There is a moment, easy to miss, in the classic Western movie High Noon when Gary Cooper has a chance to shoot one of the bad guys in the back, but he does not. That was part of the Code of the Old West. No matter what, you never shoot a man in the back.
After the firestorms of Ferguson, the killing of Eric Garner on Staten Island, and the final determination by Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post and others that Michael Brown was justifiably killed, there has been a greater awareness developing of the complexities of the issues surrounding police killings and race in the United States.
The collection of statistics is not good, but almost all the people killed by police are men, and apparently a large majority of them are White. But about a quarter are Black, and that is double the representation in the population at large. Why is this?
Is it that there are more young Black men involved in crime, or is it racism, perhaps subconscious, among mostly White police officers? My guess is that the complicated truth is that the answer is “Both.”
There are ridiculous theories that Barack Obama and Al Sharpton have somehow orchestrated these killings of young Black men, or that this is all about “counting coup.” Leaving the delusional perceptions of crackpots aside, a rational approach to these issues requires that we take a hard look, not only at the problems of police violence and racism, but also the prejudices of liberals like myself.
Our president Chris Kaman will address racism in this presentation to the EHST planned for the 26th of this month, and I expect he will address the recent death of Walter Scott, a Black man, by Michael Slager, a White police officer in North Charleston, S.C. This was captured on video by Feiden Santana, who said “I knew the cop didn’t do the right thing.”
Sharpton may have chosen his examples poorly in the past, but to see an unarmed man shot in the back as he runs away, and to see a policeman fire at him instead of chasing him, brings back to the fore all the issues of police violence and race that plague our society and raise difficult ethical and policy questions that deserve our attention.
Officer Slager did not honor the Code of the Old West. He shot Scott in the back, and he killed him in cold blood.
The response in this case, as compared to Ferguson, MO and New York City, has been different. Slager is in jail and charged with murder, as he should be. (As a proud Southerner, I must point out that the folks in South Carolina have handled this in the right way.)
As in the Brown and Garner cases, and others, my reaction as a White liberal was “This would not have happened to a White man.” But do I know that to actually be the case? Better statistics need to be gathered and analyzed to determine whether all of this is ultimately a matter of police misconduct or racism, although perhaps the best course is to see it as sometimes a deadly combination of both of these moral problems.
Among the difficult questions are basic ones about how much force is justifiable in law enforcement, how much racism – including subconscious racist reactions – is involved in these incidents, and how the media can better handle these issues.
I look forward to comments from EHST members and others about all this, as well as whatever else you believe is relevant here.
James Coley says
I have commented on how poor the collection of statistics is regarding killings by police. It is irrational, however, to jump to the conclusion that this is some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth.
The Washington Post is now collecting these statistics on its own, and are finding that many more people are killed by police than previously thought, and that an even higher proportion of them than previously thought are African-American.
Go to this link for this new database on police killings.
R-von says
One factor is missing from most of the comments I have read about police misconduct: Police officers are human and subject to being controlled by their emotions during times of stress. As a former State Trooper, I can remember the many classes/lectures on when deadly force is justified. There are well established rules regarding the use of deadly force of which every police officer is aware.
However, when out of the training mode and in the real world, there can be incidents that create an overwhelming feeling of fear and/or anger. The rules seem to become vague when survival instincts take over.
It appears, to me, especially in the Ferguson incident, that the officer became frightened and angry and reacted contrary to his training. The source of that impulse could just as easily have been a white person; race is not a consideration when you believe your life is being threatened.
Now that most police departments have taken on a para-military attitude, it is looking more like “To Defend and To Control” than ” To Protect and to Serve”. The question should be: Did the Police create the social tensions that exist or did the social tensions create a Police mentality that considers all non law-enforcement people to be a potential threat.
Whatever the answer, becoming a Police Officer tends to create a feeling of separation from the rest of society. It is difficult to understand for those who have never experienced the taste of power that the gun and the shield provide. With that type of power, a little bit of bad attitude goes a long way to turn a bad scene into a case of police brutality.
James Coley says
Sure, law enforcement work can be stressful. I am now convinced, following the Ferguson DOJ report and Capehart, that this was a legitimate consideration in the Brown case.
But in the case of Slager, with Scott running away from him and unarmed, this is clearly not a consideration, would you not agree?
R-von says
The fact that Office Slager is in prison, charged with murder, indicates that he went beyond reacting from fear and anger. He apparently did not ‘react’; he made a decision to shoot when the danger was gone. There is no such thing in the rules as a ‘warning shot’.
Anger might be involved but there clearly was no threat to himself or anyone else. It appears that the system is functioning correctly in this case. The use of deadly force was not justified.
Gretchen Niver says
Excellent point, R-von, about whether the police create the social tension, or did the social tension create the police mentality. Also, having the power of a gun in one’s hand can turn any situation lethal.
Unfortunately, with the proliference of guns in our current society, I don’t see how the deadly force threat from the police or the criminals can be ratcheted down.
R-von says
I agree. Our society has deteriorated to the point that violence is considered to be entertainment. I am visited by Deer Hunters on this property every season; they do not hunt because they need the meat to feed their families. They own expensive guns; they hunt for the pleasure of shooting something.
I heard one of them tell his son, who was an inexperienced hunter, ” whatever comes out of the woods, a buck, a doe, a fawn or a dog, SHOOT IT”.
I do not consider Deer Hunting to be a sport; the opposing team (the deer) are not given an equal opportunity to win. It is a past-time which satisfies the desire to kill something.
The ‘Violence as Entertainment” theme is prevalent in movies and extremely promoted in video games. With an entire generation raised on violence as fun, I do not see the society of the future becoming more enlightened
Our culture considers the right to own a firearm as one of the basic guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Perhaps it is but the right to use it to settle disputes was not the intention of the Founding Fathers.
Gretchen Niver says
Being ‘entertained’ by violence is nothing new. From the gladiators and killling spectacles of Roman times, to the public executions, bear baiting, etc., in medieval days, there’s something in our psyche that seems to relish such things. Modern technology has enabled us to recreate such imagery to a greater degree than ever before possible.
Is it progress that we’re able to get our ‘violence fix’ through fake imagery rather than the real thing, or is it just anesthetizing us to the real violence still around us? There IS less real violence in society today than ever before, and I like to think that we are gradually becoming much more squeamish about it than in the past.
It seems that our culture is trying to change for the better, while our human nature holds us back.
Laura says
We certainly are getting less violent (See Pinker). Imagine having our most pious nuns present at gladiator fight and giving thumbs up/down. Not only will that never happen, but there are no gladiators fights anywhere in the entire world anymore. TV has taken the pace, perhaps, and thank the gods that it has. We are softies compared to the Romans.
Jack van Dijk says
It would be good if you do some more research/read more newspapers/read foreign newspapers.
The Guardian reported that there are no complete and correct statistics regarding police shootings in America. Detailed article.
It is not too difficult to think of the reason why.
It is also not too difficult to think of the reason that the policeman who murdered Mr. Garner and who, with his colleagues, left the man to die, just like the south Carolina cops left the man to die, like a dog.
It is amusing that a foreigner has to make a video showing how pervasive racism is in America. Think why Delores interlaced her wedding pictures with pictures of lynching victims.