And now you've given me one to ponder. Maybe we'd all do better (myself included and in particular) by considering that. It would really suck if a simple misunderstanding is holding back progress.
I hear you and I wouldn't say there's nothing to that. What I will say is that what you're talking about is a generational, cultural project with no clear blueprint. It's challenging to even know when cultural bias is in play in a given incident (even if aggregate numbers prove something is afoot), and it could take generations to change. I also don't know how we would judge the success of a project like that.
You know what's a lot easier though? We empower a citizen review board that doesn't answer to the police department to suspend police without pay when someone substantiates an incident of excessive force, and remove the hurdles to civil rights lawsuits. We can then track records and lawsuits and officers and the number of complaints to get a sense of how we're doing. Conversely, we can debate until the cows come home whether or not any given incident arose from subconscious bias. Most of the time it can't be proven or disproven.
So while I'm not saying there's no merit to what you're saying, I see it as going for the apple at the tippy top of the tree while there's an abundance of good, lower hanging fruit. It doesn't make sense to me to treat subconscious bias as priority number 1, much less treat agreeing to help on that particular project as a litmus test for working with others towards common cause. The latter is where I have a serious beef and where I feel a lot of people who disagree with me on the issue are going. There's a lot that can be done even if people disagree on some of the more meta issues.
I wrote it out of frustration and as a lament that I think we (as a country) missed a really great chance to do something to address a problem I care a lot about.
Edit to add, I appreciate the feedback. Maybe for my next piece I'll draft the policy paper. :)
I think thats really a community by community question. What makes sense in one place won't necessarily in another. If there's a training protocol that helps humanize/build relationships between police and minority citizens in the given community that the police are interacting with and evidence that it would help that community I would not oppose it.
I do however think it can become an ineffective 'feel good' program if not tailored and administered well. Take Baltimore city where more than half of the police force is non-white yet police abuse is still a major problem, with major racial disparities. In a context like that its clear that something else is the driving force behind the problem.
2. I don't think this is only a racial issue. It's a public policy issue. The sooner more people see it that way the better chance I think we'll have of doing things about it.
3. I reject the idea that there are some kind of rules around who can say what to whom, especially when we are talking about ideas and politics. If there's a hole in my argument by all means hammer me for it (you, Chip, Lee and Saul have made some interesting counter points). If the best someone can come up with (and to be clear I understand this isn't what you are saying) is 'this can't be taken seriously because of the author's race' then thats great because it means they can't find a logical flaw. I just do not find appeals to identity to be convincing without someone doing the work to show why they should be.
4. I am posting anonymously which means I forfeit the right to play this card but I've done my due diligence on the issue. This place is too smart for me to do a piece where I haven't. Unfortunately I get that I don't get credit for that unless I get the balls to put my name on the byline. My hope is that I've been thoughtful and engaging enough in the post and the comments to show that I'm not pulling my opinions out of my ass but ymmv.
Hey I'm all for widening the scope of acceptable discourse. For me this is a discussion about tactics for advancing a particular policy outcome. It definitely is not about telling people what they can and can't say.
If people want to percieve me as saying something I'm not there's nothing I can do about it. I thought really hard about that when drafting this (see the first part of paragraph 3 and the others I referenced). At some point people are going to think what they think. If that stopped us from posting OT wouldn't exist.
To me the lesson is that organizational maturity matters. The local NAACP chapters knew exactly who they needed to call and lobby and their message was hard to find fault with.
I listed them last for a reason and added in the second to last paragraph for the same reason. There are things I think they could do to be much more successful but that shouldn't imply everyone else is off the hook. They got the issue in the national headlines and deserve credit for that.
Even if it detracts from the non-silly list of demands that would help everyone? I feel like this is illustrating my point. We're spending way more time talking about the silly list I linked to and not the non-silly list I also linked to.
I think this is very fair but this is what I mean about message discipline. MLK was seen as having a distinct following/agenda from the Nation of Islam, whatever the overlap in the broader civil rights movement. No one knows who speaks for BLM and the consequence is that everyone who slaps the hashtag on their activities ends up associated.
I think its self-defeating to the extent it becomes a special interest and/or attaches itself in people's minds to activist groups that a plurality of the public think are crazy/don't take seriously.
If you want to see a blueprint for success, read about Maryland's SWAT tracking law. Its a very minor piece of sunshine legislation passed after a town mayor was the victim of a botched raid. In that instance you had a broad group of people, including local NAACP chapters, working together to get some traction on helpful legislation. To actually make a difference you need to go out and do things like that thousands more times at the state and local level with each success slowly chipping away at the status quo.
I don't know that it could cause a backlash given the starting point. I mean, I guess we could always find ways to make law enforcement even less accountable, add grenade launchers to the AR-15s and M-16s the police are already carrying, take the LEO bill of rights to even more ridiculous heights...
I believe the author walked it back a bit after it became a punchline in right wing media. This is part of my point though. A successful movement wouldn't make unforced errors like that. This is really frustrating because it helps Fox News and the like discredit the kinds of demands in the second link in paragraph 3.
And my response is that sounds like an interesting topic for a term paper but what about making things better now? In fairness I think parts of the movement see the bigger picture. The problem is lack of cohesion and message control. There's no leadership enforcing discipline.
As I said in the post there's disproportionate impact. Blacks are killed by police at roughly twice their share of the population. My point isnt that there's no race problem, but that there's more than a race problem. Failure of the most passionate advocates to grasp that is part of why movement for reform has been so ineffective. I thought the OP was pretty clear about that.
Dude. What world are you living in? The decision we're talking about was written by former Chief Justice Rehnquist. The federal government and most state governments are controlled by the de facto conservative political party. This is nowhere on their agenda.
Correct, sort of. In order to convict, the jury needs to be convinced that the cop did something other than what that hypothetical reasonable officer would do.
I think criminal convictions are sort of the crown jewels of deterring and punishing police misconduct. The cases should be brought but in the current system chances of success are slim. There's a lot more small ball that could meaningfully increase accountability at a local and state level. Those smaller victories may be a pre-requisite for consistently being able to convict officers for crimes against citizens.
Not quite. The jury is effectively being asked 'Did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable officer placed at the scene as the defendant and under the same circumstances would not have feared for his life? If the state did not prove that you should acquit.'
It is systemic but that means you need to address it on different fronts. You're never going to get everyone to agree on a standard of reasonableness. However, you might be able to build a political coalition willing to pass changes around public sector liability, give teeth to citizen review boards, codify police conduct, or even appoint a judge willing to cause a conflict in precedent in a helpful way.
I think this is exactly the wrong way to look at the situation. This happened because of many small policy decisions implemented over a long period of time. It can only be undone by unwinding/reforming lots of little parts in the system. There is no magic cog or silver bullet.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Thoughts on the Acquittal of Philip Brailsford”
And now you've given me one to ponder. Maybe we'd all do better (myself included and in particular) by considering that. It would really suck if a simple misunderstanding is holding back progress.
"
@kazzy
I hear you and I wouldn't say there's nothing to that. What I will say is that what you're talking about is a generational, cultural project with no clear blueprint. It's challenging to even know when cultural bias is in play in a given incident (even if aggregate numbers prove something is afoot), and it could take generations to change. I also don't know how we would judge the success of a project like that.
You know what's a lot easier though? We empower a citizen review board that doesn't answer to the police department to suspend police without pay when someone substantiates an incident of excessive force, and remove the hurdles to civil rights lawsuits. We can then track records and lawsuits and officers and the number of complaints to get a sense of how we're doing. Conversely, we can debate until the cows come home whether or not any given incident arose from subconscious bias. Most of the time it can't be proven or disproven.
So while I'm not saying there's no merit to what you're saying, I see it as going for the apple at the tippy top of the tree while there's an abundance of good, lower hanging fruit. It doesn't make sense to me to treat subconscious bias as priority number 1, much less treat agreeing to help on that particular project as a litmus test for working with others towards common cause. The latter is where I have a serious beef and where I feel a lot of people who disagree with me on the issue are going. There's a lot that can be done even if people disagree on some of the more meta issues.
"
Maybe? My focus has tended to be on policy and procedure but I'm completely open to all evidence based strategies.
"
I wrote it out of frustration and as a lament that I think we (as a country) missed a really great chance to do something to address a problem I care a lot about.
Edit to add, I appreciate the feedback. Maybe for my next piece I'll draft the policy paper. :)
"
@mike-dwyer
Glad you enjoyed!
I think thats really a community by community question. What makes sense in one place won't necessarily in another. If there's a training protocol that helps humanize/build relationships between police and minority citizens in the given community that the police are interacting with and evidence that it would help that community I would not oppose it.
I do however think it can become an ineffective 'feel good' program if not tailored and administered well. Take Baltimore city where more than half of the police force is non-white yet police abuse is still a major problem, with major racial disparities. In a context like that its clear that something else is the driving force behind the problem.
"
A couple points:
1. I never said 'wrong.' I said ineffective.
2. I don't think this is only a racial issue. It's a public policy issue. The sooner more people see it that way the better chance I think we'll have of doing things about it.
3. I reject the idea that there are some kind of rules around who can say what to whom, especially when we are talking about ideas and politics. If there's a hole in my argument by all means hammer me for it (you, Chip, Lee and Saul have made some interesting counter points). If the best someone can come up with (and to be clear I understand this isn't what you are saying) is 'this can't be taken seriously because of the author's race' then thats great because it means they can't find a logical flaw. I just do not find appeals to identity to be convincing without someone doing the work to show why they should be.
4. I am posting anonymously which means I forfeit the right to play this card but I've done my due diligence on the issue. This place is too smart for me to do a piece where I haven't. Unfortunately I get that I don't get credit for that unless I get the balls to put my name on the byline. My hope is that I've been thoughtful and engaging enough in the post and the comments to show that I'm not pulling my opinions out of my ass but ymmv.
"
Now I understand. That concern has crossed my mind as well.
"
Hey I'm all for widening the scope of acceptable discourse. For me this is a discussion about tactics for advancing a particular policy outcome. It definitely is not about telling people what they can and can't say.
"
If people want to percieve me as saying something I'm not there's nothing I can do about it. I thought really hard about that when drafting this (see the first part of paragraph 3 and the others I referenced). At some point people are going to think what they think. If that stopped us from posting OT wouldn't exist.
"
To me the lesson is that organizational maturity matters. The local NAACP chapters knew exactly who they needed to call and lobby and their message was hard to find fault with.
"
I listed them last for a reason and added in the second to last paragraph for the same reason. There are things I think they could do to be much more successful but that shouldn't imply everyone else is off the hook. They got the issue in the national headlines and deserve credit for that.
"
Even if it detracts from the non-silly list of demands that would help everyone? I feel like this is illustrating my point. We're spending way more time talking about the silly list I linked to and not the non-silly list I also linked to.
"
I think this is very fair but this is what I mean about message discipline. MLK was seen as having a distinct following/agenda from the Nation of Islam, whatever the overlap in the broader civil rights movement. No one knows who speaks for BLM and the consequence is that everyone who slaps the hashtag on their activities ends up associated.
"
I think its self-defeating to the extent it becomes a special interest and/or attaches itself in people's minds to activist groups that a plurality of the public think are crazy/don't take seriously.
If you want to see a blueprint for success, read about Maryland's SWAT tracking law. Its a very minor piece of sunshine legislation passed after a town mayor was the victim of a botched raid. In that instance you had a broad group of people, including local NAACP chapters, working together to get some traction on helpful legislation. To actually make a difference you need to go out and do things like that thousands more times at the state and local level with each success slowly chipping away at the status quo.
"
I don't know that it could cause a backlash given the starting point. I mean, I guess we could always find ways to make law enforcement even less accountable, add grenade launchers to the AR-15s and M-16s the police are already carrying, take the LEO bill of rights to even more ridiculous heights...
"
I believe the author walked it back a bit after it became a punchline in right wing media. This is part of my point though. A successful movement wouldn't make unforced errors like that. This is really frustrating because it helps Fox News and the like discredit the kinds of demands in the second link in paragraph 3.
"
I'm happy to debate but only on points I actually made. I also said the window has closed for now.
"
And my response is that sounds like an interesting topic for a term paper but what about making things better now? In fairness I think parts of the movement see the bigger picture. The problem is lack of cohesion and message control. There's no leadership enforcing discipline.
"
As I said in the post there's disproportionate impact. Blacks are killed by police at roughly twice their share of the population. My point isnt that there's no race problem, but that there's more than a race problem. Failure of the most passionate advocates to grasp that is part of why movement for reform has been so ineffective. I thought the OP was pretty clear about that.
"
Hey thank you for getting the conversation going yesterday. Have a safe flight!
On “The Tyranny Of Our Peers”
Dude. What world are you living in? The decision we're talking about was written by former Chief Justice Rehnquist. The federal government and most state governments are controlled by the de facto conservative political party. This is nowhere on their agenda.
"
Correct, sort of. In order to convict, the jury needs to be convinced that the cop did something other than what that hypothetical reasonable officer would do.
I think criminal convictions are sort of the crown jewels of deterring and punishing police misconduct. The cases should be brought but in the current system chances of success are slim. There's a lot more small ball that could meaningfully increase accountability at a local and state level. Those smaller victories may be a pre-requisite for consistently being able to convict officers for crimes against citizens.
"
Not quite. The jury is effectively being asked 'Did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable officer placed at the scene as the defendant and under the same circumstances would not have feared for his life? If the state did not prove that you should acquit.'
"
It is systemic but that means you need to address it on different fronts. You're never going to get everyone to agree on a standard of reasonableness. However, you might be able to build a political coalition willing to pass changes around public sector liability, give teeth to citizen review boards, codify police conduct, or even appoint a judge willing to cause a conflict in precedent in a helpful way.
"
I think this is exactly the wrong way to look at the situation. This happened because of many small policy decisions implemented over a long period of time. It can only be undone by unwinding/reforming lots of little parts in the system. There is no magic cog or silver bullet.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.