[Discuss] [Peace-discuss] Police policy on lethal force

Fri Oct 23 13:33:07 CDT 2009

Dear Melodye,

I am both sad and angry at the comments you describe and regret that you
elicited that kind of response.  I've never listened to this particular
show, but anyone who has followed the national discourse around race is all
too familiar with the "othering" and "condescension" that you describe.  It
is clear to those of us with some consciousness about the many structural
and interpersonal ways that nonwhites have historically been and continue to
be marginalized that white conservatives just don't "get it".  And indeed
they don't.

But I'd like to suggest that many self-identified liberals and progressives
don't "get" white conservatives either.  There's a tendency on the part of
progressives to assume an attitude of moral superiority when talking to or
about white conservatives, as well as to assume that their intentions/goals
are to, if not explicitly oppress, at the very least to maintain the system
of oppression that currently exists.  No doubt this is sometimes the case.
But the problem with stereotypes is not that they are not true, but that
they are incomplete.  There are many white conservatives that can and do
support the equity and justice goals that progressives tend to rally
around.  The difference is not over the goals or outcomes but the strategies
that are supposed to produce those outcomes.

My point is, if we are to move toward the kind of community we want -- a
community characterized by racial equity and solidarity -- then we have to
also be willing to listen and understand the "other" in the ways that they
want to be understood.  As strange as it might seem, I think we have to find
ways to ally with the oppressive segments of our community so that we can
begin to understand each other's needs and come to the realization that they
are not in opposition with each other.

I am not advocating for compromise -- of any sort.  I am not advocating for
patience.  This is urgent. There is no time for patience. And the needs are
too important to compromise.  I'm just suggesting that demonizing the other
side is not likely to get what we want.

This HuffPo writer has some additional thoughts on this that I think are
worth considering:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-wadsworth/down-with-demonology-the_b_318660.html

The writer above is a white woman...and I am (if you don't already know) a
white man.  As such, I recognize that we speak from a privileged position.
But our positions (as white progressives whose writing focuses on racial
issues), also give us a perspective that may have some value.  I offer it
here in that spirit and look forward to hearing how it is perceived.

Mikhail

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Melodye Rosales <
melodye at nitrogendesign.com> wrote:

> Amazing---if anyone caught Penny For Your Thoughts today---all the callers
> for the last week have spoken as if they know what happened and how bad the
> kids are because they lack parenting---some spoke of the black community as
> a whole in that regard. But when I call in today and said that, "... I find
> it interesting that when Black Folk speak of injustice we are said to be
> using the race card, but when the callers on your (Turpins) show criticize
> our community with misnomers and lack of information, they are
> justified----I think that the community needs Diversity Training."
>
> The guy who followed called me "Arrogant".  For those of us (most on this
> list) who understand what that word means when referring to a Black person,
> coming from a Conservative White person, it is coded language that needs no
> Decoder.  Turpin (who seems frustrated I have called daily to correct the
> mis-statements that he allows to fester) made sure when the caller didn't
> catch my name, to let him know---more over, let his audience know that I am
> someone to watch.
>
> My concern is that a large majority in the Conservative Community are
> purposely trying to allow mis-statements to take flight.  It is almost as if
> they want to sway those who may visit the matter with open eyes, to feel
> that if they align their concerns with ours, then they somehow aren't caring
> about the "Good White Community".  The tragedy is that while we are simply
> trying to push for open government and transparency, while trying to
> highlight a flawed local government and provide more equitable solutions to
> bring about a more balanced and inclusive community----these Conservatives
> are using their energies to push us back into the place they feel we
> belong------without a voice.  "After all", the Conservatives cry out, "why
> do them-folk need a voice?  We've always told them what to do, what not to
> do, where to go, when to come back and how to behave. 'Cause they know we
> ain't toleratin' no back talk, no complaints, no questions.  So ya see,
> that's why them-folk don't need no voice. It's them Arrogant Ns who are
> causing the trouble. They be confusing them-folk.  They be tellin' them-folk
> they done always had a voice and they just gotta begin using it. Yep, it's
> them Arrogant Ns who are gonna get them-folk in trouble, not us."
>
> What a sad 1950s moment this community is experiencing...
>
> -M
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:32 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at advancenet.net>wrote:
>
>> >It sounds as though there should be something in writing about
>> >what are appropriate conditions for making an arrest, and for that
>> matter,
>> >for stopping people in general.
>>
>> There probably are in both the administrative departmental polices as well
>> as in state and federal statutes and administrative policies, rules and
>> regulations; but they are written in such general vague and ambiguous
>> terms
>> and fashion as to allow all kinds of interpretation.  Any limitations,
>> restrictions, or criteria are neither that detailed not that precise.
>>  Laws
>> are typically general and abstract and not usually specific, detailed or
>> precise.  Moreover, benefit of the doubt is always on the state's side
>> which
>> means the police's advantage when it comes to interpreting and applying
>> the
>> laws to concrete situations.  As for the circular nature of using
>> resisting
>> arrest as a basis for making an arrest even if the defendant is not
>> charged
>> with another offense or that charge is dropped it is the way the law works
>> since it treats resisting arrest as a crime separate and independent of
>> any
>> other crime so they are not legally related. To change things, one would
>> have to change the laws to read that a charge of resisting arrest cannot
>> be
>> made or pursued if other charges are dropped or not pressed; and if other
>> charges are dropped, the arresting officer is and/or police department is
>> open to false arrest law suits.  This would hold officers responsible for
>> their charges and put suspected offenders in jeopardy of having to go to
>> court to fight charges that might otherwise have been droipped.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart
>> Levy
>> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:00 PM
>> To: Karen Medina
>> Cc: Peace-discuss List; Stuart Levy;
>> discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Police policy on lethal force
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:41:54PM -0500, Karen Medina wrote:
>> > > deadly force is permissible if the officer can say they're trying to
>> make an arrest.
>> >
>> > Does it say anywhere that they have to have a good reason to arrest
>> someone?
>> > In the past, there has been this circular argument that they were
>> > arresting people for resisting arrest.
>>
>> That's a good question.  Do we have any entire police procedure manual,
>> or only its use-of-force section?
>>
>> It sounds as though there should be something in writing about
>> what are appropriate conditions for making an arrest, and for that matter,
>> for stopping people in general.
>>
>> The ILEAP (accreditation) manual's
>>        http://www.humanspan.com/uploads/archives/4341/ILEAPManual09.pdf
>> section on Limits of Authority (ADM.02.02, page 41) says:
>>
>>    ADM.02.02 A written directive governs procedures for assuring
>> compliance
>> with all
>>    applicable constitutional requirements including:
>>
>>    a. Interviews;
>>    b. Interrogations;
>>    c. Access to counsel;
>>    d. Search and seizure, with a warrant;
>>    e. Search and seizure, without a warrant;
>>    f. Stop and frisk;
>>    g. Arrest made, with a warrant;
>>    h. Arrest made, without a warrant;
>>    i. Assuring all constitutional safeguards are provided to non-English
>> speaking persons in a
>>    manner that is clearly understood; and
>>    j. Assuring all constitutional safeguards are provided to hearing
>> impaired persons in a manner
>>    that is clearly understood.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
>>
>> http://lists.communitycourtwatch.org/listinfo.cgi/discuss-communitycourtwatch.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
>
> http://lists.communitycourtwatch.org/listinfo.cgi/discuss-communitycourtwatch.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20091023/540fa1e6/attachment.htm