Does Anyone Owe Colin Kaepernick An Apology?
So we should have known with the current events of social unrest, righteous demands for justice about police misconduct, daily viral videos of police brutality, and the seemingly snail crawl of justice in cases like Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, that old related controversies would arise. The additional layer of Covid-19 stripping away outlets and release valves like simply going out, group activities, and sports, just makes it worse. Especially sports, which in recent years has taken on a role as cultural laboratory where folks can cross all sorts of streams like social issues, media coverage, and politics just to see what happens without the pesky permanence of lawmaking or, theoretically, the normal average American getting too hurt by it.
So of course with social justice on everyone’s mind, and no sports going on, once again Colin Kaepernick is back in the headlines, this time with New Orleans Saints Quarterback Drew Brees making comments that now have him putting out his second official apology in as many days.
New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees — who apologized on social media in a statement Thursday for his national anthem comments in the wake of George Floyd’s death — expressed his sorrow verbally in an Instagram post later in the day.
“I know there’s not much that I could say that would make things any better right now,” Brees said in the video. “But I just want you to see in my eyes how sorry I am for the comments that I made yesterday. I know they hurt many people, especially friends, teammates, former teammates, loved ones, people that I care and respect deeply.”
Brees — who struck a nerve with his comments on Wednesday about how kneeling during the national anthem is “disrespecting the flag” — said it was never his intention to be hurtful.
“I wish I would have laid out what was on my heart in regards to the George Floyd murder, Ahmaud Arbery, the years and years of social injustice, police brutality and the need for so much reform and change in regards to legislation and so many other things to bring equality to our black communities,” Brees said.
“I’ll just speak on the Drew Brees thing really quickly – he’s a really good dude, man. He does a lot for the city of New Orleans … Even what he said in his response, well, he said what he said, so I don’t know what he meant exactly. But I absolutely don’t think he meant to ostracize himself or make this issue about something that it’s not,” Nate Boyer told San Diego’s 97.3 The Fan. “I also understand what he was talking about in the other part of that video when the anthem plays, because I feel the same way. And that’s not a bad thing to feel patriotic. It’s not a bad thing to love your country and want to stand with your hand on your heart. But if other people don’t feel the same way, it’s just that acknowledgement and understanding that, ‘Hey, I’ll stand for you, and until you feel that way, maybe you shouldn’t. But when you do, I’m looking forward to the day that you feel the same way that I do and I’ll keep fighting to make it happen until that day comes’.”
Why quote Nate Boyer? Because he started a lot of this.
Lost to many is the genesis of the anthem controversy that Colin Kaepernick kicked off, not with an explosion of controversy, but with nobody at all noticing. Kaepernick had started sitting for the national anthem during the first two preseason games in August of 2016, but nobody really noticed — much less cared — until a photo of the 49ers bench started circulating showing him doing so during the third game. It was then that Kaepernick was asked what exactly it was he was doing, along with comments by the NFL and 49ers.
“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
The 49ers issued a statement about Kaepernick’s decision: “The national anthem is and always will be a special part of the pre-game ceremony. It is an opportunity to honor our country and reflect on the great liberties we are afforded as its citizens. In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose and participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem.”
Niners coach Chip Kelly told reporters Saturday that Kaepernick’s decision not to stand during the national anthem is “his right as a citizen” and said “it’s not my right to tell him not to do something.”
The NFL also released a statement, obtained by NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport: “Players are encouraged but not required to stand during the playing of the national anthem.”
That brought about Boyer, an Army veteran, activist, and former NFL player, to write an open letter on the subject. Kaepernick saw it, and the two met and had a discussion. “We were talking to [Boyer] about how can we get the message back on track and not take away from the military, not take away from fighting for our country, but keep the focus on what the issues really are,” Kaepernick explained about their 90 minute conversation, which ended with Boyer being invited to the next 49ers game on Sept 1. “And as we talked about it, we came up with taking a knee. Because there are issues that still need to be addressed and it was also a way to show more respect to the men and women who fight for this country.”
So it came about during the September 1st game, three weeks after Kaepernick first started his protest, that he along with teammate Eric Reid took a knee for the national anthem. He got the attention he wanted. There is no need to rehash all that followed, from President Trump latching on to the issue, to the domination of sports talk, to the apparent end of Kaepernick’s NFL career soon after. All the particulars such as incendiary rhetoric, the now-infamous “pig socks”, the calls for boycotting the NFL and later Nike for their endorsements of Kaepernick, and so on became one giant mess that when viewed from a distance became a Rorschach test. A test whose spectrum of hot takes ranged from those [denouncing the American-hating, vet disrespecting, spoiled rich players on one extreme and the people who clearly hated everyone if they didn’t out-protest the next person on the other and a wide spectrum in between.
So now four years later, with the entire nation focused on the issue of police brutality through recent events, plenty are calling for a re-examining of Kaepernick’s protest. Including our friend Kimberly Ross, writing in Arc:
When NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick began kneeling in protest during the national anthem in 2016, I was slightly appalled: He lives in the greatest country in the world and enjoys the pleasures of a well-paying profession. Yet he chooses to disrespect the flag and those who fought and died for him?! The nerve.
Those feelings simmered. They stayed with me for a while.
But Kaepernick was right to bring light to the situation of police brutality directed at black Americans. No, I don’t agree with his “pig cop” socks (he reportedly stated they were only “meant to represent rogue cops”). No, I don’t personally agree with disrespecting the flag, though doing so is protected by the First Amendment. But the message of enough is enough? Using his platform for a public display?
Why shouldn’t black Americans — who feel helpless and enraged when they see the obvious disparity in treatment by law enforcement — peacefully protest by kneeling?…
…So my apologies, Colin Kaepernick. You weren’t wrong for shining a spotlight on injustice. You used the platform at your disposal and, with a calm, peaceful action, sent a message.
Many Americans, including me, didn’t want to hear it. I think more get it now.
I also apologize for my rush to respond to the Black Lives Matter movement with “but all lives matter!” Responding that way sounds like a refusal to admit there’s a problem.
Of course every life matters. I’m a staunch member of the pro-life community. I understand that well. But if some lives are treated like they matter less, fighting to fix that is how we uphold the principle that all lives matter.
So who, if anyone, owes Colin Kaepernick an apology, like our friend feels she does? Does anything else need re-examined from the anthem controversy in light of recent events? Did the storm in the stadium pre-games matter at all?
Depends. Yes. Maybe.
Colin Kaepernick is a smart guy, and was aware of what his protest might cost him. He is, as of this writing, apparently done with NFL football most out of ownership not wanting the headache of having the league’s most famous activist as a distraction. He will be ok, between his activism work, his lucrative Nike endorsement deal, and his settlement with the NFL, Kaep may not have his playing gig but won’t be missing any meals and has continued to follow the path he chose of activism. You can see the worthiness of his cause and still see the errors, both tactical and of messaging, he made along the way. You can — as many have — just see the kneeling as hating America and ignore all the rest of it as irrelevant to that perceived sin against the civic religion of patriotism. But even if you detest everything about Kaepernick from his message to how he delivered it, four years on and as we have a national debate on police brutality while it is happening in the streets in real time, not conceding he brought attention to it is just being obtuse.
Does that entitle Kaepernick to anything? That’s up to the individual. If, like Kimberly Ross, the current crisis of police brutalizing citizens in the streets causes you to reflect on the thoughts and feelings you had about a quarterback kneeling in a stadium for the National Anthem to highlight that very issue, then perhaps you should apologize. If you heard him out, gave the message a fair hearing even if you didn’t like the delivery method, and kept your bearing when folks who can’t be bothered to darken the door of their local VA hospital insisted it was an affront to every veteran ever for all eternity, you may not. If you realized waving the very symbols of our freedom at people as a threat for them to not exercise that freedom is grosser than your feelings getting hurt for three minutes, maybe you have some more reflecting to do.
Maybe while reflecting on such things you can think through a few others, like how the NFL pays for and uses patriot imagery as part of their marketing plan. How the DOD pays for that privilege. How so many NFL players who have made it to fame and fortune would like wider swaths of their communities that do not have elite athletic ability to get a fairer shake in the world. How politicians love to use the flag, anthem, and anything else that is an ordinance of the civic religion of patriotism to try and whip up emotions for their own purposes and power. How folks insist others not feeling exactly how they do about a song or symbol means they are disrespecting veterans, when even a sliver of that same anger channeled at a VA Healthcare system that has scandal after scandal of actually killing veterans might do far more good than earning attaboys from social media tribes for your star-spangled denunciations of “them over there”.
Would more notice of the protests by Kaepernick and others four years ago and since have prevented the George Floyds, Breonna Taylors, and so many others since then we could name? Who knows. I doubt it. These inflection points in history come right when they are supposed to, with multiple factors meeting together to cause the moments that change our lives. Maybe I’m naïve, or super biased, or in the small minority, though, in thinking that way. After all, the only time I know of that I ever knelt for the flag was to secure the straps tying down the transfer cases 1 to the floor of the aircraft to send human remains of service members home. Everything has to be just so, perfectly done, no mistakes, right down to how the flag is secured to the top. It’s the least you can do at that point.
Real life is never perfectly done, with no mistakes, right down to how we treat our flag, and anthem, and each other. Colin Kaepernick had the freedom to use his platform as he saw fit. The NFL had the freedom to react to it. All the rest of us had the freedom to comment and wage internet war over it. Despite those online words, the NFL today has never been more popular, Nike still sells plenty of shoes, and Kaepernick once again has a high profile platform to push his causes. Speaking only for myself, I’ll not be kneeling again for the flag, or Anthem, or for anything else other than prayer, and certainly not for someone to take a picture or derive some meaning from me doing so. I suspect we will have a large group of athletes once again kneeling when sports do return, as we have seen protesters, politicians, social media folks, and even some police doing. I will be writing, using the platform I have to talk about what is going on, and judging things as best I can with as much discernment as I can muster. Lay before me an injustice and as best I can I will get to the truth of it and honestly fight for who is right in that circumstance. That is what I can do. That is what I must do.
I don’t owe Colin Kaepernick an apology any more than he owes me any explanation as to why he is doing what he is doing. Both can be judged on their own merits — good and bad — as it should be. I heard him out, and despite not liking some of the particulars of how it went down and disagreeing to some of his stated solutions, the actual cause he touts is a just one. He certainly doesn’t need my opinion or approval to pursue his chosen path. To disagree with parts of things, agree with others, and actually take the time to notice nuances 240 character tweets and hot takes don’t allow for is the messy, imperfect, mistake-filled way a free society works out its issues. Maybe we all just take a moment next time someone demands our attention in an uncomfortable and imperfect way, and think through why they take that extreme measure rather than just knee-jerk reacting to the manner they do so. Maybe we can spend 4 minutes of humility to avert 4 years of pain and suffering.
But I doubt it. Too easy to just project our priors on the non-conformist who interrupts our civic ritual of pregame and mash send to feel better for 20 seconds. Then forget it by kickoff.
Till the next time, anyway.
- Transfer cases are the metal boxes containing the remains of service members from overseas you see carried off the aircraft with flags on top during ceremonies at Dover Air Force Base. Dover has the military’s Mortuary Affairs, and it is there they will get processed and released to families and traditional caskets, or whatever other arrangements are made.
I don’t watch football, and as such never saw him take a knee. When I heard about it at the time I thought it was just a matter of time before he was fired.
You can be right on the issue and still be justly fired because the company doesn’t want their PR machine being used for your personal agenda.
He’s a very high profile activist, and that’s a fine profession. Football cares about advancing the cause of football. Those two things are only at odds if he insists on them being at odds, but he did insist.Report
He had been benched when this started. You have to have a lot of talent to overcome any sort of distraction. He was serviceable as a running QB but never was at that truly elite level.
And I say that as someone who agrees with him at least that the issue presents a problem. Also think the patriotic stuff at ball games has been farcical for going on 20 years now.Report
His wiki said he wanted $20 million to work for a team when it was implied he was worth FAR less.
He was worth more as a fired football player than a failed one.Report
He allegedly asked $20 million to play in the AAF which didn’t even make it through its first and only season before it ran out of money. It isn’t clear to me how much to make of that without a lot of context.
He had signed a pretty large contract going into the 2014 season after a good 2013 and leading the 49ers to the Super Bowl in 2012 when Alex Smith was concussed midway through the season. However he never lived up to the 2014 contract (in addition to mediocre play he had durability/injury concerns). He was benched for Blaine Gabbert by 2 coaching regimes, then walked after Kyle Shanahan supposedly made noise about releasing him for scheme reasons as part of his rebuild. He hasn’t played since.
Obviously I am not an NFL GM but I think his realistic value is in the neighborhood of RG3’s deal with the Ravens. So approx. $1 mil per year as a backup with incentives on a team that does a lot of read option offense.Report
So if he’s making more than a million a year because of taking a knee, he came out ahead.
And that’s without thinking about football players ageing out of their careers a lot faster than activists.Report
Per Wikipedia his 2014 contract was $126 million with $54 million guaranteed. Assuming his finances were managed properly he was already at a point where he never had to work again.Report
What we are trying to do in America – what we’ve been working at for the last 250ish years – is not easy for human beings to do. It takes work, by each generation, to establish it, to maintain it, and to improve it.
It’s worth a fair bit of discomfort. Protest is not necessarily an act of hatred, but one of pain, of love, of wisdom, of longing.
Report
There is a list of people to whom the world owes an apology.
Sinead O’ Connor, who tried to warn us of the toxic culture that was the Church;
The anti-war protesters in 2003 who warned that the war would be a quagmire;
Hillary Clinton who warned us 2016 of what was to come.Report
That Sinead O’Connor one is really one for the booksReport
Which I’d read if someone would write it. Just sayin.Report
Every single college student who was called a snowflake, but was far tougher and less whiny than Donald Trump.Report
Does this count as an apology?
We, the NFL, condemn racism and the systematic oppression of Black People. We, the NFL, admit we were wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier and encourage all to speak out and peacefully protest. We, the NFL, believe Black Lives Matter.
Video of Goodell eating some crow hereReport
And that’s as close as there will be to an apology from the owners. Well, and however much they paid to get Kaepernick and Reid to drop the collusion case.Report
There were far worse quarterbacks who had jobs when Kaepernick did not; he was colluded against as clearly as Barry Bonds was. The settlement was a tacit admission of that.Report
I wouldn’t suggest for a second that the NFL owners wouldn’t collude if they thought they needed to. The problem is inferring collusion from otherwise explainable parallel conduct. A handful of teams had no football-related use for Kaepernick because they were well-set at the QB position, both starter and back-up, or had the wrong style of play for his talents. Almost all the teams, maybe all of them, are owned by rich Republican assholes. None of them, acting purely individually, would take on Kaepernick and his baggage unless he was as good as, say, Aaron Rodgers, and maybe not even then. Collusion would be unnecessary.
That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if the owners colluded anyway.Report
One thing that I had forgotten was how deep we were into the concussion scandal at the time of these protests. These protests were used as one heck of a great distraction from the concussion thing.
Do Black Lives Matter or do All Lives Matter? Vote here! (Pay no attention to the concussion reports coming out.)Report
When I was a kid in the mid 1970’s, we used to attend the Univ. Michigan home football games. At the time, there was a “black student section,” and most of those students didn’t stand for the National Anthem. When I asked my mother why, she said that they were “protesting the war, I guess,” which wasn’t a particularly satisfying answer since the war was over and no one else was sitting for the Anthem. I didn’t really think much about it again until recently with the Kaepernick controversy.
I recall in one of the more difficult times of my life turning to patriotism and proudly putting my hand over my heart as the Anthem played, although that wasn’t that sustaining. It became difficult for me during the Iraq War, which I actively opposed, when sporting events were effectively being used for propaganda and felt like a turn from patriotism to nationalism, as did displaying a flag. I went to a few sporting events at the time and, rather than make a scene, snuck off to the concession stand during the Anthem. At the height of the War, I had moved to New Zealand and a friend there invited me to a Rugby match. I noticed that they didn’t play their National Anthem before the match and he seemed amused when I asked about it, although he then begrudgingly admitted that when he was a kid, they used to stand up before a movie started and sing God Save the Queen.
I haven’t been to a game in a long time, and I am not sure what I would do about the Anthem, but I think at this point, rising for the Anthem would only be a way to avoid creating a scene, as I don’t really have positive associations with it, anymore.Report
Eric Reid, FYI; not Read.Report
I think there are two separate questions here:
1. Was he actually right about black people being killed by police at rates disproportionate to the rate at which they commit crimes? The best evidence suggests no, but this is a totally understandable mistake given the grossly misleading media coverage of the topic. This was true at the time, and this is true now. The facts have not meaningfully changed, and no new evidence has come to light—activists and the media have just been pushing the narrative harder.
2. Right or wrong, were people kind of jerks about it? Yeah, I think so. Entertainers aren’t chosen for their data analysis skills—they’re prone to this kind of thing. No need to get bent out of shape when one of them goes off on some misguided crusade. Just roll your eyes, do a quick air wank, and move on.Report
There are certainly some cultural insights from so many jumping to the least charitable interpretation possible of any dissent displayed during
Pentagon funded recruiting displaysspontaneous shows of patriotism at sporting events.ReportSo there is an acceptable Killed-by-cop:crimes committed ratio?Report
The question Brandon is addressing is whether the observed disparate treatment of black people vs.white people by police is better explained by police racism or by socio-economic disparity (or some combination). It seems natural to assume that the incidence of people being killed by cops in a given area will be correlated with the level of crime in that area — so, whether or not the ratio is “acceptable”, if we see a consistent ratio regardless of the racial breakdown of a given area, that bit of evidence would point away from the explanation being due to police racism.Report
The question he asked had nothing to do with Kaepernick and nothing to do with whether he was right.Report
Yes, of course. Apprehending criminals is inherently dangerous. Sometimes suspects violently resist arrest in a manner such that they cannot be apprehended safely, or are too dangerous to be allowed to escape alive. Furthermore, given that police officers are human, they sometimes make good-faith errors despite the best of intentions. These cannot be fully eliminated, and some level of erroneous killings of suspects by police officers must be accepted as a cost of taking dangerous criminals off the streets.
Reducing the rate at which police officers kill suspects comes at a cost in the form of suspects killing more officers and/or escaping to do more harm to the public. There’s some optimal level at which the trade-off isn’t worth it.
I don’t think we’re at that level yet, and I think there’s probably room to improve things via changes to rules of engagement and other procedural improvements. Procedural reforms are good! We should do those! What I object to specifically is:
1. The gratuitous and evidence-free racialization of the issue. As I’ve explained in recent threads, the data just don’t back this up. Did you know that white men are fatally shot by police at 10x the rate (per capita!) that black women are? According to the WaPo database, 47 black women and 2305 white men have been fatally shot by police since 2015/01/01. That’s a ratio of 49, and there are only about 5 times as many white men as black women in the US.
2. The demonization of individual police officers who make what appear to me to be good-faith errors (I do not include Chauvin in this group). I’m beginning to suspect that there’s a final cognitive development milestone that a lot of adults never reach. They hear about someone being killed by police. They hear that he was unarmed. They conclude, “That’s murder!” But they fail to apply theory of mind and take into account what the officer knew or had reason to believe at the time, and also the fact that said officer did not have the time to deliberate the issue at leisure. The question is not “Did the decedent deserve to die,” but “Taking into account the available information and limitations of the human mind, was the decision to shoot so egregiously wrong a priori that it warrants imprisonment for several years or longer?”
The latter applies only to shootings, not to police brutality, in which it is entirely appropriate to demonize the individual officer. There’s no good-faith mistake you can make that leads to a sustained beating of a handcuffed suspect. We should definitely crack down harder on that.Report
I actually agree with a lot of what you’re saying here. What I think you may be missing is how it got this way, which is the decades of botched SWAT raids, use of law enforcement to collect taxes, and petty violations of rights that for a huge number of socioeconomic and policy reasons are endlessly more visible and to some degree more prevalent in poorer, more urban, minority parts of the country. Unfortunately I think we’ve passed the place where we can get to the policy approach without the cops eating some serious crow. It’s not like we’re dealing with institutions with good reputations for accountability and professionalism. On the contrary, many of the misconceptions you’re talking about are driven by the whole ‘nothing to see here/you can’t expect us to be responsible for anything’ attitude from law enforcement, no matter how ridiculous the incident in question is.Report
To further illustrate try doing a thought experiment where George Floyd being killed wasn’t caught on camera. Say instead it was simply reported by bystanders. What do you think the chances are Chauvin would be subject to any sort of discipline right now, much less criminal charges? I’d say extremely low. It’s quite possible he’d already be cleared by some sham investigation process and back on the street, with the litany of usual excuses fed to Floyd’s relatives. That is if they even bothered to address it at all.
This was the experience for years before everyone was walking around with the the ability to record video in their pocket. So yes, there are some misconceptions and I hope we don’t screw up the policy because of them. But those misperceptions are entirely the fault of the police.Report
Derek Michael Chauvin, age 44, had been a police officer in the Minneapolis Police Department since 2001.[28][29] He had 18 complaints on his official record, two of which resulted in discipline including official letters of reprimand.[30] He had been involved in three police shootings, one of them fatal.[28][31][32] Chauvin was awarded medals of valor in 2006 and 2008 for incidents in which he fired at suspects, and in 2008 and 2009 received commendations for pursuing suspects.[33][34]
(wiki)
So… yet another complaint and yet another official letter of reprimand?Report
“Reducing the rate at which police officers kill suspects comes at a cost in the form of suspects killing more officers and/or escaping to do more harm to the public. There’s some optimal level at which the trade-off isn’t worth it.”
Except that we don’t think that’s a trade-off, we do think that the optimal level of “police killing suspects” is either zero or so close to it that deaths are genuine accidents and not specific decisions by officers.
There’s this weird thing in conversations with some people, where they’re like “welp, just gotta accept some deaths, no choice about it, people gon’ die, that’s gon’ happen, you just have to accept some deaths, you just have to accept some deaths.” Like they argue to constantly and loudly against the idea that It Doesn’t Need To Be That Way that you wonder whether maybe they want it to be that way.
“They conclude, “That’s murder!” But they fail to apply theory of mind…”
Theory of mind? Theory of mind. A cop draws down on a running purse-snatcher and puts two in his back, and your response to that is to bring up theory of mind.
I got a theory for you, it’s the theory of “maybe we don’t want patrol forces to constantly have access to deadly weapons and dispensation to use them”.Report
This is not realistic given what we expect the police to do, nor the rest of the culture(s).
Locally we had an always-heavily-armed end of the world survivalist determined to go down with guns blazing. That wasn’t a problem until he started committing crimes and his relatives asked the police to enforce the law.
We have the occasional school shooter and/or terrorist. We have suicide by cop. We have people who get high, attack the police and try to take their guns. Half of the white people killed by the police are mentally ill.
It’s unclear how many people would still be alive in a world with reformed police, but that number isn’t all of them. It might not even be a quarter. We have roughly as many people die at the hands of the police as we have mass shooters.
I support police reform. I also expect most of the inequality-dealing-with-law-enforcement problems still exist after we’re done because they have nothing to do with the cops.
So when the next school shooting happens, you’re cool with them mowing down people until they run out of bullets because we don’t want the police killing people?Report
“This is not realistic given what we expect the police to do”
maybe we shouldn’t expect beat patrolmen to do that.
“we had an always-heavily-armed end of the world survivalist determined to go down with guns blazing.”
if your threat model is John Fucking Rambo then you’re gonna need something more than a dude with a Glock to handle it.
“We have suicide by cop. We have people who get high, attack the police and try to take their guns. ”
These are not arguments that the police should have guns, sir, they’re arguments that they shouldn’t.
“when the next school shooting happens, you’re cool with them mowing down people until they run out of bullets because we don’t want the police killing people?”
lol
what if there’s a bomb and the terrorist we captured is the only one who knows where it is and he refuses to talk?Report
Real world means no plot armor. This guy was gunned down by a few cops with handguns. I have no idea if that means “Glock”.
There needs to be a way to deal with that situation other than assuming it won’t happen.
This isn’t a “what if” game. We have roughly as many mass shootings as we do police killings. They’re common enough that we’ll have more this year. Do you expect the police to step in or not?
If not, then you’re making tradeoffs. If your plan is that mass murderers will be impressed by us disarming the police and will follow the law, then I don’t think that will work.Report
I’ve been thinking about this a lot. First, cops very often don’t arrive in time to stop a mass shooting. Sometimes they do. In any event, yes, municipalities will need something like a “SWAT team” to deal with active shooter situations. Likewise, if a rogue motorcycle gang roars into town, hollering and shooting up the streets, yeah, something like SWAT will need to be called upon.
However, SWAT aren’t “police,” not exactly. They’re something else. We conflate the roles of “armed defender” with “person who handles crime in the community,” which strikes me as a critical mistake.
A lot of people ask, “Who will you go to if you’re raped?”
Ha! As if the cops do anything now. But never mind that. Police don’t need armed, militant goons to investigate rape or burglary.
“What about armed robbers?”
How many armed robbers would there be if we had better drug treatment? What if we just gave them drugs?
I mean that seriously. What if we gave them safe medical-grade drugs, along with housing and nurses to monitor them, etcetera? That’s fucking insane, right! The sane response is to increase their sense of marginalization, humiliation, and deprivation. Make sure they suffer, and then punish them with unchecked violence when they step out of line. That’s clearly the sane response.
Obviously we’d rather each city field a squad of goons with the latest military technology, rather than pay for nurses and drugs. Clearly that’s better.
What if, instead of meeting the armed robber with force, we instead talked to him, made it clear he wouldn’t be arrested or shot, that he didn’t actually need a gun, and that we would talk about why he felt the need to steal?
That’s insane, right! There’s just no way we could do that! We need to meet force with force, and then lock him up in a place where he’ll be brutalized and also meet a bunch of white power folks to groom him. That’s a much better approach.
Talking? Ha! As if you could ever talk to a person and try to meet their needs. Nonsense. Pure balderdash. Instead, we should dismiss them as an irredeemable thugs. In turn, we should license a gang of malcontents, to whom we both give guns and the color of law, and unleash them among the undesirable thugs. That will ensure “law and order.”
Provided that the thugs we have armed respect the property and dignity of the privileged class, we will turn a blind eye toward how they treat the underclass. That’s the obvious solution to armed robbery. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
We know that crime goes down as employment goes up. But sure, imprison people, demonize them, make them unemployable, then release them. That’ll work. Anything else would be insane.
Watch videos of “traffic stops gone wrong.” How often is the victim some poor person who has a hard time navigating “the system” — and here comes “the system,” with a gun, barking orders, manhandling them, humiliating them, all while they were just trying to get to work in their beater car with a busted taillight — except you know that cops often lie about the taillight thing, which makes the humiliation even worse. Consider the level of capricious power deployed against someone who is already late with rent? So on that unfortunate day it’s too much, so they “resist” the cop, just as many of you would do if in similar circumstances! For that they get a beatdown, a felony arrest, further unemployability, all from a socially maladjusted lying bastard cop.
That’s a perfect formula for safer streets.Report
So when the next school shooting happens, you’re cool with them mowing down people until they run out of bullets because we don’t want the police killing people?
One of my biggest criticisms of the school shooting in Florida involved law enforcement on the scene being non-responsive and hiding until the shooter ran out of bullets.
From what I understand, the official argument is that there is no “Duty To Protect” on the part of law enforcement. “No duty to protect? That’s nuts!”, I hear you say.
I agree!
But we got into all of that here and here.Report
1. Was he actually right about black people being killed by police at rates disproportionate to the rate at which they commit crimes?
Did Kaepernick ever suggest that black people were killed *more frequently* than white people? I don’t recall that topic ever coming up. Instead he protested the mere fact that unarmed black people were being killed by cops.Report
The implication from that phrasing is that blacks are especially vulnerable to this because of their skin colour rather than than because of their socio-economic status.
What do we need to do to fix this? Is it “end police racism”? Or is it more, “restructure the entire economic system”? I was listening to NPR and although the “experts” where using phrases that described the former, their solutions were the later.
IMHO we will be doing very well if we just end Blue Privilege. That would mean Mr Knee is held accountable and the Floyds of the US get justice. It also means people like Mike Brown (of Ferguson) still end up dying on the streets in numbers activists consider shocking.Report
That’s a really interesting question and it made me look back. As best as I can tell the answer is no he never made that specific assertion.
The more I look the more it seems like people really projected a lot onto him. Maybe I’m freestyling myself right out of the discussion but it makes me chuckle at the state of America. Like can we as a culture really not handle something so milquetoast? We have got to get out of our own heads.Report
Honestly, Americans have never really been good with even the most minor criticism of the United States or any of its’ associated myths for the most part. We might say we believe in free speech, free press, and all that but lots of Americans get extraordinarily angry when people use said rights to criticism God, mom, apple pie, and the United States. Non-Americans might not necessarily be more left-leaning or pro-Communist but they seem better able to deal with a few radical intellectuals as oddball curiosities while Americans tended to go for the hammer smash whenever.Report
If you, like me, were idly wondering what we were saying at the time, there’s this from 2017 and this from 2018.Report