty times more likely to shoot someone than a white. The straw man argument is this is saying blacks people are criminals when in fact it’s stating a simple fact that blacks are more likely to commit a specific crime. Most are law abiding but if you are a policeman you go where crimes are committed, and as stated the majority of gun crime and robberies are committed by blacks. There were 4,300 shootings in Chicago in 2016. Let that sink in for a moment. These levels of disproportionality aren’t simply limited to New York or Chicago either.
Officers use data when they stop and frisk, or they respond to a call based on what a suspect looks like. That people will be stopped incorrectly is an unfortunate reality but what would you have police do otherwise? That violent crime has dropped in the last two decades with more proactive policing seems to be discounted. So is it racist that blacks are stopped and frisked more? If it was actually disproportionate then there might be an argument for it. If it was Chinese committing all the homicides yet police were still focusing on blacks then a legitimate case could be made.
Interestingly following Ferguson there was a Pew study which discovered that that officers felt less willing to engage, stop and search, pedestrian stops etc due to what they felt was an anti-cop environment. 72% of them in fact. This should have been a cause for celebration but it wasn’t. This was also racism because it was neglect. What’s been missing from these debates are the many black voices who do want policing in their neighbourhoods and thus the neglect becomes a natural concern. But again the accusation of racism isn’t really provable here.
The use of force too is also subjective. How is one able to prove that a shooting is racist? The Michael Brown shooting was a travesty largely for how it got reported. The fact that there was a grab for the gun is surely a legitimate reason for shooting someone, and even if you think it isn’t then how can you demonstrate that a white or Filipino wouldn’t have been shot in the same situation.
I saw a shockingly hyperbolic tweet which stated that telling blacks not to resist arrest was akin to telling a rape victim she shouldn’t have worn a short skirt. Surely attacking someone who is armed can lead to that person being at risk of being shot if you resist effectively. It’s relevant advise.
How does one prove the police as a collective are racist. How does one even prove it in individual cases. It’s not possible to do so it seems the next best thing is to just label everything as racist. Are there racist police officers? Of course there are just as there will be in all professions. Racist people do in some cases get jobs.
The question needs to be raised as to who this narrative benefits? It certainly doesn’t benefit the police who have to deal with distrust and hostility on a daily basis. It also most certainly doesn’t benefit blacks who are more at risk without policing whatever those who propose defunding say.
What also is required for the assertion of police being racist to cease? Should the police go into white neighbourhoods more, stop more Indians? It’s not particularly clear what is actually required for the police to be deemed non-racist. What should the police do differently?
The problem with this general line of thought is it really offers nothing in terms of practical reform. The police are racist. Full stop. What does this narrative achieve even if one believes it to be true?
So what would be a useful focus? How about the fact that Derek Chauvin has 18 complaints filed against him. 7 instances of brutality which were closed with no discipline. If I had 18 complaints against me in my line of work. Well it wouldn’t have happened because I would have been dismissed already. Mylan Masson a retired officer stated that the number of complaints Chauvin has is higher than normal.
Which brings me to the other issue which is that the police as a whole are a protected class. Police in general irregardless of the race of their victims just aren’t accountable for their bad acts. These are some of the structural issues which should be targeted. The fact that police look after their own irregardless of what they do. The US attitude towards the ICC over war crimes in Afghanistan is another example of the lack of accountability for those in combat. The power of police unions needs to be tackled and addressed.
The other important issue is competency. Having 18 complaints against you suggests you’re not competent. But competency needn’t be solely down to brutality, but ability to do ones job effectively. Improvements in training, or improvements in personnel. To think that there is an upper limit when it comes to IQ tests during recruitment is laughable. The idea that smarter people are more likely to get bored or seek better roles. That IQ tests are pseudoscience at best shows how outdated these practices are. But one has to ask. Why an upper limit. It comes down to turnover. So emphasis on hiring less competent staff because they are more likely to stay is a terrible recruitment model. The question of achieving the required numbers of competent individuals is difficult especially in such an ugly climate but other nations have attracted better potential staff by raising salaries. Improving the actual job to decrease attrition rates rather than settling for those who will stay. In addition to that there has to be an assessment on how well trained officers are. Part of this competence includes character. What can’t be eliminated from the conversation are issues of training and competence. Accountability for those who train, and for those who work. There need to be consequences for poor performance.
Are these difficult to achieve? Definitely but less so than eliminating racism that you can’t prove exists nor can prove doesn’t exist. By adopting this angle even if one believes it there is no end in sight and no practical solutions being suggested. That this might require abolition before transformation in some cases. The police are necessary for the protection of society and in particular blacks who are disproportionately victims of crime. The conversation needs to be a more nuanced one, rather than rhetoric if actual progress is to be made.
There are very useful and importantly both realistic and practical suggestions for reform but the prominent debate is riddled with problems. There isn’t a debate but statements. So comments like police would never shoot an unarmed white man. Again the murder of Daniel Shaver suggests otherwise.
Cops never get charged when they kill a black person. Guess what. In the two white cases I just mentioned the cops didn’t get charged either. That cops get away with criminal acts is a legitimate conversation. However again is this something that only happens to blacks?
The major issue with the debate is how does one prove racism? It’s a subjective claim. Well it’s because black people are disproportionately targeted by police. In the Floyd case however he was correctly identified as the suspect, so this isn’t a case of being wrongly targeted. He was correctly targeted but what followed was obviously incorrect.
But let’s stick to the argument presented about disproportionate targeting. That it is racist for example that blacks are targeted more by police. Well sadly the answer is blacks commit more crime, a heavily disproportionate amount.
Now the argument made against this is only black crime is discovered because only black neighbourhoods are policed, so let’s focus on serious crimes which are the ones where statistics are most applicable for. Gun violence for example. That in New York despite being 23% of the population blacks commit 71% of gun violence. A black New Yorker is fifty times more likely to shoot someone than a white. The straw man argument is this is saying blacks people are criminals when in fact it’s stating a simple fact that blacks are more likely to commit a specific crime. Most are law abiding but if you are a policeman you go where crimes are committed, and as stated the majority of gun crime and robberies are committed by blacks. There were 4,300 shootings in Chicago in 2016. Let that sink in for a moment. These levels of disproportionality aren’t simply limited to New York or Chicago either.
Officers use data when they stop and frisk, or they respond to a call based on what a suspect looks like. That people will be stopped incorrectly is an unfortunate reality but what would you have police do otherwise? That violent crime has dropped in the last two decades with more proactive policing seems to be discounted. So is it racist that blacks are stopped and frisked more? If it was actually disproportionate then there might be an argument for it. If it was Chinese committing all the homicides yet police were still focusing on blacks then a legitimate case could be made.
Interestingly following Ferguson there was a Pew study which discovered that that officers felt less willing to engage, stop and search, pedestrian stops etc due to what they felt was an anti-cop environment. 72% of them in fact. This should have been a cause for celebration but it wasn’t. This was also racism because it was neglect. What’s been missing from these debates are the many black voices who do want policing in their neighbourhoods and thus the neglect becomes a natural concern. But again the accusation of racism isn’t really provable here.
The use of force too is also subjective. How is one able to prove that a shooting is racist? The Michael Brown shooting was a travesty largely for how it got reported. The fact that there was a grab for the gun is surely a legitimate reason for shooting someone, and even if you think it isn’t then how can you demonstrate that a white or Filipino wouldn’t have been shot in the same situation.
I saw a shockingly hyperbolic tweet which stated that telling blacks not to resist arrest was akin to telling a rape victim she shouldn’t have worn a short skirt. Surely attacking someone who is armed can lead to that person being at risk of being shot if you resist effectively. It’s relevant advise.
How does one prove the police as a collective are racist. How does one even prove it in individual cases. It’s not possible to do so it seems the next best thing is to just label everything as racist. Are there racist police officers? Of course there are just as there will be in all professions. Racist people do in some cases get jobs.
The question needs to be raised as to who this narrative benefits? It certainly doesn’t benefit the police who have to deal with distrust and hostility on a daily basis. It also most certainly doesn’t benefit blacks who are more at risk without policing whatever those who propose defunding say.
What also is required for the assertion of police being racist to cease? Should the police go into white neighbourhoods more, stop more Indians? It’s not particularly clear what is actually required for the police to be deemed non-racist. What should the police do differently?
The problem with this general line of thought is it really offers nothing in terms of practical reform. The police are racist. Full stop. What does this narrative achieve even if one believes it to be true?
So what would be a useful focus? How about the fact that Derek Chauvin has 18 complaints filed against him. 7 instances of brutality which were closed with no discipline. If I had 18 complaints against me in my line of work. Well it wouldn’t have happened because I would have been dismissed already. Mylan Masson a retired officer stated that the number of complaints Chauvin has is higher than normal.
Which brings me to the other issue which is that the police as a whole are a protected class. Police in general irregardless of the race of their victims just aren’t accountable for their bad acts. These are some of the structural issues which should be targeted. The fact that police look after their own irregardless of what they do. The US attitude towards the ICC over war crimes in Afghanistan is another example of the lack of accountability for those in combat. The power of police unions needs to be tackled and addressed.
The other important issue is competency. Having 18 complaints against you suggests you’re not competent. But competency needn’t be solely down to brutality, but ability to do ones job effectively. Improvements in training, or improvements in personnel. To think that there is an upper limit when it comes to IQ tests during recruitment is laughable. The idea that smarter people are more likely to get bored or seek better roles. That IQ tests are pseudoscience at best shows how outdated these practices are. But one has to ask. Why an upper limit. It comes down to turnover. So emphasis on hiring less competent staff because they are more likely to stay is a terrible recruitment model. The question of achieving the required numbers of competent individuals is difficult especially in such an ugly climate but other nations have attracted better potential staff by raising salaries. Improving the actual job to decrease attrition rates rather than settling for those who will stay. In addition to that there has to be an assessment on how well trained officers are. Part of this competence includes character. What can’t be eliminated from the conversation are issues of training and competence. Accountability for those who train, and for those who work. There need to be consequences for poor performance.
Are these difficult to achieve? Definitely but less so than eliminating racism that you can’t prove exists nor can prove doesn’t exist. By adopting this angle even if one believes it there is no end in sight and no practical solutions being suggested. That this might require abolition before transformation in some cases. The police are necessary for the protection of society and in particular blacks who are disproportionately victims of crime. The conversation needs to be a more nuanced one, rather than rhetoric if actual progress is to be made.
