When the Law is Part of the Problem
Whether it be by legislative intent, or due to some interpretation of the law by a judge or by the supreme court; behind each incidence of police brutality, shooting of an unarmed person, or other unwarranted police behavior in America, lies the question of how is it the law of the land allows law enforcement officers to act with relative impunity? Of course, there is the question of whether the law does indeed allow law enforcement officers to use unnecessary, excessive force? While there can be no doubt that they should be be allowed to use necessary force; does it not follow that any force beyond what is necessary is unnecessary force? And, that anything beyond necessary is excessive? Should a routine traffic stop warrant a police officer pointing a loaded weapon at the traffic violator? It does seem that the limits for the force used by law enforcement, should be matters of the law. There are, after all, strict restrictions on things like wire tapping and other means of surveillance.
Given our nation’s history of abusive policing: the fugitive slave laws, the notoriously cruel early Texas Rangers, Wyatt Earp, et al, one might have expected the court to have acted to curb abuses by law enforcement. But, this isn’t what has happened. Why not?
Today, seems almost daily, from videos taken with smart phones and those from police body cameras, we see the police draw their weapons on an unarmed person during routine traffic stops, force someone of us to lie face down on the ground on an alleged suspicion of wrong doing, or otherwise use excessive force. (Smart phone and body camera videos have been great forces for change. Today, and henceforth, a video record should be de rigueur for any and all stops and arrests by law enforcement.) Too, too often, in one of these videos, we see police shoot an unarmed person. Is it that it isn’t so much that the law says that they can do these things as it is that the law doesn’t say they can’t? That the law may not have been intended to permit such behavior, but, de facto, it does? Surely, it must be one of our inalienable rights to not be unnecessarily or excessively abused by the police.
We have, of late, seen several cases where civil courts have awarded huge damage settlements in cases of police abuse. These are rulings against the municipality (the deep pockets) that employed the abusive law enforcement officer(s) (i.e., the ultimate responsibility for the actions of its police officers lies with the municipality that employed them). Rulings that, in effect, transferred the liability from the officer(s) who committed the abuse and the city officials who employed the officer(s) to the tax payer. Even indirectly, tort can be an effective force for change.
Most recently, a criminal court in Minneapolis, Minnesota convicted former police officer Derek Chauvin of murder and manslaughter for his role in the death of George Floyd. Not so very long ago, such a conviction, even the bringing of a police officer to criminal trial, would have been so rare as to be almost unimaginable.
For law enforcement to charge one of their own with a crime is huge step forward; amounting to a tacit acknowledgment that there is a problem. From no man is above the law, surely it follows that no man is immune the law. It is in this area of immunity for law enforcement that the weight of decisions by the U S Supreme Court has played a tangential, but significant role.
—
Of late, we hear the term qualified immunity used in reference to some purported police immunity. The term comes from a series of Supreme Court rulings (briefly summarized below) wherein the Court accords the police ‘not unqualified immunity’ from civil prosecution; the now much used term ‘qualified immunity’ seems to have come from the unknotting of the court’s use of the double negative.
Bradley v. Fisher (1872) the court established that judges were immune from liability.
Pierson v. Ray (1967), the court, springing off Bradley, went on to state that although police officers are not granted absolute and unqualified immunity from liability for damages, they may be excused “from liability for acting under a statute that he reasonably believed to be valid but that was later held unconstitutional, on its face or as applied”, “… similar to the principle that a police officer “… who arrests someone with probable cause is not liable for false arrest simply because the innocence of the suspect is later proved.” The court did allow that the police could be tried in criminal court.
Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Supreme Court handed down the current rule for qualified immunity. In effect, the standard became: “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights* of which a reasonable person would have known.” Immunity was no longer dependent on an officers subjective state of mind, but rather on whether or not a reasonable person in the officer’s position would have known. Note the diminishment of responsibility.
Saucier v. Katz (2001), the Supreme Court ruled that a military police officer who had roughly thrown Plaintiff Katz face down into a van had qualified immunity. In ruling, the Court formalized this rigid order, or sequencing, in which courts must decide the merits of a defendant’s qualified immunity defense. First, the court determines whether the complaint states a constitutional violation*. If so, the next sequential step is to determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct.
Pearson v. Callahan (2009), the Court allowed judges to skip the question** of whether or not a police officer used excessive force*** and to focus solely on whether or not the conduct violated clearly established law, which appeal courts have frequently done.
*Note the imposition of the standard of whether or not police had violated someone’s constitutional rights. Rather than the Constitution granting us our rights, it should protect our inalienable rights.
**Note the court’s allowing judges to skip over the question of whether or not an officer used excessive force.
*** Shouldn’t the use of excessive force by law enforcement itself be a crime? Shouldn’t there be published widely agreed upon standards?
Note that the court has not accorded immunity to law enforcement in re criminal prosecution.
—
Damages in civil suits are meant to make the plaintiff whole. Conviction and sentencing in criminal court serves as punishment. The two, making whole and punishing, are not the same; not even close.
—
Does public opinion abet the police abuses we are seeing? It is known that calls for law and order play well with much of the America public; especially with right wing Americans who generally are proponents of punishment as a deterrent. The phrase itself implies using the law to maintain order. For those who subscribe, law and order even take precedence over the constitutional right of peaceful protest. For them, it is just as important for the police to maintain order as it is for them to enforce the laws. As we have seen, time and time again, some police, some police departments, are all too willing to use excessive force in order to impose order. Up to a point, any abuse of rights in this imposition of order has been forgiven by the proponents of law and order.
The TV coverage of the dogs, fire hoses, and beatings in Montgomery, … , the recorded suffocation of George Floyd, … , went too far for even some of the law and order crowd. Law and order has long had racial undertones. As we have seen, especially in 2017, 2020 and early 2021, the police in some cities are much more likely to use excessive force on protesters of color than they are on white protesters.
—
What role, if any, do our two major political parties play in our nation’s toleration of abuse by law enforcement? As mentioned, law and order advocates tend to be more right-wing in their politics. Right-wing politicians such as Senator McConnell have had a significant role in the packing of today’s federal bench with advocate judges/justices such as the six conservative members of the current supreme court. Before today’s supreme court, others, those more advocates than Justices, such as Antonin Scalia, played a major role in shaping the court’s decisions in re police use of force. When Mitch McConnell speaks of the courts representing a conservative majority, he does not mean justices and judges whose views are representative of a majority of Americans, but rather those whose views represent those of conservative white Americans; especially Christian, conservative, southern, white Americans. But, then, there are times when even liberal democratic politicians can find it difficult to ignore a public outcry for law and order. So, while much of the advanced world has moved ahead on police reform, America remains stuck with draconian southern/red state laws and attitudes toward law enforcement.
—
What role do police unions play in reform? There are American cities where the police union is more powerful than the elected officials; where the police union has more say over the management of the police department than the police chief; where the police union may seem to even have de facto say on whether or not a chief is hired, or fired.
—
Closely associated: The symbiotic relationship between prosecutors and police departments is all too apparent; each of them needs the other in order to do their job. In a jury room, one soon learns that some jury members are more inclined to believe the police than they are to believe someone accusing the police of using excessive force. At times, it even might seem that judges may be more inclined to believe the police.
—In summary—
It wasn’t so long ago that, if stopped for a traffic violation, you might be asked to show your drivers license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance; might even be asked to step out of your car. This is still the case in most cities, most states. Why is that some states, some cities, use more aggressive police tactics? We see evidence that police procedure sometimes varies with the color of the drivers/occupants skin. Is this justifiable? Wouldn’t better, more specific, laws involving the interaction of police with a suspect give the police better guidance? Why isn’t the public better informed of their responsibilities when stopped or apprehended?
Even if the license check comes back showing a car’s owner has a criminal record, or is wanted, couldn’t the police first politely ask the driver and occupants to step out of the car with their hands raised. Many people respond better to being politely asked than they do to aggressive action. Does police aggression beget aggression? The police already have a great deal of power and authority, there is a lot they can do before pointing a gun at someone of us, demanding that someone of us lie face down on the ground, the sidewalk, the pavement; things almost certain to stir animosity.
Who should prosecute an agent of law enforcement for criminal abuse of power? Given their inherent relationship with prosecutors, it needs to be someone from outside the justice department. Should each county and state have a special prosecutor for cases involving police misconduct? Could this person be selected from a pool of currently serving judges? How about having a panel of judges appoint a special prosecutor? Should such a prosecutor be elected to office? Other than in large cities, it would probably be a less than full-time job.
In general, giving unions a role in management is not a good idea. In the case of police unions, it is a very bad idea. A city’s charter should be very specific about the role of the police union(s); about limitations thereon. A role that should not be expandable by contract negotiations. Union leadership is a profession, so is management. The two are not the same. Union leadership should never be allowed to run the railroad.
It seems that without guidelines, police have been able to make up their own rules. This could better fall to people of the city, county or state; but, it would be far better yet if there was a national standard for police use of force; a federal law.
How much authority should be accorded law enforcement? Enough for them to do their job; yet no more than the law allows.
Why not?
because “the law” is seen by the makers, enforcers, and interpreters of the law as “above the law.” They …like everyone who has power… see their power as necessary to maintain civil order… and to prevent and punish crime.
out of this has grown a system of incentives for abuse of power…at all levels…and a complete lack of accountability. this is all a long established fact of human nature.
when the constitution was written it was believed that checks and balances would elimiate wholesale abuse by the government itself, and only an afterthought attempted to limit retail abuse by enforcers… trial by jury, not forced to testify against yourself, no searches without probable cause.. etc. all of these subject to “interpretation” as we have seen.
so the system maintains itself, not because it is capitalist or socialist or racist…it’s just what systems do when they can.
we could make “civil rights” more explicit and subject to more rigorous review… but we won’t. because “the system” can easily convince the vast majority of us that the police, prosecutors, judges, and jails are protecting them from criminals.
It is very likely that police in America are inadequately educated, trained, and monitored to ever be trusted with the power they wield.
Most American police have no education above the high school level (only 30.2% have a college degree) and will be careerists in law enforcement. They are effectively composed of the bottom 1/3 of high school graduates (66.2% of 2019 US high school graduates were enrolled in colleges by October 2019).
No other career that regards itself as a profession allows that.
Goodwin
unfortunately for your theory, most judges and prosecutors have at least college degrees and they are just a capable of doing great harm as the dumbest cop on the beat.
There is nothing on the meritocracy test that tests for decency or honesty or even profound thought.
as for the dumb cops, properly supervised they would be as decent as the next guy. i will say, from the body cam videos i have been watching they are not very fexible thinkers. But I have seen dogs who probably are no smarter than the average cop behave with a great deal more discretion. Meanwhile the 98% or so of citizens who are not cops are not very disposed to decency and flexibility themselves.
oh, did i mention senators and congressmen and even economists who have harvard degrees…
and because you may not know: John Von Neumann who may have been the smartest man who ever lived thought that dropping the atomic bomb on the Russians before they had time to get one of their own would be the smart thing to do.
Coberly,
You widely missed the point friend- on trial in this scenario is not the alleged perp, but the arresting officers. They have more than adequate protections in any prosecution against them, so how do we ensure people aren’t grievously/permanently/fatally injured in an interaction with police. Ken gave a broad explanation of why this is true as a matter of law. This includes:
– Police unions having large enough bargaining power that they leverage during discussions of legislation that clearly delineates what is legal and illegal for an officer to do during a stop;
– Jurists and jurors (who tend to be in favor of police since the population drawn from generally don’t have a criminal record) needing to make judgment calls without any clear guidance;
– The highest courts being packed with a narrow minded college club with great sympathies and ties to white supremacy (the Federalist Society) who offer a bevy of procedural outs to avoid the (oft messy) prosecution of officers;
– Lack of evidence being available to rebut the procedural presumptions in favor of the officer (I think this can be alleviated with public civilian complaint boards and a committee to review them, in addition to more body cams);
– Finally, to Goodwin’s excellent point, there are many lesser educated officers in the states, which is why there is a great, great many people of color in law enforcement and armed services- however, they have been actively kept out of higher education. Even when they graduate from top schools, they are actively kept out of top level judicial and prosecutorial positions.
Hence the system being racist, little of what Ken said had to deal with the officers on the ground (check the title), there are systemic (but changeable) problems with the law and how it is interpreted and utilized.
idriss:
Try to tell the judge the officer is mistaken (and lying) mildly. See how far it gets.
Idriss
I may have missed the point (whose? what was it?) but i’ll be damned if i can figure out what your point is or what is has to do with what I said.
coberly:
Bill here (as if you did not know?), I understood the point. The courts are stilted to the police and officers of the court, the aristocracy. Most of these guys will lie or provide false testimony whether an officer of the court or called as an expert witness.
Bill
I’ve done that (tried to tell the judge). it did not go well. i blame the fact that i am still alive and out of jail on my being a quick study. Learned when to shut up. Not too soon in the case of cops, who will beat you up for not talking, as soon as for talking uppity.
Now, at the risk of creating more hate and discontent, I had to read your comment twice before I understood that I did not understand it: whose point did you get? the courts are definitely tilted. not all of them all the time. but there is a reason accused persons will take five years in the pen rather than risk a trial. And they all lie.. but they have the kind of minds that convince themselves that what they said is the Real truth… kind of like Idriss here.
if you meant you got Idriss’ point, I still don’t see it.
As for My point, the first was a reply to Ken’s “why hasn’t the court corrected the abuses.” [quotes are to isolate the content of Ken’s “WHY” not meant to be a direct quote (lest Idriss call me a liar again for using words in a way she did not expect. she’d make a good cop or judge in the present system).]
my second comment (point) was to goodwin: don’t blame police abuse on lack of education. the highly educated are just as abusive, and in fact create the opportunity–and demand– for police abuse.
so i can’t even begin to see what point Idriss thinks I missed, except that I did not say what she was thinking…well, saying, anyway.
Okey doke:
“because “the law” is seen by the makers, enforcers, and interpreters of the law as “above the law.” They …like everyone who has power… see their power as necessary to maintain civil order… and to prevent and punish crime… out of this has grown a system of incentives for abuse of power…at all levels…and a complete lack of accountability. this is all a long established fact of human nature.”
– Appeals to naturalism are fallacious, there is value to more in-depth and nuanced looks at a legal regimes than “it always ends up this way.”
“when the constitution was written it was believed that checks and balances would elimiate wholesale abuse by the government itself, and only an afterthought attempted to limit retail abuse by enforcers… trial by jury, not forced to testify against yourself, no searches without probable cause.. etc. all of these subject to “interpretation” as we have seen.”
– As the story goes, Franklin (whose optimism I appreciate) was walking out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787 when someone shouted ou, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” to which Franklin supposedly responded: “A republic, if you can keep it.” Nothing prohibits federal/state/local legislatures from passing laws to “limit retail abuse by enforcers.” Police powers belong to the executive and the states, not to the police unto themselves. The issue is that the executive and the state are misusing these powers, the legislature not adequately regulating them, and the judiciary inappropriately balancing different parties interests.
“so the system maintains itself, not because it is capitalist or socialist or racist…it’s just what systems do when they can. we could make “civil rights” more explicit and subject to more rigorous review… but we won’t. because “the system” can easily convince the vast majority of us that the police, prosecutors, judges, and jails are protecting them from criminals.”
– The systems are constantly evolving, laws change. There are capitalist pressures that value property above human standards of living and carelessly pollute certain neighborhoods. There are racist factors that have excluded certain groups from certain positions of power, better neighborhoods, and adequate representation in governance. “The system” hasn’t convinced the vast majority, just a dedicated plurality. Perhaps not looking at the people processed by this system as “criminals” could go a long way. Perhaps changing the law so that we are no longer “convince[d] t… that the police, prosecutors, judges, and jails are protecting them from criminals,” would alleviate the harms.
– Comparing the education levels of police and judges/prosecutors isn’t particularly helpful- we are largely concerned with violent situations. Police are involved in them, judges/prosecutors are not (well at least not materially).
– What I gathered from the blog entry was the many ways our laws, as currently written (and currently being rewritten in come jurisdictions), are a hindrance to our ability to regulate violent/inappropriate from our officers. I balked at your take that this must be the case and there’s nothing we can do; as run pointed out, my problem is that officers and departments can fabricate any story for any situation. The only way to combat that is with admissible evidence and routes to prosecution, the more evidence and transparency and information accessible to the public, the better results we will see.
Idriss:
You have been gone a while. Have you been to SCOTUS?
Yea, I breaked from internet commentary when the Q people got really prominent, seems chiller now. And I’m going to visit soon, got my 2nd shot, DC is after trips to Nashville and Philly.
I agree with everyone here on these things. Throughout the time of mankind’s existence there has always been the rule of law and for so long as mankind continues to exist there will always be the rule of men. These two things are not in opposition to each other, but rather inseparable parties to the crime of inhumanity and the dream of humanity. The first law of mankind was that cruel men can be murdered most easily in their sleep. The last law enforcers of mankind will be the computer programmers that code the personality of Robocop. There is no escaping reality in any direction that we may time travel.
A game changer:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/george-floyd-police-officers-federal-charges-civil-rights/2021/05/07/c30fdfb6-ac34-11eb-acd3-24b44a57093a_story.html
A federal grand jury on Friday indicted former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin and three other former officers on charges of violating George Floyd’s civil rights last year during the arrest that caused his death, a move that could offer another measure of accountability in a case that sparked nationwide protests over abusive policing.
Justice Department prosecutors said Chauvin, J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao, who took part in apprehending Floyd, who was Black, will stand trial on two counts apiece. Former officer Thomas Lane will face a single charge in the case.
The announcement came less than three weeks after Chauvin, who is White, was found guilty on three murder and manslaughter counts in a state trial that focused on his use of force. Chauvin put his knee on Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes as the 46-year-old was prone on the pavement and complained of being unable to breathe. His sentencing is set for June 25.
In a separate indictment, Chauvin also will face two counts of violating the rights of a 14-year-old boy during an arrest in September 2017, in which the officer is accused of holding the boy by the neck and hitting him repeatedly with a flashlight, causing injuries.
Derek Chauvin guilty of murder, manslaughter in the death of George Floyd
Kueng, Lane and Thao are facing state charges of aiding and abetting second-degree murder and manslaughter. Their trial is set to begin in late August. Kueng is Black, Lane is White and Thao is Asian American.
The federal charges could add additional time in prison or other penalties, independent of state-level convictions.
Justice Department officials said the decision to bring charges against the officers was the result of an intensive investigation from Civil Rights Division lawyers who have been on the ground in Minneapolis for months. Last month, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that Justice will conduct a sweeping “pattern or practice” investigation to determine whether the Minneapolis police have systemically engaged in unlawful conduct.
Garland announces Justice Dept. probe into Minneapolis police
In this image captured from surveillance video May 25, 2020, Minneapolis police officers, from left, Tou Thao, Derek Chauvin, J. Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane are seen attempting to take George Floyd into custody. (AP)
The intensifying federal scrutiny reflects the Biden administration’s sense of urgency in addressing abusive policing in the wake of the mass social justice demonstrations that swept the country after Floyd’s death on May 25, 2020. But historically, winning convictions against officers has been difficult, with prosecutors needing to clear a higher standard than in a normal self-defense case.
In the 10-year period from 2005 to 2014, when perhaps 10,000 Americans were killed by police, 153 officers were charged, or about 1.5 percent, according to a database maintained by Philip Matthew Stinson at Bowling Green University and cited in a Washington Post report last year.
Justice Dept. probes of local police prompt hopes for reform, fears of delays
There are known dispositions in 139 of those 153 cases, Stinson said. About 55 percent of the cases resulted in convictions, most by guilty plea. Stinson’s database also captures non-shooting cases. His research found 58 murder or manslaughter cases that did not involve a gun. Of the 51 cases with known results, about 65 percent resulted in a conviction, but only 47 percent of the cases ended with felony convictions.
Floyd was sitting in a car when Kueng and Lane responded to a call from an employee of a convenience store who reported that Floyd was thought to have used a counterfeit $20 bill. Lane drew his firearm as the officers ordered Floyd out of his car and handcuffed him, with Floyd pleading with the officers not to shoot him, according to body camera footage.
Chauvin and Thao arrived at the scene, and Chauvin joined the other two as they attempted to force Floyd into the back seat of a police vehicle. In the struggle, the officers subdued Floyd on the ground, with Chavin kneeling on his neck, and Kueng and Lane hold his back and legs. Thao ordered bystanders to stay away and prevented a Minneapolis firefighter from providing medical aid to Floyd, according to cellphone video footage.
Updated March 3, 2021
Ken:
Someone (Chauvin) is going to be in prison a long time before he is acquitted if such should happen. State courts will drag their feet before reviewing his case. The Feds will also if the state’s conviction is granted leave.
Police immunity just took a huge hit.
Thank you, Merrick Garland.
Ken:
It appears that way today. There should be accountability beside courts awarding money. The arrogance is which many conduct themselves in working with citizens needs to be addressed before they are even in public.
Police: Sixth-leading cause of death for young Black men | University of Michigan News (umich.edu)
“ANN ARBOR—For young men of color in the United States, police use-of-force is among the leading causes of death, according to a study from the University of Michigan, Rutgers University and Washington University.
Police use-of-force—which includes asphyxiation, beating, a chemical agent, a medical emergency, a Taser, or a gunshot—trails accidental death, suicide, other homicides, heart disease and cancer as a leading cause of death for young Black men, who have the highest risk of being killed by police.
About 100 in 100,000 Black men and boys will be killed by police during their lives, while 39 white men and boys per 100,000 are killed by police. This means Black men are about 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men.
“It’s a striking number,” said study co-author Michael Esposito, a postdoctoral researcher in the Survey Research Center at the U-M Institute for Social Research. “There have been arguments about how widespread of a problem this is. We didn’t have a good estimate about whether it’s a few cases that received a lot of media attention.
“This study shows us that police killings are deeply systematic, with race, gender and age patterning this excess cause of death.”
The study uses data from a database called Fatal Encounters, a journalist-led effort to document deaths involving police. Deaths are gathered and categorized using news reports and public records. The researchers focused on deaths that involved police use-of-force but did not consider other causes of death, such as vehicular collision, suicide, overdose or a fall…”
” Justice will conduct a sweeping “pattern or practice” investigation to determine whether the Minneapolis police have systemically engaged in unlawful conduct.”
while they are at it, they should do the same investigation of Loveland, Colorado…and about a thousand other places.
among other things they might find is that the problem is wider if not deeper than just race.
of course we need to use the obvious racism element to fuel the probe, but we won’t solve the problem if we don’t look at the whole problem.
in another comment on AB i said i thought i had an idea how the problem could be addressed. turns out on further investigation that the problem is already being addressed in the way I suggested. Unfortunately there are ways around my “solution”…which I anticipated, but did not expect to see so early in the game.
As long as prosecutorial discretion, biased judges (who do not recognize their bias…because it runs deeper than racial and other obvious biases), and cops trained in the use of force but not in the use of discretion (which is apparently something quite different from “prosecutorial discretion.”
This has been “the way things are” at least since Roman times. That doesn’t mean it can’t be fixed…if civilization is to progress, it must be fixed… but it does mean the “fixing” is going to have an uphill battle against what is called “human nature.” not helped by those who think they are part of the solution while they are simply being part of the problem.
part of the problem: people who say “there is racism in america” is the same as “America is a racist nation.” or who say that saying “America is not a racist nation” are racists denying that “there is racism in America.”
who are people who say “anything that you say that disagrees with anything I want to belive proves that you are a racist.”
hell, i wouldn’t mind so much being called a racist if it didn’t mean that “you” are defeating yourself before you even get started….assuming your goal is to stop pernicious racism, much less my goal of stopping the cruelties of power against all people.
Coberly,
Have you considered not victimizing yourself? No one called you a racist, they just pointed out you made a racist argument/statement. If you start with the premise “as a non-racist, no arguments I make are racist”, you can make objectively racist arguments ad infinitum… do you not see a problem with that? I’ll comment on the more salient points made tomorrow because this is indeed a watershed moment for civil rights.
Idriss
sorry, i did not realize i was still talking to you. i will concede that those who flunked the “what is the point of this article” part of the SAT might have trouble dealing with my poor use of quotes within quotes in my last attempt at comment. but i think you might have some trouble with “no one called you a racist” but stating (implying?) that i was saying “as a non racist, no arguments I make are racist” and that implies i am making “objectively“ racist arguments…you might have some trouble convincing me that there is any point trying to talk to you.
in case some poor person has wandered into the middle of this “argument between solipsists”
don’t worry about it.
but do worry about: as long as the crimes against black people are treated as ONLY a matter of “racism” without regard to the general problem of crimes against any person, especially by governments or agents of government, then you will not solve the problem of racism. instead you just make yourself an agent of hate in the perpetual war of neighbor against neighbor, brother against brother.
Coberly:
This is going to be your line in the sand? Society and the law gets it right when a black person is convicted of a crime. There is no difference between black and white Americans.
Run
I can’t imagine how you get that out of what I have been saying.
let me try again:
racism is a serious problem in america.
raise holy hell about the black woman convicted and sent to prison for voting.
but there is a deeper problem: cruelty in the name of the law..against both whites and blacks, citizens and non-citizens.
if you don’t work on the deeper problem, you will never fix racism.
and if you call people like me racists you are fighting against your friends and your self.
racism is a problem in
well, maybe two more, just to be sure.
the judge who sentenced the black lady to prison for voting very likely would have done the same to a white person. …or he might not. he could be a racist. but there is no evidence on the table that he is. there is evidence on the table that he is cruel.
saying “America is a racist country” is NOT the same as saying “Racism is a problem in America.” When you say America is a racist country, you are insulting me and you have left yourself no way to solve the racism problem. When you say Racism is a problem, you have at least begun to work toward solving it.
Let me know if you make any progress on this.