Here’s a question for you: “Do introverts commit acts of violence? The only way to try to answer this question is to acknowledge that at least one premise of the statement is probably faulty. It is unlikely that there are individuals who are introverts 100% of the time. It’s more likely that we are all live on the Introvert / Extrovert continuum and depending on the situation we are in; we slide to different points on the scale.

But there clearly are people who spend more time to the left of the center-point (Ambiverts), and ones who spend more times to the right. So, for those people who live more to the left on this continuum (in the comfort zone of being an introvert), it seems likely that they would avoid violence. They would not be the people on the streets of America’s cities who are smashing windows, looting, and possibly even scuffling with law enforcement officers. In fact, they may be far less likely to even be on the street protesting.

To march, picket and protest, someone has to feel pretty confident about going into crowds and asserting oneself. My hunch is that most introverts would much rather watch what is happening through the digital pictures from their televisions, computers, or even phones. But that does not mean that introverts cannot, or do not, engage in actions promoting social change.

Many introverts are frequently in thought about how to change our society for the better. They often put their ideas to paper and provide us with clear purpose and direction as we work to help society clean up its ailments.

One could argue that societal change happens best when there is either formal or informal collaboration between those who are in a frequent state of reflection about what is happening in our world, and those who comfortably take to the streets and other public places to let the world know what they think and the intensity of their beliefs.

But this picture of the thoughtful non-violent introverts has the requisite exceptions to the rule. One of the quietest, most secluded and reclusive individuals in modern American history engaged in over twenty acts of horrendous violence. His name is Ted Kaczynski; also known as the Unabomber.  Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 also had many attributes of an introvert.

Maybe if we eliminate from our universe of introverts those who harbor extreme amounts of anger and hate, then we can more clearly state that introverts tend to be non-violent. But in all fairness, we could say the same about extroverts.

It’s all complicated and I certainly do not have clear answers. But, it’s something that I’m pondering now. Can those of us who spend considerable time functioning as introverts, be helpful voices for moderation when are streets are rioting? Can we also be leaders in promoting progressive solutions to problems that send so many others to the streets? As Donald Trump shows us every day, those of us who believe in rational thinking and embrace empathy must take whatever non-violent action we can to help solve America’s and the world’s problems.

The post Do Introverts Commit Acts of Violence? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In St. Louis, bad behavior by police responding to protests about…previous bad police behavior—has sparked another form of protest: the publicly published protest letter.

Actually, there are two letters: One, from the ACLU, admonishes the St. Louis City Police Department to use restraint when confronting protesters. Another, from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, demands that all charges be dropped in the case of the improper arrest, during a street protest, of a fully credentialed reporter who was covering the event.

Here are excerpts from each of the letters:

ACLU

On Friday, the ACLU of Missouri sent each of your offices a letter. We implored you to remind law enforcement to allow the community to continue to express its outrage, pain and grief by protecting their First Amendment right to protest.

They didn’t.

We know there were sporadic moments of violence and vandalism – these are not covered by the Constitutional right to protest. However, outside of these moments, officers broke their vow to protect the public by engaging in illegal activities and actions that violated policies of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and agreed-upon rules of engagement made during 2014 protests.

The letter notes that ACLU of Missouri trains legal observers to monitor demonstrations for violations of civil liberties and Constitutional rights. It then lists some of what the legal observers saw police officers doing, including:

• Attacking people indiscriminately with gratuitous use of pepper spray, pepper balls, rubber bullets, and tear gas when no apparent illegal activity had occurred.

• Excessively using of force, including violent arrests that caused injuries.

  Deploying chemicals, such as tear gas and pepper spray, without warning.

• Deploying tear gas on routes where people were leaving.

• Arresting people with questionable probable cause.

• Illegally searching bags and other possessions.

• Not wearing name tags and not identifying themselves.

• Blocking access to public spaces without apparent cause of officer safety, ongoing investigation, or public safety hazard.

• Forcefully blocking recordings of police conduct in public spaces at safe and reasonable distances.

• Selectively enforcing access to public spaces.

• Entering safe spaces against policy and with questionable probable cause.

• Using intimidating displays of force, explicitly contrary to agreement prior to release of verdict.

Calling these behaviors “unacceptable,” the ACLU urges city officials to require police officers to follow proper procedures, including:

• To not use chemical weapons, such as pepper spray and tear gas, without following the proper protocols to ensure the protection of constitutional rights.

• Officers’ nametags should be visible at all times for police accountability.

• To wear their body cameras and have them turned on at all times.

• Not use force against protesters absent a real and immediate threat of physical harm to others.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

The protest letter from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch comes in response to the arrest of Mike Faulk, a reporter who was clearly displaying his credentials, during a roundup of demonstrators in the City of St. Louis.

The Post-Dispatch condemned the “inappropriate and highly disturbing” arrest of one of its journalists on Sunday during a mass arrest by St. Louis police officers, and demanded that the city drop charges against him.

The letter, written by attorney Joseph E. Martineau, of the Lewis Rice law firm, said officers should have released Faulk immediately after recognizing he was covering a story, and allowed him to keep working.

Instead, he was arrested with “unneeded and inappropriate force” that caused injury to both legs, his back and wrist. Faulk was “forcefully pushed to the ground by police officers and a police officer’s boot was placed on his head.” After his wrists were bound with zip ties, a police officer “deliberately sprayed him in the face with pepper spray, mace or some other stinging substance.” At some point, an officer reviewed the contents of Faulk’s phone.

Inside the jail, the letter said, jail personnel denied Faulk’s repeated requests for medical attention. The city counselor’s office charged Faulk with failure to disperse, and he was released on $50 bail. He returned to the newsroom limping, knees bloodied and pepper spray still on his skin.

The city’s failure to establish a protocol to recognize and respect the rights of journalists gathering news was “a grave mistake,” the letter said.

In a comment published in the Post-Dispatch as the letter was making its way to city officials, the newspaper’s editor, Gilbert Bailon said:

St. Louis Post-Dispatch journalists and other credentialed news media provide critical information to the public. When St. Louis police arrested Mike, after he fully identified himself while covering the protests, they violated basic tenets of our democracy. Additionally, the physical abuse he suffered during the arrest is abhorrent and must be investigated. The Post-Dispatch is calling for our city leaders to immediately implement policies that will prevent journalists from being arrested without cause.

So, is the pen [aka keyboard] actually mightier than the sword [aka pepper spray, Mace, plastic wrist ties]? Let’s hope so. Otherwise, our democracy is in deep peril.

The post Bad police behavior in STL draws protest letters from ACLU, St. Louis Post-Dispatch appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The acting chief of the Drug Enforcement Agency [DEA] is not pleased with Donald Trump’s remarks to law enforcement officers, telling them not to be “too nice” to suspects. He has expressed his displeasure in an email to DEA agents, calling on agents to show “respect and compassion,” and saying that he felt compelled to speak out because “something is wrong.”

Trump made his now-infamous remarks during a speech on Long Island last week. He said:

“Like when you guys put somebody in the car, and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put your hand over their head,” he said, putting his hand above his head for emphasis. “I said, ‘You can take the hand away, OK?”

The remark gave the distinct impressions that Trump was encouraging police brutality. But White House press secretary later told reporters that Trump was only joking. [That is one of Trump’s standard dodges when something inappropriate that he says provokes criticism.]

The DEA’s acting director, Chuck Rosenberg, didn’t laugh. One day after the speech, he sent an email to the entire agency, instructing DEA personnel to disregard the suggestion that suspects should be roughed up.

In the email, Rosenberg said:

I write because we have an obligation to speak out when something is wrong….The President, in remarks delivered yesterday in New York, condoned police misconduct regarding the treatment of individuals placed under arrest by law enforcement..

Rosenberg then reminded his agents of their core values, including accountability, diversity and integrity.:

This is how we conduct ourselves. This is how we treat those whom we encounter in our work: victims, witnesses, subjects and defendants. This is who we are.

Rosenburg is among a growing cohort of government officials who are beginning to speak out against Trump’s offensive utterances and destructive policies. Leaders of police departments in several parts of the country have said publicly that the president’s words didn’t reflect their views. For example:

The Suffolk County Police Department issued a statement declaring that the President’s recommendations were at odds with the department’s procedures, as did the N.Y.P.D., the L.A.P.D., and the International Association of Police Chief.

Watch this video montage of his remarks regarding how the police should treat suspects. I don’t see joking here. I see a demagogue, a president, who is off the rails, who wants to appear tough, and who doesn’t really care what he says or what the impact of his words are, and who will try to disavow his id-driven remarks by calling them “just joking” when they are poorly received. It’s not funny, and it’s not normal.

The post DEA says “no” to Trump’s remarks on rough treatment of suspects appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A recent article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that described the way that the small St. Louis County municipality of Pagedale was condemning inhabited, livable houses and levying fines for petty housing code violations. A subsequent editorial  drew an explicit line between this practice and the over-reliance on revenue generated by traffic violations which was condemned in a recent Department of Justice report. In both cases, poorer citizens bear the brunt of the abuse of municipal power.

With my sincere apologies to those good people who have really tried to bring the lessons of Ferguson home and act upon them, a particular aspect of the misdeeds described seemed emblematic of how many in the St. Louis region have reacted to the issues that have risen in the wake of the killing of Michael Brown and the subsequent protests. This passage among others in the article struck me as jaw-dropping:

At a recent demolition hearing, Mayor Mary Louis Carter told one homeowner after another where they needed to focus their work if they wanted to keep their property: “The first emphasis should be the exterior,” she said repeatedly. One house needed new plumbing, electrical work, a new roof and foundation. Do the outside work first, Carter instructed the homeowner’s lawyer, “it’s a long time before he’s going to be able to use lights or plumbing.”

The mayor explained: “We want to bring our property values up and make our neighborhood look nice.”

Fix the outside and we don’t need to worry about what is on the inside. The folks who live in the houses can deal with the lack of plumbing as long as we don’t have to see or hear about it – and God forbid, as long as it can be kept from anyone looking to buy a house in the neighborhood.

Isn’t this emphasis on keeping up appearances what lies behind the bellyaching of those folks who, beginning a few days after Michael Brown’s death, began moaning about how all this negative publicity would “hurt” Ferguson and the St. Louis region in general? I can’t help but think it’s funny how I didn’t hear too much about any of these concerned citizens going out of their way to deal with issues of race and abuse of police power before the protesters who were the genesis of Black Lives Matter made a little noise. Maybe if anybody had been paying attention before, we might never have had had to deal with front page “Ferguson” on the national – and international – stage.

And isn’t it possible that it is genteel annoyance that our plumbing problems are out in the open for all to see that animates the desire to bring charges against the reporters who witnessed and told the world about the inept response to the Ferguson situation? According to Think Progress:

St. Louis County police are suddenly levying an onslaught of charges against journalists who covered the Ferguson protests last year, accusing them of minor offenses days before the statute of limitations is up. This week alone, three journalists have been charged for interfering with on-duty officers – a full year after their arrests. The recent developments follow an ongoing trend of criminalizing journalists for doing their jobs.

Two of the reporters possibly face $1000 fines and up to a year in jail for “interfering with officers.” Their crime?:

On a separate occasion, several officers – many of whom were armed with assault weapons – entered the restaurant and ordered patrons to leave. Journalists, including Lowery and Reilly, were told they could stay, but the officers later returned and told them they had to leave. Both were arrested and detained for not leaving fast enough, and were released without charges hours later.

As Martin Baron, Executive Editor of the Washington Post, which employs one of the Reporters, Wes Lowery, noted, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/us/arrested-in-ferguson-2014-washington-post-reporter-wesley-lowery-is-charged.html?_r=0 he “should never have been arrested in the first place. That was an abuse of police authority.”

Let’s see. Abuse of police authority? Wasn’t that the problem to begin with? Only this time it doesn’t have anything to do with us getting our metaphorical linen all dirty, but about punishing and/or impeding folks who expose our dirty linen. Because if nobody knows we soiled our underclothes, doesn’t that mean we’re as bright and shining clean as a new penny?

The post The Ferguson dilemma: When keeping up appearances is not enough appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Last week, I fired a handgun for the first time in my life. And for those of you hoping to learn that my experience transformed me from a gun-phobe to a gun-lover: Sorry. I never want to do that again.

My 20 minutes at the firing range were part of the nine-week Citizens’ Police Academy I enrolled in this spring. To qualify for the firing range experience, we had to attend a two-hour session on firearms and firearms safety. I learned a lot at that session, but perhaps not exactly what our hosts—five local police departments, and our instructor, the departments’ “firearms guru”—were hoping for.

At the firearms safety session, Lieutenant Finn [not his real name] started with a detailed explanation of how guns work. As he spoke, I realized that most of the people in our session seemed to know exactly what he was talking about and were eager to demonstrate their familiarity with guns. It seemed to me that Lieutenant Finn assumed that most people knew these things. I began to sense that I was in a small minority of non-gun-owners.

Halfway through the presentation, Lieutenant Finn offered us the opportunity to come to the front table, where an array of [disarmed, of course] police weaponry was on display for viewing and handling. He created a virtual stampede. And for the next 25 minutes, everyone—except about four of us—clustered around the weaponry, holding, pretend-aiming, pulling triggers and, if I didn’t know better—fondling [the guns, not each other.]

I was supremely uncomfortable. I sidled up to the police officer who was coordinating the citizens’ police academy and told her that I was contemplating not going to the firing range. She was understanding, but she noted that, if I didn’t, I’d be the first participant–in the 13-year history of the Academy–to not shoot. I began thinking that being the first to opt out might earn me—in my own mind—a moral badge of honor. But as the week went on, and the firing range loomed, I opted out of opting out. I told myself that I should at least try it, to know how it feels. So I did.

The next week, we went to the range in pairs—each of us assigned to a firing range instructor. I got Lt. Finn, whom I hadn’t particularly liked during his firearms safety session, as he was very ex-Marine-ish and a bit too gung-ho about guns for my taste. But at the range, he was very gentle and understanding with me, showing me how to grip the gun, how to stand, how to aim, how to slowly pull the trigger, etc.

Then, he hung up a paper target [human upper-torso outline] 20 yards away, helped me don my ear protection, and turned me loose to fire five bullets, as he stood next to me, the handgun virgin.

The last time a fired a gun—it was a rifle, not a handgun—was in 1957, at Camp Wingfoot for Girls, somewhere in rural Ohio. Back then, we engaged in something called “Riflery,” sponsored by the NRA, from whom I received “Pro-Marksman” and “Marksman First Class” medals for rudimentary, accurate target shooting from the prone position.

Back then, I had no idea what the NRA was, what it stood for, or that “Riflery” was designed as a gateway drug for future gun ownership.

Looking back, I have to admit that I sort of looked forward to Riflery—it was a lot more fun than falling off a horse [which I did multiple times] or feeling like I was drowning in the deep end of the pool, where my co-campers tossed me even though I didn’t know how to swim.

Nevertheless, knowing what I know now about guns, nearly 60 years later, I fired my handgun at the police firing range. Bang. The gun jumped, and so did I. The noise and the explosion scared the shit out of me, undoubtedly causing Lt. Finn to chuckle at my naivete and inexperience. Still, there were four more rounds in the magazine, so I went back to the line and fired again.

When Lt. Finn retrieved my target guy, I realized that I had been scarily lethal. Should I feel proud or ashamed? I’m really not sure.

Now that I’ve done that, as I said earlier, I have no desire to go back. I wouldn’t want to feel comfortable with a handgun, and it scares me that so many other people actually do. I am somewhat comforted to know that, according to our Citizen Police Academy presenters, the vast majority of police officers have never fired their weapons outside of the practice range.

But, given what Lt. Finn told us about police-department firearms training, I’m also somewhat distressed. Lt. Finn said that his department requires its officers to retrain and re-certify on firearms every quarter. Other departments do it twice a year, he said, and there are a lot of opportunities throughout the year to learn more about weapons via seminars and training meetings.

What disturbs me is this: There seems to be a great deal of emphasis on training for a circumstance [drawing and firing your weapon] that is, in everyday policing, somewhat of a rarity. Lt. Finn, for all of his expertise, told us that he has never been called upon to draw his weapon or fire it in the line of duty.

I do acknowledge that, given the proliferation of guns in America [thanks, NRA], police officers need to be ready to face the worst-case scenario in even the most routine-looking situations. But I’m wondering if the training is too skewed toward weapons training, and not focused nearly enough on things like de-escalating situations or, just simply, learning how to create more positive interactions between police and the people of their communities. Those would be targets worth shooting at.

The post I’ve lost my handgun virginity appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I’m not a cop, but I played one yesterday. On the final night of the 9-week Citizen Police Academy that I’ve been attending, 30 participants paired up, suited up in bullet-proof vests and utility belts, loaded up with fake guns and were led through two role-play exercises [and a real shoot at the police firing range, which I’ll describe in a separate post].

[Note: In light of recent headlines, like the one about the Oklahoma reserve deputy who killed a suspect, Citizen Police Academy is NOT a reserve force or anything like it. We don’t get certified. We’re not deputized to do anything. We just learn about what police do.]

That being said, here’s what we did as pretend police last night…

Role-play #1: Suspicious person

A police officer led my role-play partner [a complete stranger] and me through a simulation. First, he read us the scenario:

We’re on patrol when, at 2:30 am, we are sent to an elementary school, where it’s suspected that someone has illegally entered the building.

Then, he leads us to a small room, opens the door and tells us to go to work. We enter the room and see no one.

In previous sessions of the program, we’ve been introduced to some of the laws that pertain to police work, the definitions of various crimes, options for interacting with suspects, and the gradations and rules for use of force. Now, we’re supposed to put that information to work.

Here’s what happened: [Remember, we were making this up as we went along. There was no script and no suggestions. Our police-officer mentor was watching. The “suspect” was a police officer with excellent acting skills.]

Pretend police: “Who’s in there?”

Suspect: “It’s just me. Bob.” [He was crouching in an alcove, out of sight.]

Pretend police: “What are you doing in here?”

Bob: “I had a fight with my wife, so I came over here. I went to grade school here.”

Pretend police: “That’s not okay, Bob. You’re going to have to come out of there. Show me your hands.” [Bob sticks his hands around the end of the alcove. One of them holds a beer can.] “OK. Keep your hands out like that and come out.” [Bob emerges from the alcove.]

Bob: “Are you arresting me?”

Pretend police: “Yes.”

Bob: “For what?” [We have to scramble to think up what the charge would be in this situation. Later, we find out that we got this wrong. It should have been burglary, even though he hadn’t stolen anything.]

Pretend police: “Trespassing.”

Bob: “I’m not trespassing. The door was unlocked. I’m one of this town’s most important defense lawyers, and I know the law.”

Pretend police: [This is my best line of the night, if I must say so myself.] “No, Bob. I AM the law. It doesn’t matter what degree you have or what you think. I’m in charge here.”

Bob: “Well, all I want to do is finish my beer and go home.” [He grabs a chair, sits down, puts his feet up on the table and goes for the beer can.]

Pretend police: “That’s not going to happen, Bob. We’re placing you under arrest. Stand up—now– and put your hands behind your back.”

[Bob complies. My fake-police partner fake handcuffs him, and we begin to walk him out the door.]

That’s when our real-police-officer monitor stops the simulation. He tells us we did pretty well, except for one rather major omission. “Bob” reaches into his pocket and pulls out a screwdriver and a bag of fake drugs. He also lifts up his pant leg and shows us the knife he had hidden there. We had failed to search him after we cuffed him. Not so good, but, apparently, acceptable for a couple of improvising idiots who should never be let loose on the streets.

Role-play #2: Traffic stop

Our next scenario takes place outside, in the parking lot of the police department. We get into a real police cruiser, and our monitor describes our new situation:

We’re on patrol. It’s 3 am. We’re answering a call describing a black car driving through a supermarket parking lot with no lights on. There’s also been a report of a burglary nearby, from which a black car was seen driving away. We have just pulled over a car fitting the description. Go.

Just as we get out of our police car, the driver of the black car jumps out and starts gesturing, as if he is telling someone in the distance to run away. Again, we have to improvise the dialogue:

Pretend police: “Get back in the car, sir. Get back in the car and put your hands on the steering wheel. Get back in the car!”

[He gets back in the car. We approach—me on the passenger side, my partner on the driver’s side. We have been told by several officers that working from the passenger side is safer when you are on a highway. I remembered that!]

Driver: [slurring his words] “Hey there, ossifer. I’m just stopping to take a pee over there in the woods with my ol’ friend. Hey! Two lady cops! Hello, ladies!”

Pretend police: “I need to see your driver’s license and insurance, sir.” [He hands it over.] “Now, get out of the car and put your hands on top of the car, where I can see them.

Driver: “Do I gotta?”

Pretend police: “Yes. Get out of the car and put your hands on top of it. Now.” [He complies. But as he gets out of the car, he tosses something on the ground, which I didn’t notice, because I was walking around the car.]

Pretend police: “Sir, you appear to be under the influence of something. I’m going to ask you to do a little test. Walk along that line, toward me. Now walk back the other way.” [He does it, but he is totally wobbly. He goes to pick up the knife. We stop him. ] “We’re going to have to take you in to the station for driving while intoxicated, sir. Put your hands behind your back.” [He does, and my partner fake cuffs him.]

End of scenario. Evaluation? We did fine, we are told. We even did some things right that we didn’t know we were doing, like staying between the driver and the flashing lights of the cruiser, making it hard for him to see us and possibly shoot us if he had a weapon.

Later, we learned that one pretend cop in a different group was “suspended from duty” when he went too far in his scenario and fake tasered the suspect four times.

Lessons [real, not pretend] learned

Not that I’ll ever have the chance [too old, too scared], but I wouldn’t want to be a cop. What I’ve learned in this 9-week program—mainly—is that police work involves a shitload of split-second decision-making. Every situation—even a routine traffic stop—involves juggling a lot of factors—the rules of engagement, awareness of the situation around you, effective communication, appropriate use of force, the proper sequencing of your actions, etc., etc., etc. .

The role playing made me acutely aware of how much I don’t know. I took a lot of detailed notes during the previous sessions, and I even looked at the handy Power Points that the academy generously sent to each of the participants. But synthesizing all that stuff into the live, on-the-spot role-playing experience was a different animal.

I ended up taking the lead in each of our scenarios, but I had no idea what was the right thing to do or say. I think, to a major extent, I was mimicking what I’ve seen on the 20 years of the fictional “Law & Order” that I have watched and re-watched many times. How embarrassing is that? Detective Lenny Briscoe is my role model? Geez. I hope that real cops are way better than that.

I’m assuming that the vast majority of them are. Of course, I realize that Citizen Police Academy is as much an exercise in community public relations as it is an honest effort at letting us in on the real, non-TV workings of law enforcement. When asked tough questions about recent police-involved news events, our presenters walked a tightrope between being 100 percent in defense of their fellow cops and letting in some measure of doubt.

I know that, in a pinch, I’d be the first to call for a cop to save my ass. And I know that I’ve drunk some of the Kool-Aid during these past nine weeks. But not all of it. The police officers we’ve met in this program have seemed very well-intentioned and dedicated to doing a good job. But even they have to admit that not everyone is. But I now can see that all of them–good one, bad ones, and everyone in between–face challenges and moral conflicts that are unimaginably daunting to someone like me.

The post Citizen Police Academy: How I got to be a pretend police officer for one night appeared first on Occasional Planet.

At the risk of being labeled a wet blanket, I’d like to lodge a complaint against Gun ‘n’ Hoses. The event is an evening of amateur boxing and martial-arts matches pitting St. Louis police officers against St. Louis firefighters. Since its inception 28 years ago, it has been the biggest source of fundraising for St. Louis Backstoppers, an organization that offers financial assistance to police, firefighters and EMTs killed while doing their jobs.

Whoever came up with the name of the event was quite clever: It’s a pun on the once-popular alt-rock band called Guns ‘n’ Roses. Cute, right?

Unfortunately, the cuteness is no longer appropriate. Here’s why.

The 2014 Guns ‘n’ Hoses was originally scheduled for Thanksgiving Eve. But in late September, the organization announced that it was postponing the event. According to news reports, organizers “were concerned that participants would be weary from working long hours of extra duty”—meaning extra time spent dealing with protests and violence in Ferguson after the death of Michael Brown.

The delay is understandable. What I’m wondering about, though, is why—in the aftermath Ferguson, in which a police officer shot and killed an unarmed teenager whose offense was jaywalking—Backstoppers continues to use the name “Guns ‘n’ Hoses.”

It’s a tone-deaf name.

I can understand using ‘hoses’ to symbolize firefighters. But why—with all of the controversy around the police-shooting of Michael Brown—would you want to use “guns” as the symbol for police? If you’re trying to convince the community that police officers are more than just brute enforcers, you might want to de-emphasize the weaponry. The fact that the 2014 event was delayed precisely because of Ferguson should have made someone notice. Apparently, it didn’t. [Do I even need to mention that “Guns ‘n’ Hoses” is sponsored by Anheuser-Busch, whose product has contributed to untold numbers of drunken shootings?]

I understand that, after 28 years, the name “Guns ‘n’ Hoses” has become a brand. But so is Washington “Redskins,” and even that is on the verge of change, because it’s no longer appropriate.

So, Backstoppers, think about it. But be careful what you choose: It wouldn’t help much to change the name to “Shoots and Ladders.”

The post “Guns ‘n’ Hoses” needs a name change appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Hundreds, thousands of African-American youth are gunned down each year, mostly by other African-Americans. For many, their stories become the landscape of the world in which we live. We almost expect these homicides to lead our local news; in some cities it’s like turning the pages of a book, with each day being a slightly different story of black-on-black crime.

In each killing, the questions naturally arise as to “why.” These killings are so commonplace that we rarely try to answer the question with more than the standard perfunctory responses:

1. Somebody shot somebody and we may or may not find out who did it or why.
2. We have underlying societal conditions that cause urban dysfunction and consequently so much black-on-black crime.

When two New York police offers were gunned down ambush-style in Brooklyn on December 20, 2014, it was anything but a commonplace happening that just blended into the background of our daily viewing, listening or reading. It was not a case of “shit happens.” Because the media gave it much greater importance than black on black crime, it required a societal response. The first part of the equation was to figure out who was responsible, and next on the agenda was to play the blame game, even if it had nothing to do with the actual shooting.

It was quickly determined that the killer was Ismaaiyl Brinsley, a career criminal from Baltimore with 19 arrests to his name. Before the ambush in Brooklyn, he had shot his girlfriend in Baltimore County and then sped up to New York, apparently to execute any police officers he found. Along with his criminal record, Brinsley had a long history of mental illness. Recently, he had not been compliant in taking his prescribed medication.

There are two basic problems with how this all unfolded:

1. Without provocation, Brinsley mercilessly killed two innocent police officers.
2. Public reaction included loud voices playing the blame game in a most inappropriate way.

Former New York Governor George Pataki, using the clipped language of Twitter, he wrote: “Sickened by these barbaric acts, which sadly are a predictable outcome of divisive anti-cop rhetoric of #ericholder & #mayordeblasio. #NYPD”

What does Pataki mean by the anti-cop rhetoric of Attorney-General Holder or Mayor DeBlasio? Both of these men have repeatedly expressed strong support for police officers and the essential work that they do. However, their support of cops is not blind, as Pataki might think his is. If a police officer acts in an inappropriate way, statesmen like Holder and DeBlasio expect there to be thorough investigations and disciplinary action taken when found to be appropriate.

While there were certainly extenuating circumstances in Officer Darren Wilson’s shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, there was nothing justifiable about Daniel Pantaleo’s chokehold on Eric Garner in Staten Island. It is reasonable for citizens to be upset with the conduct of Pantaleo and his fellow officers. One of many appropriate ways for citizens to express their dissatisfaction is to take to the streets and peacefully protest. If the mayor of their city is supportive of the demonstrations, it can be government at its best, as leaders and followers are joined at the hip in expressing a need for change.

The fact that Mayor DeBlasio was critical of both Officer Pantaleo’s conduct and the inactions of a grand jury that did not indict him for anything does not make him anti-police. It means that he did not approve of what one officer did and a grand jury apparently condoned.

Like so many responsible leaders, DeBlasio expects law enforcement officers to live up to strict standards when it comes to the use of force. He also knows that a rogue police officer does harm to all other officers. It is in the best interests of police departments to have standards of civility and to have them enforced. This strengthens all police officers, particularly their relations with the communities that they police.

A fundamental role of police is to enforce our laws. Our laws include First Amendment protections – allowing people to peacefully protest. This work may not be easy for police officers, but it is necessary. When police officers and their representatives blame Mayor DeBlasio or Attorney General Holder for the bizarre actions of a mentally disturbed individual, they undermine their own authority. They misdirect the investigation, all in the name of a misbegotten sense of law and order. Those who support real policing, who support the First Amendment, and who want a more peaceful society need to remind the police that like everyone else, their respect is earned every day by good work. When they fail to do that, they need to pick themselves up and resume good policing. They will then receive the respect that they deserve.

The post Police do better when they earn their respect appeared first on Occasional Planet.

What would have happened on that hot August afternoon had a social worker come upon Michael Brown on Canfield Avenue? What if a social worker saw Eric Garner selling loose cigarettes in the Tompkinsville neighborhood of Staten Island? My hunch is that they’d both be alive today.

Among those who want reform, there is considerable talk about community policing. The Department of Justice defines community policing as:

Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.

I went to the Occasional Planet’s Director of Plain Speak who said that what it means is a cop with a heart. Well, there’s probably more to it than that and we don’t wish to imply that most cops do not have a heart. An effective community police officer has much the knowledge of a social worker, such as what approach to take when an individual or a group of people are truly upset about something. It’s also someone who can brainstorm solutions to seemingly difficult situations. Whether you’re on the “mean streets” of the inner city or closeted away in the hidden lanes of the farthest suburbs, there is essential work that community police officers can do.

We do have examples of community policing, in both our actual history and fictional history. Remember the beat cop that actor Sean Connery played in The Untouchables. He was a guy who would befriend you on the street, but when necessary bop you upside the head with his night stick.

From the 1960s through the 1980s, many police forces made efforts to hire an “Officer Friendly.” While much of the work of these officers was visiting pre-school and kindergarten classes, they also were present at a number of events where they could mingle with the public. But one Officer Friendly does not make a friendly police force.

Think of how we are now most likely to encounter a police officer. It’s the speeding police car coming to the scene of–something, and they often seem to be loaded for bear. The grainy image below is the car in which two police officers in Cleveland arrived at a park to encounter a boy with a toy gun.

Just two seconds out of the car, one officer shot and killed the boy. Perhaps an accident, but it is part of the elevated risk that we take when we demand that police officers to take a narrow vision of society and to regard others only as either potential criminals or “good guys.”

Had there been one or two community officers walking the beat near that park in Cleveland, it’s likely that they would have cautiously approached the boy and then called out to him, asking him what he was doing. The kid might have run (in which case he’d still be alive), or he could have engaged the police in conversation, particularly if he knew them from the neighborhood.

If the “system” that we have for policing is flawed, then perhaps it has to do with those whom we recruit to become police officers, and how we define their jobs. We need to recruit individuals who have a more holistic view of society, rather than one limited to dividing us into “good guys” and “bad guys.” We need people who see their role as being arbiters on the streets of their community. We need people who represent the best of our societal values to the many varied kinds of people whom they encounter.

In order to do this, we are going to have to pay community police officers more. We’re also going to have to improve their working conditions so that there is more joy and less trauma. We’re going to have to set expectations so that they receive high regard from the public when they earn it; not just because they wear a badge.

These ideas are not particularly new; they’re just ones that were frequently thrown in the trash heap during the era of a singular focus on law and order. When the primary representatives of “we the people” who interact with citizens are solely hell-bent on keeping law and order, we should expect more than occasional miscarriages of justice. If Ferguson, Staten Island, and Cleveland have taught us anything about policing, it’s that we need to thoroughly re-think it. Let’s start with community policing.

The post We need police who are also social workers appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When a person is arrested for probable cause, a prosecutor convenes a grand jury in order to bring an indictment. But, St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCullough used the grand jury not to indict, but to exonerate Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown. In doing so, he stood the judicial process on its head.

In McCullough’s statement to the press he made sure to undermine the credibility of witnesses who testified against Wilson. He described how they misrepresented the facts, had faulty memories,  withdrew previous statements, and/or contradicted themselves in their testimony. Evidently, in an effort to counter these unreliable witnesses, McCulloch invited Wilson to appear before the grand jury to testify in his own defense. Shaun King at Daily Kos characterized Wilson’s testimony:

After a thorough examination of Darren Wilson’s four-hour long open testimony before the grand jury, it’s clear that he was well-prepared to paint the narrative of a cordial, helpless, respectable community servant who shockingly found himself up against the biggest, blackest, strongest, demonic super monster he’s ever seen in his life.

Wilson told the same story in his interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC news. His story may be true, yet many witnesses tell a different story of the events surrounding Wilson’s killing of Michael Brown. Even the police reports have changed since the time of the shooting. There were enough inconsistencies in the grand jury testimony that Wilson should have been indicted for something and gone to trial, and McCulloch should have done his job and led the jurors to that conclusion.  But, as Paul Rosenberg says “the fix was in from the moment Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown.”

Paul Rosenberg: “Everything the Darren Wilson grand jury got wrong: The lies, errors and mistruths that let Michael Brown’s killer off the hook”

Data is sketchy and incomplete, but police shoot scores of unarmed blacks every year, and rarely face significant consequences, so why shouldn’t Wilson get away with murder? Still, at least giving the appearance of justice for all, and requiring Wilson to stand trial hardly seemed too much to ask—unless, of course, you were St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch, who defended Wilson and attacked his accusers, the media and social media in a night-time press conference Monday that seemed perfectly timed and perfectly toned to elicit the most angry, unfocused and uncontrolled response possible.

As part of his theatre of openness and impartiality, however, McCulloch included a document dump which may have been intended to be overwhelming, and therefore ignored, but which has already proven sufficient to undermine McCulloch’s ludicrous posture of legal rectitude.

Jeffrey Toobin: “How Not to Use a Grand Jury”

In Jeffrey Toobin’s recent article in the New Yorker, “How Not To Use A Grand Jury,” he reminds us that grand juries are tools used by prosecutors for the purpose of bringing indictments. They are very good at getting what they want. He repeats the famous quote by former New York judge Sol Wachter, “a good prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.” In McCulloch’s case, he misused the judicial process and skewed the information presented to the jurors so as to make it difficult, if not impossible for them to indict. He helped spare Wilson a trial, where he would be subject to cross-examination. Further, he protected the all-white Ferguson Police Department from having their racism and aggressive behavior toward the mostly black citizens of Ferguson exposed.

In sending Wilson’s case to the grand jury, McCulloch technically turned over to them the decision about whether to prosecute. By submitting all the evidence to the grand jury, he added to the perception that this process represented an independent evaluation of the evidence. But there is little doubt that he remained largely in control of the process; aggressive advocacy by prosecutors could have persuaded the grand jurors to vote for some kind of indictment. The standard for such charges—probable cause, or more probable than not—is generally a very easy hurdle. If McCulloch’s lawyers had simply pared down the evidence to that which incriminated Wilson, they would have easily obtained an indictment.

The grand jury chose not to indict Wilson for any crimes in connection with Brown’s death. In a news conference following the decision, McCulloch laid out the evidence that he believed supported the grand jury’s finding. In making the case for Wilson’s innocence, McCulloch cherry-picked the most exculpatory information from what was assembled before the grand jury.

 

The family of Michael Brown, the citizens of Ferguson and of st. Louis County deserve a fair and impartial prosecutor. They don’t have one.

The post Ferguson: McCulloch used grand jury to exonerate Darren Wilson appeared first on Occasional Planet.