Read on Twitter
Rereading The End of Policing by @avitale. Sharing some super relevant points that I observed to be true in my decade spent studying and working in the law enforcement system: (1/
Well-trained police following proper procedure are still going to be arresting people for low level offenses and the burden will continue to fall primarily on communities of color because that is how the system is designed to operate not because of officer bias.
That is because even race neutral enforcement of traffic laws penalizes the poor who are least able to maintain vehicles and pay fines. (see also Dying of Whiteness @JonathanMetzl)
No amount of procedural or bias training directed at officers addresses institutional pressures and public policy.
Trainings are heavily geared toward officer safety - increasing fear/hostility, increasing focus on control over communication, and perception of even passive behaviors as resistance.
Increase of department diversity has shown little to no impact on community relations, trust, response, or perception, mostly due to the priories of the policy makers.
Low-level drug dealing and use generate a large number of calls to police. Criminalizing these activities have not reduced use or harm to individuals or communities. It has produced great negative consequences on those arrested. (IMO also discourages seeking helpful resources)
Police are given significant latitude in use of deadly force by state laws and Supreme Court. 1989 Graham v Conner (discussed a lot in the academy) officers can use force to make a lawful arrest if they reasonably believe person represents a serious threat to officer or others.
My thoughts - What constitutes resistance is not always clear to anyone. Most any resistance can be met with force, even if it really posses no harm. Here is a more thorough analysis. https://banksbrower.com/2014/06/22/a-look-at-the-crime-of-resisting-law-enforcement/">https://banksbrower.com/2014/06/2...
Before reading the follow paragraph by Vitale, I thought the idea of an unarmed police officer was ridiculous and unsafe. He cites @GregSmithsimon& #39;s Disarm the Police https://metropolitics.org/IMG/pdf/met-smithsimon2.pdf.">https://metropolitics.org/IMG/pdf/m... I am continuing to explore this topic.
"Even when officers are injured or killed, the officer’s possession of a weapon sometimes contributes to their victimization. Offenders who are committed to evading police are more likely to use deadly force precisely because they know the officer is armed. This means they are
prone to escalate dramatically. An armed suspect is much less likely to shoot an unarmed officer. Does that mean that some people may evade capture? Yes. But it also means that many lives are saved, including the lives of officers, and police legitimacy is broadly enhanced.
Traffic stops would be less deadly for officers and the public if police carried no weapons."
"to rely on the threat of lethal force to obtain compliance flies in the face of & #39;policing by consent& #39;."
Final musing for today. As @avitale states, "More than anything, however, what we really need is to rethink the role of police in society. The origins and function of the police are intimately tied to the management of inequalities of race and class.
The suppression of workers and the tight surveillance and micromanagement of black and brown lives have always been at the center of policing. Any police reform strategy that does not address this reality is doomed to fail.
We must stop looking to procedural reforms and critically evaluate the substantive outcomes of policing. We must constantly reevaluate what the police are asked to do and what impact policing has on the lives of the policed.
A kinder, gentler, and more diverse war on the poor is still a war on the poor." So true.
"American police function, despite whatever good intentions they have, as a tool for managing deeply entrenched inequalities in a way that systematically produces injustices for the poor, socially marginal, and nonwhite."
