Professional Fear

by with One Comment CultureFeaturedRace Relations

Quick disclaimer… I’m a former police officer of the Baltimore City police department southwestern and central district. 

“If racism was a butcher, law enforcement is its cleaver.”

That’s not hyperbole, that’s American history. 

From enforcing fugitive slave laws to Jim Crow to today, the continual enforcement of draconian drug and financial laws were created with Black people as the target.

Black people have a rightful fear, not in the sense of being scared of the police officer as a person, but fearful as the police officer as the profession. And that their PROFESSION will give them credence over their life. 

I’ll repeat that. 

Black people have a fear of law enforcement not because they’re tough bad boys, hardly, because their word will have a say over our lives. Not because we’re wrong, but because we’re Black. 

This comes down to a very basic thing. Too many White police officers fear Black people. They see our skin color representing the need to be controlled and thus no regard or respect or life, which is evident by the terror they’ve inflicted on us over centuries. 

It’s that simple. 

Now, what’s to be done about it?

Well, this is not a call to remove law enforcement. No, but to have a proper relationship between citizens and police, we MUST recreate a balance of the people against policing powers. 

What are police powers?

Policing is a state and local issue. The federal government has little to do with it outside passing its own federal laws to be enforced and the occasional federal money and assistance to state and local law enforcement departments with strings attached. Police powers give officers the right to do everything from having their weapon issued to being able to tow your car and lock you up if you don’t sign a traffic ticket. That power also gives them the ability to do a criminal act, under the guise of policing, and go home and watch SportsCenter that evening while another person dies because of their lack of judgement. 

That’s a PROBLEM! And that’s THEE first problem of policing. No consequences! 

Without any true federal laws on the conduct of policing, each and every police department carries out the business of policing very differently. 

You see, there isn’t a federal statute or law or anything to protect citizens from the abuse of policing powers. There is no universal defense as a citizen against a law enforcement officer upon their interaction with you. 

This is not democratic. This is not due process. A police officers’ profession stops at a certain point, and their actions become the actions of a person, not a cop. And they should not be protected with their police powers. This is exactly what happened when Minnesota Cop Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd, while Mr. Floyd laid defenseless and handcuffed. 

I guess that’s fear of life. (emoji shrug) 

You see, if I worked at an Applebee’s one of the Trump supporters wanted opened, I cannot beat up a rude guest or slap away someone’s food because they didn’t like it. All in the name of Applebee’s…. none of us have that luxury. 

No organization has the luxury of hiding the criminal acts of its members like the police. The job of police officers, to protect and serve, is essential to society… we get that. But what we will not do is allow them to use that as an excuse to reign terror on citizens. 

A federal law needs to be put in place to protect citizens in regard to their interactions with officers… essentially what an officer can and cannot do and say to you. The other is the swiftness of action against an officer when a criminal act has taken place. 

What Derek Chauvin did was murder. Chauvin went home that night. What Amber Guyger did, the woman who shot and killed Botham Jean in his own apartment in Dallas, that was murder. Guyger went home that night. 

Amber got off because of her profession, getting a ten-year sentence for killing a man in his own apartment is getting off. Chauvin will too. If the flames are to ever begin to settle, and tensions calmed, swift and immediate action is needed by our so-called leaders. Reformation of law enforcement is not an issue, but a crisis. A crisis our current leadership is woefully inept to handle. 

Similar Read: Conversation With a Black Man

Critiquing the Candidates

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

Record, platform, and history do matter in the Democratic primary, and pointing out the differences does not harm the candidates, it strengthens the team. 

20 candidates have declared their run for the Democratic Party nomination for the 2020 presidential election. That’s a massive list filled with candidates from different backgrounds, different experiences, different platforms, and different visions for the future. Already, conversations and social media comment boards are filled with opinions on who the front-runner is, who has the ability to sustain a run, or who can unite the party. Also included in these discussions (arguments), is why one should never criticize another candidate by bringing up their record or any other unfriendly information for fear that Democrats will weaken their own eventual nominee. Comments such as, “Democrats eat their young again,” or “here we go again with Democrats badly damaging each other -save it for the general election!” Not only is this idea unfair, but it is misguided and will lead to a flawed nominee rather than a strengthened team.

In 2016, there were two candidates for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The argument that Sanders damaged Clinton and her ability to win in the general election has been proven false by many metrics. Hillary Clinton, largely, ran a campaign for the presidency that lacked substance and a clear vision. Mostly, she ran on a platform of ‘I’m not Trump.’ She failed to energize voters and create a high voter turnout, particularly among young people. Verified exit polling numbers show that the 18-29 year old demographic only created 13% of the electorate, with roughly 29% of the electorate coming from the demographics of 30-49 years old, 50-64 and 65+, however, all four of these demographics represent about the same population. Further, Bernie Sanders could have 1 created a contested convention and required super delegates to cast the final nominating votes, which many of his supporters probably would have liked considering the ethically questionable things the DNC did during the primary season, but he stood on stage and waited for five minutes for the cheering to subside before conceding the nomination to Hillary Clinton. He then campaigned on her behalf for the rest of the election, across the country and using his extensive network to urge his supporters to get out and cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton for president. During the 2016 primary season, there were no negative ads run by Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders, or vice versa. Neither of the Democratic candidates ever told their supporters to vote against the other should they win the nomination, or not to vote at all. But, what they did do is to expose the Democratic electorate to truths about each others history, past voting records and what they would do differently. The impetus was on the nominee to excite the Democratic base, get out the vote and create a platform that people would want to vote for. As has been well documented, Clinton failed to do this by running a moderate campaign with few specifics except that she would be better than Donald Trump. She did not see what was so exciting for much of the electorate in a candidate like Sanders or, in a much different way, Trump, and did not speak to these people about what they needed from the government. She avoided states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan because they have been reliably Democratic – and she lost 2⁄3 of them. She did not create a campaign that felt authentic to Americans who don’t believe politicians are authentic, and she lost because of it.

Bernie Sanders offered Hillary Clinton an opportunity to be in touch with the electorate, to answer for a voting record that many Americans viewed as questionable, and to create a platform for the general election that would appeal to further voting blocs than what Democrats have traditionally enjoyed. He offered her a stronger campaign, but she did not capitalize on it – this does not mean he harmed her campaign. Similarly, in the current primary season, the Democrats and their supporters, are going to expose the history, experience, voting records, policy stances and many other things about each other. While this absolutely must remain civil and rooted in fact, and there should be no negative ads run against each other, the sheer breadth of candidates is going to open additional voting blocs to the eventual nominee, should they have the vision and insight to see it and act on it. By listening to the voters, who they donate to, who they show up for at rallies, what policies they like and don’t like, and being able to speak to those voters in the general election, the nominee will be strengthened. By having their ‘dirty laundry’ aired out in the primary, they will have an opportunity to formulate an answer for it, evolve on unpopular stances, and adapt their platform to reach more voters. If a fair, honest and open election is held, no Democratic voter should be able to say the nominee does not represent them when all is said and done, and a formidable candidate will represent the team in the general election. 

1 “An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters ….” 9 Aug. 2018, https://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-vote rs/. Accessed 29 Apr. 2019. 

This article was originally published on 1 May 2019.