What Do People Want in an Honest Conversation About Race and Policing?

The call for an honest conversation about race and policing has been ongoing, yet it seems many voices are missing a critical piece of the puzzle: the action/reaction concept. Phrases like 'the end justifies the means' overlook the nuances and complexities that lie in every public scenario involving law enforcement.

The Action/Reaction Concept in Policing

Bjarki Simpson highlights the importance of understanding that the reaction of law enforcement is often a result of a situation that has escalated or been initiated by someone violating the law. It is not a proactive strategy to target individuals, but rather a reactive response to incidents that have already unfolded.

Examples of Escalated Situations

Several high-profile cases exemplify this concept:

The Eric Garner Case

Eric Garner, a father of six, was placed in a chokehold during a confrontation with police, leading to his death. The events leading up to this incident were contentious and complex. Garner was suspected of selling loose cigarettes. When officers arrived, they encountered a scene where someone had been using a cell phone to film whatever was happening. The media and public discourse often focus on the fatal outcome, but the incident was an escalation of a situation initiated by illegal activity.

The Michael Brown Case

In the case of Michael Brown, a 17-year-old who was allegedly involved in a robbery, the officer responded to a 911 call. The events leading to Brown’s death were not just about the officer’s reaction; they were about Brown’s own actions and how they escalated a routine situation. The public and media often overlook the fact that Brown assaulted a store clerk, then physically attacked the officer who had arrived to handle the situation.

The officer was not targeting Brown; he was responding to law enforcement protocols and the situation as it unfolded. Had Brown not committed the crime or escalated the situation, the outcome would have been different.

The Tamir Rice Case

Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old African American boy, was holding a toy gun in a park. The police were notified by a 911 call. When they arrived, they faced a situation where a child was brandishing a weapon at adults. The officers responded to what they perceived as a threatening situation. They did not randomly choose to shoot the boy. The tragedy was an outcome of a situation where a weapon, even if a toy, was used in a threatening manner. A dispassionate review shows that the officers were responding to a genuine emergency, not engaging in violent sport.

The same can be said for other cases. For instance, in the Walter Scott case in South Carolina, the police were responding to a routine traffic stop that took a violent turn when Scott ran away after the officer asked him to get out of the car. The situation escalated rapidly, and the outcome was a tragic result of a series of actions leading to a violent confrontation.

The case of Samuel Debose in Cincinnati further illustrates the point. He did not cooperate with law enforcement during a routine traffic stop, even restarting his car to escape. His behavior escalated what could otherwise have been a simple traffic violation into a confrontational situation.

Understanding the Role of Law Enforcement

It is crucial to recognize that law enforcement officers are not the cause of violence or crime in communities. They are the enforcement division responsible for catching perpetrators and incarcerating them until a trial can be completed. Their primary role is reactive, not proactive. Most officers and departments aim to prevent crime, but their first duty is to respond to calls for assistance or to intervene in moments of crisis.

The argument against the notion that law enforcement is to blame can be summarized as follows:

Individuals cannot break the law and then blame the law for the response. Violence and crime in neighborhoods are pervasive issues, and law enforcement is there to respond to these issues, not create them. Policing is not a proactive strategy to target individuals, but a reactive response to criminal activity and emergencies.

By acknowledging this, the conversation about race and policing can shift to a deeper discourse on how to change community behavior and reduce the need for law enforcement involvement in the first place. It also involves discussing how to de-escalate situations once they have started to avoid tragic outcomes.

Ultimately, the side arguing that officers are wrong often fails to consider the fact that in every instance, the officers react to a situation that has either escalated or been initiated by someone breaking the law. If these actions were different, there would likely be no interaction with law enforcement and no negative outcomes.

Part of having an honest conversation about race and policing involves holding individuals accountable for their actions and discussing strategies to prevent the escalation of situations. By focusing on these critical points, we can work towards more positive and effective interactions between communities and law enforcement.

Best wishes.