What is wrong with the police in America? Does Black Lives Matter Know? The Media? Antifa? Progressives, liberals, democrats, republicans, libertarians? Who actually knows what is going on and how we can unify our country? One might consider asking a cop… This police officer has some answers that you won’t hear anywhere else.
Thanks for listening and if you want to support us in our mission to bring truth to the masses, to support our police but also our communities across the nation who are hurting, please find us, Police Academy Podcast, on Patreon and become a member for as little as $1 a week.
If you’d like to support Police Academy, there are 5 ways you can do so:
Become a member at patreon.com/policeacademypodcast! All the cool kids are doin’ it!
Subscribe to the podcast and YouTube channel.
Rate and review the show by searching it on iTunes and clicking the reviews tab.
Share with friends and family through social media and everyday conversation.
Donate: This is a full-time job so any financial support helps out tremendously. Go to the website to donate directly to Police Academy. Even just a buck a show goes a long way toward keeping Police Academy on the air and in the mix.
Thank you; for your support, love, and for some of you, hate mail. Which reminds me, if you have questions, comments, concerns, gripes, bunched up britches, or complaints, email: policeacademypodcast@gmail.com
Do Good || Be Strong || Fear Nothing
Show Notes:
“Thoughts from a Police Officer in 2020
I first pursued a career in law enforcement for a variety of reasons. I needed a job to support my family. I had a wife and child to take care of, and I needed a stable income. Law enforcement provided a steady salary, a pension, and opportunities for career advancement. Another main reason was because, as a Christian, the idea of a vocation that afforded me the opportunity to serve and love others through action attracted me to the profession. This appealed to me because it fit the call that God gave us to love others sacrificially. Police officers often respond to people experiencing the most tragic moments of their lives. What better way to demonstrate sacrificial love than to put others’ lives, safety, and needs ahead of my own as a law enforcement officer? Another reason is because I thought I would be good at it. I think I generally get along well with people and, for the most part, I can resolve most issues with just good old-fashioned conversation and problem solving. However, for the times when force would be necessary to resolve the issue to protect life, liberty, and property, I felt I was well-equipped for that as well. Despite these reasons for pursuing this career, I was well aware of the climate of opinions surrounding law enforcement in the United States. The police are often perceived to be racists. They’re viewed as those who act like they’re above the law. People think they don’t want body cameras because it incriminates their actions and words with the public. It’s believed they protect each other at all costs, even if that means a deliberate avoidance to hold each other accountable. I weighed these notions carefully. I considered what others would think of this career path. I considered how this could potentially impact my relationships with my black friends (as I am white). I was afraid of what they would think of me and wondered if they thought I had somehow turned my back on them.
As I wrestled with this, I confidently settled on the concept of justice. I knew that God loves justice and asks people to pursue it (Psalm 33:5, Proverbs 21:15, Isaiah 1:17, Micah 6:8, Matthew 23:23, Colossians 3:25, etc.). In its purest form, law enforcement is supposed to provide justice; what is right, fair, and equal for everyone. I knew that, if there was some type of culture of injustice, prejudice, and/or racist practice in a department, I would not be swayed to participate. Furthermore, I would assist in changing it if it did exist as popular opinion seemed to suggest. And, thankfully, the rigorous vetting process (written exam, polygraph, psychological evaluation, thorough background investigation, physical fitness assessment, etc.) did not intimidate me because I felt confident that my background set me up to perform well in those areas. So, I eagerly applied and was soon hired by a local police department where I lived.
Since then, I have worked for two agencies in two states in completely different parts of the country. During my time while attending two separate academies (one for each state) and serving two different agencies and communities, I have received extensive training in diversity, de-escalation techniques, mental health awareness, etc. These are all topics that are widely viewed and communicated as subjects that, somehow, police officers lack proficiency in. I also find it ironic that the general public’s apparently clear grasp of common-sense treatment of other people that are from more diverse backgrounds is perceived to be lacking amongst law enforcement officers. I have dealt with all kinds of different people; those of different age, race, gender, gender identity, sexual preference, religion, culture, physical/mental level, etc. My fellow police officers have experienced similar training and had similar encounters. With all the reports and claims of racism and excessive force practiced by police, I wanted to genuinely consider the question, “Do we have a police problem in America?” I can say unequivocally that I have never personally observed an incident of racism practiced by another police officer. In two different states, in two different parts of the country, in two different departments, I have never once
personally observed overt racist practices or any form of prejudice practiced by a police officer. Some might say it is just because I’m not good at recognizing it. They might say that, since I am white, I’m not as aware. Maybe. So, I asked around. No other officers I spoke to were able to point to a single incident of racism that they witnessed. These conversations included officers of differing genders, sexual preferences, cultures, and races.
This is not to suggest that racism (including more covert prejudice that is more difficult to detect) does not exist. It does. It’s wrong, it’s shameful, and it needs to be confronted. When I was speaking with another black officer, he described how he is mindful of what he wears when he goes out depending on where he is going. His wife, who is white, has learned to pick up on certain environmental signals when they’re in public. She might touch his arm to let a “naysayer” know that her husband is with her, and that everything is fine. That is real, and it’s unfortunate. However, the same officer also said racism is “overplayed”. It’s there, but it’s being used for agendas. During our conversation, I recalled the amount of times I have been called a racist while performing even the most basic tasks of my job. I specifically remembered recently responding to a noise complaint. The person who answered the door was black. That person, despite me not having any idea who she was before encountering her, identified racism as the reason for our conversation. It didn’t matter that I wasn’t the initiator of the call for service, but only responding to a complaint. It didn’t matter that I was only trying to politely request her to be mindful of her neighbors and to keep the noise down. It did not matter that I wasn’t even enforcing any law. It didn’t matter that I used no derogatory terms or suggestions. It didn’t matter that I acted as professionally as I possibly could. It didn’t matter that I was standing there with a black officer. I also remembered recently arresting a white man. This individual explained that he was lucky he wasn’t black, because I would have shot him if he was. The suggestion that racism is “overplayed” is putting it lightly based on our experiences. These types of encounters involving unfounded accusations of racism are almost a constant in our profession.
But what about all those videos that clearly show the rampant racist abuse of minorities by the police? What about the evidence of widespread excessive uses of force targeting minorities? Are my and my coworkers’ experiences just abnormal? This isn’t, after all, some funded analyzed study of a large test group or professional column that I’m writing. These are just my personal experiences, thoughts, and opinions based on my involvement in a highly polarizing topic and profession. Might I be biased? Of course. You may not know my thoughts and motives in the deepest corners of my heart and mind. You should measure what I say with whatever resources and experiences you have at your disposal in order to discover the truth. You can accept what I have to say or not, but this is from someone with direct, firsthand, in-the-field experience. With that in consideration, I would like to suggest that we do not have a police problem in the United States of America. We have a perspective problem. The general public has a lack of awareness when it comes to the reality of police interactions and involvement in the community. In addition, the mainstream media knows it. They use it and exploit it to get our attention. They use it as click-bait to attract more eyes, more subscriptions, more advertisements on their pages, and more money.
I admit that, prior to being a police officer, I would have agreed with the outrage and confusion that the general population appears to be exhibiting towards law enforcement. I would be hash tagging “#AltonSterling# and “#AkielDenkins” along with other notable and apparent murders by police on innocent black men. However, due to my training and experience, I recognize many of these uses of force that are labeled as excessive and unnecessary by the mainstream media and social media accounts
everywhere to be, upon further examination, completely justifiable and reasonable (although still tragic). First, let us look at the topic of use of force in order to continue to address the idea of the problem with police.
Why are many police officers being exonerated as they face possible charges and convictions for their involvement in these controversial deaths? Is it because of a flawed and racist system? Friends in high places? Lack of minority input? I believe the confusion and anger that results after these tragedies is due, at least in large part, to the general public’s lack of awareness regarding the legal standard by which police use of force is assessed. This legal standard is referred to as The Objectively Reasonable Standard. My explanation of this topic is not meant to be exhaustive or comprehensive. There are other means to further explore and better familiarize oneself on this topic. This will serve only as a brief outline to provide a skeleton of understanding for the reader who is genuinely curious and maybe wonders how someone’s death can appear so obviously unjust upon initial review but ends with an officer not held criminally accountable. The Objectively Reasonable Standard stems from a case (Graham v. Connor) that looks at several factors to determine whether an officer’s use of force was objectively reasonable.
One factor that is considered is the severity of the crime. This factor asks questions such as “Was this a property crime or was this a crime against a person?” and “Was this a Felony or was this a Misdemeanor?” An example of a determination of reasonableness would be if someone were shot by a police officer for vandalizing property. That would be excessive. As we consider the death of Alton Sterling, many objectors conclude that Mr. Sterling was only selling CDs. However, when we consider what actually happened, we learn that police officers were also investigating an accusation that Mr. Sterling brandished a firearm and possibly threatened someone with it. In addition, he ultimately resisted a lawful arrest and attempted to remove a gun from his pocket during the physical altercation with officers. This was not just a minor crime as many claimed. As a result, the officers’ use of forced was determined to be objectively reasonable as it should have been.
Second, the Objectively Reasonable Standard also considers the safety of officer(s) and others. Some of the questions this encourages us to ask are “Was there a risk of physical harm? v. Was there a risk of imminent serious physical harm/death?” and “What would have happened if the officers didn’t use the force that they used?” Again, let’s consider the case involving Alton Sterling. The investigation revealed that Mr. Sterling was attempting to remove a firearm from his pocket. If officers didn’t use deadly force, one can reasonably conclude that Mr. Sterling would have shot and murdered at least one innocent police officer. What else were the officers supposed to do? Let Mr. Sterling shoot them? I’ve heard it said, “That’s what police officers signed up for.” I and my fellow officers did not sign up to be murdered. We know that’s a risk, and we will put our lives on the line for the safety and protection of innocent life. However, we do not have to wait for someone to pull the trigger in order to fire our weapons. No one should have that expectation placed on them, and neither should police officers. More can be said on this topic, but it’s for another day. The point is, if serious physical harm or death was imminent, then it’s objectively reasonable to conclude that the officers’ use of deadly force was appropriate.
Third, the Objectively Reasonable Standard considers whether the suspect is actively resisting v. trying to escape. For example, if someone stole a television and is simply running away with no other indication of imminently causing physical harm to anyone, it would be unreasonable to shoot that suspect as he ran away. However, if the suspect is running towards another officer with a knife in his
hand, it could potentially change the level of the use of force that would be considered objectively reasonable. Considering the case involving Akiel Dinkens, all relevant evidence revealed that Mr. Dinkens actively resisted a lawful arrest. While doing so, he was armed with a gun and attempted to possess the officer’s firearm during the physical struggle. Mr. Dinkens was not just trying to flee; he was actively resisting. Furthermore, he was actively resisting with the threat of imminent serious physical harm or death to the officer. Therefore, it was determined that it was objectively reasonable that the officer used such a measure of force to defend himself in a way that ultimately resulted in Mr. Dinkens’ death. Regardless, former professional football player, Randy Moss, wore a tie with Mr. Dinkens’ name on it to protest against police brutality.
Some final thoughts to conclude my discussion regarding the use of force by police officers: First, police officers do not shoot to kill. We shoot to stop the threat. With that in mind, there are times when people describe their indignation regarding the number of shots fired at suspects in particular incidents. If an individual is shot multiple times, I often hear the argument that the suspect could have just been shot once or twice...or even in the leg so as not to kill him. However, this is not the movies. Not everyone takes a shot in the shoulder and falls down. There are four main reasons a suspect will stop his destructive behavior after being shot. Someone might stop his attack after being shot due to the pain he experiences as a result. Maybe, if that’s the case, an officer might be able to stop shooting after one shot; only after the threat of imminent serious physical harm/death is eliminated. The second reason a suspect will stop his attack after being shot is fear. Maybe he’s afraid of death, pain, or disfigurement. Therefore, he decides it’s not worth it for him to continue his aggression. The third reason is if the suspect (threat) is immediately neutralized because the point of contact on the suspect shuts down his central nervous system (i.e. a head shot). The final reason a suspect will stop attacking is simply because the amount of blood loss renders him unable to continue. It can potentially take a long time for someone to lose blood from being shot depending on a variety of factors (suspect’s level of commitment to his act of violence, the severity of the suspect’s wounds from the rounds that pierced his body, whether he has some type of drug that allows a physiological and/or psychological method for continuing to fight despite the damage to the body, etc.). Again, this is not the movies. Not everyone stops performing violent acts because they get shot. Therefore, it might take several shots or more to stop a threat if that particular suspect requires a loss of blood to prevent him from continuing his act of aggression. I also want to briefly address the often mentioned “shoot them in the leg” idea rather than shooting vital organs. Recently, former Vice President and current Presidential candidate Joe Biden stated, “Instead of standing there and teaching a cop when there’s an unarmed person coming at them with a knife or something, shoot them in the leg instead of in the heart.” I can’t spend too much time on this since this is not the focal point of why I’m writing this, but there are so many inaccuracies in that one statement that I have to address it at least for a moment. Plus, it is indicative of the widespread ignorance from the general population regarding police tactics and use of force. First, a knife can be an extremely deadly weapon. Second, someone suggesting an officer should shoot a small and dynamically moving target (especially in an incident under stress of imminent serious physical harm/death containing extreme time limitations in a fast, tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situation before such harm/death will occur) is obviously unfamiliar with firearms and has most likely never been involved in a legitimate physical altercation. Again, there is a lot more to discuss, but I cannot delve into every facet of this complex and broad issue that I’m writing about. For more information about knife attacks, google “21 foot rule in Law Enforcement”. You can also read a little more about why police officers are trained to aim and shoot at center mass rather than head, arm, leg, etc. Additionally, you can find out more
about how it is objectively reasonable (in some cases even necessary) for a suspect to be shot in the back. As I would love to discuss that and more, that is a discussion for another day.
Finally, on the topic of use of force, the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer, not from the perspective of an untrained civilian. In addition, when judging the use of force from the perspective of a reasonable officer, it should be considered that the use of force may have occurred during a fast, tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situation. These are critical and necessary elements to consider for an accurate determination regarding the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force. Why? For the same reason that I am not in an advisory position that oversees the effectiveness of NASA. Probably because I have no idea what I’m talking about when it comes to that particular subject matter. No matter how much I think I know, what movies I’ve seen, or what space books I’ve read to my kids, I have not had the appropriate training to be in that role. In the same way, the pervasive and trendy idea that untrained civilians are capable of appropriately evaluating officers’ uses of force is as equally impractical. Joe Biden’s recent statements that I mentioned earlier prove that even respected and widely regarded logical leaders and thinkers cannot accurately evaluate law enforcement unless they are specifically and specially trained to do so. This is not to say that only police officers should be the ones to formally evaluate uses of force. This is simply to suggest that only trained individuals should, and that uses of force must be properly evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer.
In conclusion on this point and to reiterate, I believe one of the main reasons why there is a disconnect between the public and police is due to the general population’s lack of knowledge and perspective into law enforcement. However, this is not the only reason. There is also a lack of awareness from the general public regarding the simple realities of what relevant research determines on the topic. For example, in a recent study conducted by Washington State University Researcher, Dr. Lois James, it was determined that police officers were less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white or Hispanic ones (Journal of Experimental Criminology). In addition, Harvard University Professor Roland Fryer analyzed over 1,000 police-involved shootings that occurred across the country. He concluded that there was zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings. In Houston, he determined black suspects were 24% less likely than white suspects to be shot by police even though the suspects were armed or violent. An analysis of a Washington Post Police Shooting Database & Federal Crime Statistics reveals that 12% of all whites/Hispanics that die by homicide are killed by police officers. In contrast, only 4% of all blacks that die as victims of homicide are killed by police. In addition, based on the data that I have been able to locate, nine “unarmed” black men were killed by police last year. The term “unarmed” is loosely applied as it does not describe in detail incidents involving knives, reaching for a gun, attempting to remove weapons from an officer’s belt, etc. Only two of those nine officers were convicted of crimes as a result of those uses of force. In 2019, Police shot and killed 55 “unarmed” suspects. 14 of those were black, and 25 were white (according to Washington Post’s Fatal Force database). According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics special report, only 2% of all citizens contacted by police experienced force or even the threat of force. Despite this, the New York Times wrote in an editorial justifying the Ferguson riots, “The killing of young black men by police is a common feature of African American life and a source of dread for black parents from coast to coast.” This is simply not true. In Heather Mac Donald’s book, The War on Cops, she detailed how officers are slowing their proactive approach (prevent crime before it occurs) to law enforcement thanks to the false narrative that police culture is infected by racial and homicidal bias. Police are essentially forced to only be reactive; to only respond
after a crime was committed. Officers are forced to do this because a proactive method of policing has been largely labeled as racist. This is what organizations like the ACLU, politicians, and now (it appears) the general population are asking them to do. Officers only enforce whatever society determines is reasonable for them to enforce. If society as a whole refuses police practice and presence, that is how the police respond. Police officers are servants of the community. We do what society expects of us. Currently, the desire and expectation from many communities is to leave them alone all because of the myth that police officers across America are racists.
Not only are police avoiding being proactive as a result of societal demands, they are also afraid of losing their jobs, being arrested, losing qualified immunity, and being socially crucified (see the incident involving Rayshard Brooks’ death as a result of objectively reasonable uses of force by police officers that resulted in loss of jobs/arrests). In addition, the unwarranted societal backlash against the police has led to many good officers leaving law enforcement to pursue other career options. The result of all of this is, unsurprisingly and unfortunately, more violent crime. According to Michael Snyder in the blog Economic Collapse, at least 41 people were hit by gunfire in NYC over 4th of July weekend. According to the NYPD’s figures at approximately half way through the year, murders are up 23%, shooting victims are up 51%, burglaries are up 119%, and car thefts are up 48% (compared to this time period in 2019). This is happening nationwide, not just in NYC. In Chicago, at least 67 people were hit by gunfire over the holiday weekend (9 of them were children). In Philadelphia, shootings are up 67%, victims of armed violence are up 29%, and homicides are up 25%. CBS New York reported on July 14 that shootings jumped up to 277 percent last week compared to the same time last year (60 victims compared to 17). According to the NY Post, 503 police officers in New York City have recently filed for retirement since May 25, 2020. This is a 75 percent increase over the same time period compared to 2019. As reported on July 7 2020, 179 have filed for retirement the past week compared to 39 during the same time period as 2019. That’s a 411 percent increase. The city is begging police to delay retirement to deal with the increase in crime. If what I have said so far is the reality, how does this misinformation become so widely accepted? Why have so many of the general public adopted these lies about the police? This leads me to my final point while addressing the major problems regarding the fractioned relationship between police and the public: the media.
There was a time when professional journalism was trusted. There was a time when my parents would turn on the news and listen to reporters provide relatively unbiased information about the facts of the day. They read the morning paper to catch up on accurate summaries of current events. They would generally accept and trust the information they received with little criticism needed to distinguish the reality of the information they received. Those days are gone. We don’t have to find news because the news finds us. In all forms and from all angles. Professionalism and accuracy have been replaced with sensationalism. Writers (professional and amateur) seem to spend more time on the titles of their “articles” than the actual accuracy of their content. They ask themselves, “How can I get someone to click this link?” “How can I get them to subscribe?” “How can I make a name for myself and catapult my career?” “How can we make money off this?” “How can I push the narrative that satisfies the goal of the agenda?” They begin to write.....”Another White Police Officer Kills Another Black Man”. Each word in that sentence is triggering. Does the true story even matter at that point? Does it matter whether or not the use of force was justified and necessary? And, even if it wasn’t a reasonable use of force, is there any evidence that it was racially motivated? It doesn’t matter to them. The damage has already been done before the story is even told. Time and time again, stories are introduced in that manner
regardless of the reality of the unfortunate event. Then, perhaps a well-meaning celebrity desires to use his or her platform to cast attention on the perceived racially biased injustice executed on an innocent minority. Momentum snowballs. Social media accounts erupt with activity demanding justice and hashtags of the unfortunate soul’s name. Then, something happens again three days later. It involved another white officer and another black person. The same words are used to introduce and describe this most recent story. It doesn’t matter that this particular incident involves a completely different set of circumstances, in a completely different department, in a completely different state, in a completely different part of the country involving completely different people. “How does this same thing keep happening over and over again?!” people ask themselves, frustrated and confused. For example, a recent death of a black man named David McAtee in Louisville attracted the attention of professional football player, Myles Garrett. Garrett, prior to the investigation being even close to complete, deemed the actions of the officers “despicable”. Video of the incident later became available and, at least at this point in the investigation (which is still ongoing as I write), indicated that Mr. McAtee fired the initial shot. Police appeared to take cover and return fire. Garrett also criticized police for leaving Mr. McAtee’s body on scene for too long, with no apparent understanding that certain crime scenes can take a long time to process in order for an accurate investigation to be completed and justice to be appropriately administered. Now, could this incident result in the investigation determining there was misconduct practiced by police that warrants such comments by Garrett? Maybe, although that doesn’t appear to be the case at this point. But his comments reveal a larger and troubling trend: people jumping to the conclusion that there was not only police misconduct, but that the misconduct was also somehow racially motivated. Mainstream media, in my opinion, is most at fault for these trends. Their repeated, irresponsible, agenda-driven, inaccurate, and misleading reports have blinded well- intentioned people.
These misguided yet well-intentioned people have now drawn unnecessary lines in the sand, and now almost everything is polarized. Politics. Pandemics. Race. Religion. Police. Not only this, they ignore the numbers and incidents of police shootings involving white suspects because it does not fit their narratives and agendas. I know of an incident involving a fifty-year-old white male domestic violence suspect from Alabama that charged an officer while holding a spoon. I’m also familiar with a twenty- one-year-old white male robbery suspect in Ohio that didn’t remove his hands from his waist when police commanded him to. Both suspects were killed by police, yet there was almost no coverage for these incidents or a number of incidents like them (view the video of Daniel Shaver’s death for another example). If those individuals were black, it would undoubtedly be used by the media as propaganda...or “copaganda” as it’s now being called by those who see through the veil of hidden interests. Let’s also consider Minneapolis. With the recent incident involving the unjust actions of police involving the death of George Floyd, everyone (including police everywhere) denounced such practice. But...was it racist? The investigation could reveal that it was. However, why do we assume it was? And why, just several years prior in Minneapolis, when a black police officer unreasonably shot and killed a white woman, was race as a motive not assumed? Both incidents appear to be the result of actions that any police officer would describe as unacceptable, but the incidents are completely regarded as distinguishable according to the media coverage they received. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, black officers are no less likely to shoot suspects than white officers. Despite this notion, on all police shootings from 2013 to 2015, local news coverage involving a black officer shooting a black suspect was covered by national media only 9 percent of the time. In contrast, when a white officer shot a black suspect, it was covered nationally 38 percent of the time. The media has little regard for the truth or the consequences
of their reckless methods and does not care about the division it causes our country. The media is biased, not the police.
At one point in my career, the Black Lives Matter movement was near its origin. It had just started to gain momentum after a perceived unjust death of a minority. One of my colleagues suggested the BLM group was a bad organization. I jumped in to defend the basic premise of the Black Lives Matter mission and tried to make him realize they were just fighting for equality and against racial injustice. I did not believe this colleague was making his statements out of racist motives or ideologies (his wife is black, and I know him to be a man of integrity). He explained to me they weren’t fighting for justice because they were fighting against police officers who used justified and reasonable uses of force. My interaction with him was brief, but I figured I should look into the Black Lives Matter group a little closer. So, I did. What I found were people under the Black Lives Matter banner defending people like Alton Sterling, Akiel Dinkens, Dante Parker, Sean Reed, or any number of incidents that resulted in the tragic deaths of individuals due to their own criminal actions. BLM’s outline for change sounded just, but their message cultivated blindly supporting someone because he/she was a minority who died while dealing with the police. Regardless of the circumstances, people were protesting legitimate police actions used to apprehend dangerous and violent criminals. BLM’s stance appeared to be as follows: if you’re a police officer, what you do is wrong no matter what; if you’re a minority, what you do is right no matter what. I was disappointed at my findings. I was also embarrassed that I defended a group who claims justice as its mantra but acts in direct opposition to that mantra. I apologized to my colleague. However, I don’t think the BLM movement is too far off the mark all the time. They need to stop grouping ALL deaths of minorities connected with police contact as unreasonable. Each incident needs to be accurately assessed on a case by case basis. Anything less is just prejudiced, and that is exactly what they are claiming to be against. If they focused on the incidents and societal structures that actually need attention and change, their cause would make more sense. Widespread police brutality does not need that attention because widespread police brutality does not exist in America. Ultimately, I think it is just a misled group that lacks clarity of vision and strong leadership.
According to the NYPD, 97% of shooting victims in NYC in the month of June were minorities. As reported on July 7th 2020, homicides rose 83% over a 28 day period when compared to the same 28 day period in 2019. AN EIGHTYTHREE PERCENT RISE IN MURDERS. Almost all of them were deaths of minorities. Remember all of the statistics mentioned earlier regarding the rise in crime? The vast majority of those victims (particularly of violent crimes) were minorities, too. This is undoubtedly due, at least in part (if not in whole), to the societal backlash against the police. Criminals now know that they are in control. Do these black lives matter to Black Lives Matter? Do ALL black lives matter to Black Lives Matter? Their attitude appears to communicate, “Never mind all the people dying from violence involving real minority victims, we have a false narrative and agenda to promote.” Is this the America that society now wants? This isn’t the America that police officers want. As Heather Mac Donald explains in her book, The War on Cops, there is no Governmental organization more committed to the concept of black lives matter than the police. I would also add that there is no Christian or religious organization more committed to justice for African Americans than the police.
The result of this rampant spread of misinformation is genuine fear. I don’t blame John Wall, a professional basketball player, for saying, “If I get pulled over right now, I’m terrified. To be realistic. If I’m in a dark area, or a back street, I’m not stopping. I’ll go on a high-speed chase to get to a spot where it’s a grocery store, or somewhere where there’s a lot of lights at, because that’s how terrifying it is.”
Why wouldn’t he think that based on the information being communicated to him and everyone else? I see this type of fear all the time when I initiate a traffic stop with someone black inside the car. They’re scared. I do everything I can to alleviate their concern, but they are terrified. I can’t exactly hand them this paper during our brief encounters to ease their discomfort. Despite the reality that a black man is more likely to be killed by lightning than by a police officer, LeBron James tweeted, “We’re literally hunted EVERYDAY/EVERYTIME we step foot outside the comfort of our homes!” Perception is reality and, unfortunately, this is the reality that African Americans and law enforcement must deal with in our interactions with one another until to truth becomes more widely accepted.
Let’s consider, for a moment, what police officers deal with on a regular basis. We provide CPR to those on the brink of death...sometimes, unfortunately, even children. We deal with women so trapped in battered relationships that they post bond for the men that almost killed them. We deal with sexual assaults, child abuse, suicides, horrific crashes, death notifications, hoarders, grabbing people with infectious diseases/open sores, and more. We do this. Regularly. All the time. In addition, there is a constant awareness that the next call could be our last. We are aware that most people we arrest can generally get along in and amongst the rest of society. Maybe they just made a mistake or fell into an addiction that led to other criminal activity. However, we are also aware that there are people, for whatever reason (mental health, greed, sociopathic tendencies, just plain evil, etc.), that will not hesitate to kill another person. We are required to deal with such individuals. Let’s also consider who police officers are...we’re just normal people. We have families. We have children. We have mortgages. We have friends. We watch tv. We watch movies. Our kids play sports. We are members of society just like everyone else. However, our jobs come with tremendous authority: the ability to take freedom away. And we do this covered in protective gear, weaponry, and a badge. Because of this, it is easy to dehumanize the police. It’s easy to blame “the authority” for everything because that authority is viewed as a faceless Stormtrooper rather than a neighbor or friend. Regardless, I want you to just consider...why? Why would someone, any sane person, that has to deal with all the nonsense that society has to offer on a regular basis want to put him/herself in a position to unlawfully detain, arrest, assault, or kill someone that could result in the loss of their careers, their families, their finances, their freedom, and their lives? Why would someone do that willingly? Do you really believe there are a lot of officers that would do that because they don’t like someone else that has a different skin color? It just doesn’t make sense. I know...you could say, “Racism doesn’t make sense, but it still exists.” That’s accurate, but do you really believe something as irrational and immoral as racism is as pervasive in one particular profession as it’s being made out to be? Why would that be true? How does that make sense? Would your neighbor want to go into work thinking that he wants to get into a gun fight today? Would your friend go to work thinking he wants to pick on someone because of their skin color? Of course not. We don’t want to, either. I’m here to tell you that the accusation of widespread police brutality and racism is completely false. I hope for some, you realize you have been largely duped. It will take humility and soul-searching to change your opinion, but I hope you can summon the courage.
Despite the growing opinion that police cause more harm than good, the “thin blue line” tag that is often used to describe the separation between order and chaos in society is accurate. All one needs to do is look at other countries with real widespread turmoil and corruption in government and law enforcement. Plenty of countries have laws, they just don’t have the appropriate method of enforcing them ethically and equitably. Those that are making proposals such as defunding or even disbanding the police are doing so out of the abundance of freedom and protection afforded to them by the people
they are claiming to be against. What we need in our society for this alleged “problem with police in America” is not police reform. It’s not defunding police or even more radicalized notions suggested by Minneapolis government officials to disband police. It’s not more cultural sensitivity training, de- escalation training, etc. The police problem in America is not the police. Are there mistakes made? Yes. Due to the nature of the seriousness of incidents that police respond to, those mistakes are magnified in their consequences. Are there officers that have no business being in law enforcement? Yes, but that is no different than any other profession (teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc.). Does law enforcement have an ugly history of racist practice? Yes, but so does virtually every profession in our country. Right now, people are trying to fight racism with more prejudice. They think that judging people by the color of their uniforms will put an end to judgement of one’s skin color. One might say, “Now you know how it feels!” True. However, that does not justify it. We can’t fight racism with more prejudice. Until the general public becomes more informed regarding police practice by doing ride alongs, participating in citizen police academies, and looking into the realities of police conduct, this will not change. Furthermore, the voice of the culture with anti-police sentiments is so loud, aggressive, divisive, and damning that, if anyone disagrees or points out the shortcomings of their points, they are socially crucified, cast out, lose their jobs, and labeled as racists. This “cancel culture” is very real and powerful. Therefore, people with opposing views remain silent. Police officers can’t speak out. Social media represents, by and large, one viewpoint. Politicians pander to loud voices. We live in a society that essentially says, “Unless you admit you’re a racist, you’re a racist.” So, the silence remains deafening.
One thing the reader might ask is, “What is the media’s alleged agenda that you keep pointing out?” I’m intentionally not diving into that here, along with many other topics that I would like to bring up and discuss (such as California’s recent proposal to change the Objectively Reasonable Standard to a Necessary Standard, the recent discussion regarding law enforcement qualified immunity, tactics v. use of force, body cameras, citizen complaints, the use of tasers, law enforcement response to people with mental health issues, etc.). However, this has already gone on longer than I wanted. Regardless, there are still more conversations to be had to potentially repair community relationships with the police. In conclusion, unless we focus on the issues mentioned earlier (lack of understanding in regards to the Objectively Reasonable Standard of use of force, a lack of understanding of the reality of what the research indicates regarding race relations between police and minorities, and the widespread exploitation and misinformation from the media as it relates to community and police relationships), I do not see this repair happening anytime soon.”
