I had a recent experience, the details of which I won’t
discuss here, that forced me to dwell upon a few issues in regard to police behavior. One is whether or
not an individual has any right to expect a change of police behavior that may
be deemed “inappropriate.” I’ve described many experiences I have had with
police in which if any criminal behavior was in the offing, it was solely in
the imagination of the officer. Some officers just feel they need to strike an “intimidating”
pose on a person of a demographic that is assumed to have “criminal tendencies”
just to frighten them enough to dissuade them from such ideas. Of course, if you
are a law-abiding citizen, it might be “surprising” to discover that some
people might find this behavior offensive and perhaps even based on a “discriminatory”
and stereotypical belief system or “profile”—whether by hair color, clothing or
(the horror) color of skin; a traffic court judge opined this very thing after
I gave him my description of an encounter with Highway Patrol deputy concerning
a ticket I was disputing.
The question then is whether we should still view this as “acceptable”
behavior simply because we give certain license to police. This goes to the
very heart of the recent Justice Department investigation of the Seattle Police
Department and its record of race-based policing and use-of-force policies.
Police want us to accept this behavior, to look at things from their “perspective”;
of course, it is not easy for the lay person to understand the “perspective” of
Ian Birk, the officer who shot John T. Williams, a Native American woodcarver
whose “crime” was mining his business. If there is too much “accountability,”
then police officers will feel “constrained” and may not “properly” conduct
their duties. So we must accept police
behavior that may be deemed discriminatory or abusive, because they are “just
doing their job.” We are to accept the premise that they are they capable of self-policing;
unfortunately, in regard to the Justice Department findings, this has done
little or nothing to stop the “bad apples” from going completely rotten—and
thus condemning the whole basket. You would think that police departments would
understand this, rather than circling the wagons.
The second issue, more “tricky” than the first is whether race
or “ethnic”-based policing is a “police” problem (from “training”), a societal
problem, or simply an “individual” problem. While there is certainly an “expectation”
from certain segments of the population that police should “crack down” harder—or
at least pay more attention to—other segments of the population, there is a
real question of whether an individual officer are also a reflection of his or
her particular “segment”—say, race. Are some white police officers more “aggressive”
in their behavior toward minorities—perhaps reflective of prior social and
racial attitudes? Are we then to believe that black police officers, perhaps because
they come from a historically oppressed group in this country, are more keenly
aware of discrimination and conduct their police business with that in mind—especially
when “handling” minorities? One would think, of course, that they would “interpret”
as “normal” behavior something that a white police officer would consider “suspicious.”
On the other hand, they might believe that they “know” a minority individual’s “delinquent
tendencies” better, and the “culture” that inspires it, and to achieve a level
of “respect” they must present a more bullying or intimidating posture that
might in fact pose a conflict with the actual character and background of a “suspect.”
If a police officer of any race or “ethnicity” conducts his
or her duties in differing degrees of “diligence”—take, for example, drug use
enforcement—in respect to race or “ethnicity” of different from themselves, does
this constitute a discriminatory attitude? I was actually confronted with this
question in a manner intended to make me feel that it was “inappropriate” or “invalid,”
that I should take into account the background of the individual. But this
officer was mistaken in his assumed knowledge my “background.” And this has
been true in the “civilian” world as well, of course. I grew-up in and attended
mostly white neighborhoods and schools, and was immersed in the “culture.” But for
all the talk by racists like Pat Buchanan who claim “we” don’t want to “assimilate,”
does it really matter what “we” do? Is skin color the only real “culture?” I
recall an incident in college when I was listening to some of my favorite
Sixties and Seventies hits I recorded on a cassette tape (yeah, I know). A
white person who allegedly "knew" me sneered and said “That isn’t your music.” What was he trying to say
here? That I am a different species of human?
And how often have we heard that the police say that they see
themselves as an “us” versus “them” proposition? Perhaps it is best that we
should regard police—regardless of race or ethnicity of a particular individual—as
only one “color”—that of their uniforms. Whatever their individual differences
may be, they all read out of the same instruction manual. A discussion of whether
or not the actions of at least some officers come from an individual impulse is
a pointless exercise if they use the same criteria to judge people they may or
may not have a clue about. Thus people might find the “system” as discriminatory,
regardless of who is carrying out the “instruction.”
No comments:
Post a Comment