How To End Black Male Deaths At The Hands of The Police--The Black Panthers (Redux)

First and foremost, allow me to apologize to my followers for not having posted any relevant commentary in a long while. I took some time off from blogging to work on my first fiction novel (which is coming along fine, thank you). However, to be perfectly honest, I haven’t completely gone off the grid—I have been regularly micro-blogging almost daily on my Facebook , Tumblr, and Twitter pages, as well as publishing updates to my previously published books). But given recent events in the news, I thought it was time I came out of hiding and chronicle my thoughts on a couple of issues in the news on my various blogs.
As per my usual modus operandi, this posting is going to offend many who read it, which—as far as I am concerned—means my goal to provoke critical thinking beyond the reader’s passions is on the right track. In regard to this particular posting, I was moved—as an African-American male—to chronicle an objective analysis of an on-going issue of personal relevance.
The issue at point is the rash of questionable injuries and/or deaths of unarmed black men by police officers that have circulated among the various news cycles. In quite a few cases, video played a central part in swaying public opinion one way or the other in determining (or maybe pre-determining) guilt and/or innocence of either party involved. To be honest, in many of these instances those black men who died (or were seriously injured) were alleged to have been engaged in unlawful actions; running from the police or engaging in a physical tussle with officers. Both Michael Garner and Walter Scott had been accused of engaging in physical struggles with police officers before being shot. Both were not armed at the moments of their deaths.
In other cases, whether those killed and/or hurt by the police were in fact, offering resistance to the officers is up for debate; in those cases, it depends on whom you ask. Twenty-year-old University of Virginia student Martese Johnson was seen as having been belligerent during his bloody videotaped arrest outside a bar for, among other things, underage drinking.
Eric Garner’s videotaped takedown, arrest, and subsequent death choking at the hands of New York City police officers continues to be debated. Garner, a physically-imposing man, had been accused by the police of illegally selling bootleg cigarettes. Many watching the video of Garner’s arrest agree that he wasn’t offering any resistance to the police, who were trying to restrain him using an unauthorized restraining technique. Other said that Garner was struggling trying to breathe, while infamously yelling “I can’t breathe” to arresting officers.
Still in other cases, the actions of police officers can only be seen as questionable and/unprofessional by most reasonable standards. Akai Gurley was fatally shot by a rookie New York City police officer in the darkened stairwell of a public housing project. By all accounts, Gurley was not engaged in any illegal activity, and wasn’t wanted by the authorities. In fact, the officer involved alleged that his weapon somehow discharged by accident while he was holding it on patrol—an explanation which lends itself to many questions. The videotaped shooting of Levar Jones in a Columbia, South Carolina gas station had none of the debate of most of the other shootings. Jones was complying with a state trooper’s order to show his ID when he was taped being shot because of the trooper’s suspicion that Jones was “reaching for his ID” in a manner that made the officer think Jones was actually reaching for a weapon. Fortunately, Jones survived his ordeal with police.

In every case, those shot and/or hurt were not armed, and apparently posed no lethal threat to the officers and/or the public at-large (which I suppose could be debated in the minds of the police officers involved in these incidents). In all but the cases where the officers’ actions were simply beyond reasonable fear of imminent personal threat, most of those involved were not charged with a crime or any major dereliction of duty.
In all of the sensationalism and headlines behind these instances, one salient point being missed by observers is the interplay of so many psycho-social dynamics at work. Police officers have an extremely daunting job, one that I know that I myself couldn’t do—and I’ve been a school teacher! For the most part, our society couldn’t function anywhere near as well as others around the globe where social norms and traditional values police citizens’ actions more than the laws. The professional officers give us a sense of comfort knowing that our calls for helps will be answered and responded to in a decent manner.
Then, there are those who are unprofessional and personally unbalanced to the point where it affects their performance. These include those whose psychological makeup require their egos to be pet and stroked by successful intimidation of those he (or she) feels should respect their authority. Maybe they were picked on growing up. Maybe they just need to feel like big men (and women)…who knows? Others within the unprofessional ranks—understandably so—are victims of their own fears. They see and/or experience things on a daily basis that would make many of us cringe. Many of them see the worst of human behavior, of man’s inhumanity to man. They are lied to daily as they try to ascertain the facts behind criminal activity and maintaining the peace. And for the most part, their attempts to police many of our communities are greeted and treated with contempt and stonewalling of every sort; “don’t snitch” come to mind immediately. And unfortunately for those like myself, many of these bad behaviors and activities occur in our minority communities (and before those of you reading this go into “defense mode,” many bad things occur in non-minority communities too). Let’s be real and honest…FBI and police statistics bear this out. So too does the evening news. So too do our very own observations. How many times have we heard or read about children (and adults) in the ‘hood being killed by stray bullets, of carjackings, the effects of the drug culture in our urban areas, or instances of teens committing once adult-only crimes?
These observations and experiences can create a sense of justified fear in the minds and hearts of police officers. It’s enough to make them shoot first and ask questions later in many encounters. No, it’s not right. No, not every black male is a criminal. Sure, old bad life decisions, limited opportunities, higher unemployment, and/or institutional bias may make us do some things that marginally break the law in the name of survival (e.g., driving without insurance and/or a drivers license, failure to pay child support), but these are hardly capital offenses. But our penchant for merging all criminal activity into one solid lump of perception tends to make many black males perceptually “hardened criminals” in the minds of the limited thinkers and bigoted. Its why the perennially-used explanations of police officers who shoot first and ask questions later—that “I was scared” and “I feared for my life”—resonates so well among suburbanites and middle-class whites who tend to support them. These shared fears of an encroaching criminal underclass moving into safer and gated worlds motivates their thinking. This ethos also explains why so few police officers tend to avoid conviction when they engage in questionably legal actions in the course of their duties; they were just doing their jobs.
I think I have decent solution to the deaths of black men at the hands of the police and allay the fears of the police at the same time. Let’s bring back the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (or the BBP).

For those of you law-and-order types who only know of the Black Panther Party through their “anti-white,” anti-police speeches, calls for “black power,” Marxist-Leninist political beliefs, and/or often violent confrontations with law enforcement, the group originally formed in 1966 with the initial purpose of arming organized citizen patrols in urban black communities in an effort to both monitor and curtail routine practices of police brutality. The following year, founders Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton expanded the activities of the BPP to include Party-sponsored community social programs such as the Free Breakfast for Children Programs, and community health clinics. Sporting their signature leather jackets, black berets, afros, and shotguns whenever they were out on patrol or otherwise engaged in some group-sponsored social endeavor, the Party maintained a relatively high-profile in the communities they served. In most cases, the organization’s twin missions of community betterment and watchmen of police abuses gave many inner-city blacks a sense of pride, self-respect, and empowerment. Because of this, the BBP garnered a mass following of respect in the black communities where they operated; even the street hustlers and gang members respected the Panthers during their most politically-active period, the mid 1960s into the early 1970s.
I know this is a radical proposal, especially in light of the rise to semi-prominence of an even more radical, racist group of activists also calling themselves “The New Black Panthers”—who are in no way affiliated by the former members of the 60s/70s BBP (in fact, members of the original BBP have publicly denounced any affiliation with the new group). But a resurgence of the original Black Panther Party for Self-Defense group could have a long reach of benefits for the black community as well as for police officers charged with maintaining order in those communities. Here me out.
A newly-organized, politically-engaging, and socially-active Black Panther Party for Self-Defense could work to instill—or rather re-instill—in the black community the sense of self-reliance we once had…instead of relying others. This would be best exemplified by a new BPP recreating some—or all—of the many community programs (known by the Panthers as “survival programs”) the group started and operated throughout their most active period. Take the Panther’s Free Breakfast for Children Program. It’s no secret that for a lot of black and poor children in the inner-city, the food they receive as they attend public school is often the most assured meal that they might receive on a daily basis.
Likewise, a new Panther Party recreating some (or all) of their many other community service programs from back in the day (e.g., free community health programs, GED programs, free busing for relatives of those incarcerated to visit them in prison, etc.) might go a long ways to illustrating what a sense of community looks like in a generation of black youth who are totally unfamiliar with the concept. Who’s to say that such a wholesale new (read: “returning”) practice of respect for others—especially those attempting to assist others in the community—might not help, say, get rid of that ridiculous practice in many black communities of “not snitching?” Maybe such an outlook might evolve into the same level of neighborhood concern I experienced growing up—where families could go out of town on vacations, and know that their next door neighbor would look after their homes, instead of turning a blind eye to burglary under the aforementioned counter-productive ethos of “don’t snitch.” Additionally, young black youth may come to be appreciative toward those others in their communities working to their benefit. This could translate into people in the ‘hood actually giving a damn about someone other than themselves, going against the grain in our self-obsessed social media world.
A legally-armed, vocal, responsible, and socially-productive cadre of black males comprising a new Black Panther Party would provide a counter to the prevailing negative imagery of the urban “thug.” More importantly, a new BBP that is mission-driven to both protect and serve the black community would be as willing to confront the negative element of the “thug” (as well as other criminal elements) as they would overzealous and abusive police officers. Drug dealers, gang bangers, and others who all but act with impunity as they routinely disrupt the lives of people just trying to live their lives would be confronted by an organized group of productive and civil-minded black men. These civil-minded black males would be willing to confront these negative and destructive community influences with diplomacy—if possible, and force—if necessary to curtail their negative influences on the black community. Best case scenario…the image and social symbolism of a respected, strong, productive, well-dressed, and assertive black male might replace the negative and distorted view of what constitutes a “man” in the eyes of those sporting dreadlocks (as a fashion statement rather than their traditional cultural significance), sagging pants, and “mean-mugging” those simply minding their own business.
More to the point, the respect a renewed Black Panther Party for Self-Defense would generate in the black community would fuel their resolve to confront abusive and overzealous police officers. They would accomplish this by video recording the actions of the police in black communities—without directly interfering with their duties, being able to recite (to) and instruct both citizens and police officers of their respective responsibilities regarding traffic stops and/or other law enforcement actions, and directly confronting and challenging police officers whose actions do not conform to law, regulations, of a universally understood sense of human dignity. The presence of BBP activists at the scene of police actions might help provide an additional sense of security to officers otherwise involved in the course of their duties, helping to change the police officers’ preconceived negative perceptions (and expectations) of black males in general, and during confrontations in particular.
And because I’m well aware that some Americans are very skittish and paranoid of such a suggestion as arming black males for self-defense, it’s understood that the police are a necessary agent for maintaining order throughout America. And for that reason, the difference in time periods and general social moods between when the original Black Panther Party were active and now would preclude all calls and attitudes to “kill all the pigs.” However, the police would be put on alert that abusive attitudes and actions won’t be tolerated, and that excessive force might be met with the same should simple situations escalate out of hand.

What do you think?

Read More

The Zimmerman Verdict And Our Dueling Perspectives

Congratulations Black America…you’ve just gotten your very own “O.J.” moment! And why should we be shocked? George Zimmerman’s acquittal of murder charges in the tragic death of Trayvon Martin yesterday in a Florida courtroom resonated with many white suburbanites and gated-community types. Such individuals—rightfully or not—harbor fears of creeping “thuggery” from the inner-city areas that they see as chronically infected with socioeconomic pathologies and dysfunctions that they would rather not see in their own well-manicured backyards.
As expected, early opinions about the verdict have come along racial-ethnic lines. Most of those who supported Zimmerman are white, while the majority of those feeling sympathetic toward the death of Martin are black. The verdict speaks to two ongoing issues in our culture: race and guns.
The verdict reflects the fact that America has never truly came to any substantive resolution with regard to its racial past. We see this in the different perspectives that whites and blacks have on many issues, not just the outlook on the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman. Blacks were surprised by the verdict; it’s not a stretch to think that whites were not. Black parents did not see a stranger in Trayvon Martin, they saw their own potential sons being gunned down. This is why riots broke out in the wake of the 1992 verdict in the videotaped beating of Rodney King in California. The acquittal of four white policemen—caught red-handed on tape—beating an unarmed and apparently unthreatening black male resonated with many with the black community; they saw themselves being beaten. This ability that identify and sympathize with the Trayvon Martins and Rodney Kings among black Americans is due to the reality that more than a few African-Americans have either experienced or personally know of someone who have had similar experiences with regard to race. Each of these (relatively) recent high-profile racially-charged incidents were, in turn, based on the century’s long patterns of all-white juries acquitting whites—authority or laymen—of crimes against blacks. This is what President Obama meant with his remark, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.” What’s sad is the fact that this has to be explained to whites in this country; the president’s remarks were more in line with the resonance such incidents have in the collective black memory and mindset than the political response that many whites felt the president’s remark were.

The assumption by whites that the president’s remarks to the Trayvon Martin shooting was a political statement rather than a statement of personal interest reveals that America has two histories—one white and one black. This duality of perception comes to bear anything such racially-charged incidents arise in the news. During these times, the effects of not coming to terms with the past usually finds blacks and whites talking at and not to one another. The white conservative stance tends to be one based absolution, which minimizes the reality of racial and ethnic privilege, and downplays the propensity for insensitivity to our historical racial past (and present). The white liberal stance is usually an attempt to express sympathy on a weak understanding of the black experience. Am I saying that all whites cannot be sympathetic or understanding of what it’s like to be black in the context of America’s racial history? Of course not; I’m sure there are many. What I speak of are valid generalities that our disparate perspectives support. We see this whenever blacks demand some level of recompense for racial slights that align with historical patterns, such as lawsuits or reparations. Whites tend to see such demands are a handout. These same whites, whom like most Americans of any ethnic, cultural or economic persuasion, have a poor sense (and interest) in history that keeps them seeing any validity in black claims that their actions might fit a pattern of racial insensitivity. And why not? The past is the past…unless it exalts one’s place of self-importance. Americans are quite fond of remembering Paul Revere’s midnight ride, the rag-tag American military over the British superpower in the Revolution, and the triumph of Theodore Roosevelt’s Rough Riders of the Spanish Army. But our history of formerly all-black towns and counties purged or sacked (Tulsa in 1921, Rosewood in 1923) by white mobs, mass lynchings, and race-based laws are not allowed to be the bad taken with the good in American history. Insomuch as the black experience, many whites have then somewhat valid (if not ethnocentric) point that blacks have not taken advantage of the socioeconomic and political environment of self-determination that relative freedom in America affords. Large cities with large numbers of African-Americans are plagued with issues across the socioeconomic scale, from high percentages of public school dropout rates, high crime rates, high unemployment, to high incidents of single-parenthood, incarceration rates, etc. In many instances, whether or not such conditions are exacerbated by legislative policy, the majority of these pathologies can alleviated by personal responsibility. But when blacks view issues of race tied incidents such as the Trayvon Martin shooting and George Zimmerman’s acquittal, they tend to see these socioeconomic pathologies as either perpetuated by the forces of racism and bias, or by absolute design of "The Man." Blacks see that the police drug-tested Trayvon after the incident, and not George Zimmerman. Blacks wonder why whites who live in relatively safe—very much so in comparison to many areas that blacks reside—gated communities feel the need to carry guns under a “stand your ground” law? Whites point to the Second Amendment and being “prudent” as a justification to carry arms against would-be “criminals” such as Trayvon Martin and the underneath-the-surface fear of rioting in the wake of the verdict. Blacks see whites as being paranoid in carrying guns when many of them don’t in areas with actual (as opposed to perceived) threats to life and property.  Blacks see in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman verdict, more of the same old institutional biases and advantages of racial privilege from America's legacy of unresolved racial attitudes.  And Whites ask themselves, "Why can't they pull themselves up like everybody else does?"
These different perspectives speak to the American infatuation with guns. Many of us are too quick to see guns as the solution to crime, fear, the need for personal protection under all circumstances, and as an expression of a “God-given right.” Many law-abiding black Americans are more fatalistic than whites in terms accepting one’s fate, and dealing with reality. This is one of the ways by which many are able to live in virtual war-zones, not to say that they do not have fears about death, dying, and being victimized by crimes. It’s just reality to black Americans. Many law-abiding white Americans tend to adopt the mantra of preparation and anticipation. We see this in not only the various variation of “stand your ground” laws, but the increasing legislation around the country enabling the carrying of guns in school, on college campuses, in churches, and even in bars. What makes one wake up in the morning and decide to carry a gun in much the same way as one would presume to carry a pocketbook? It’s surely not the same thing that makes one get up in the morning knowing they are taking their chances in a high-crime, high poverty area.
Gun sales soared when President Obama was elected back in 2008, and again after his re-election last year, driven mostly by a thinking fear that our precious gun might be "taken away by the government."  Gun sales continue to soar, even as we are seeing a train of high-profile mass shootings. Owning a gun for “protection” is both pathology and a delusion. What such a justification ignores is that for many citizens (law abiding or otherwise), the firing lethal weapons is legitimate entertainment. Our love of shoot-‘em-up movies, rabid defense of the Second Amendment, violent video games, and fear of urban crime testifies to an immersion in a culture of gun fascination. It’s no wonder that individuals on the edge are so quick to take up arms and shoot up malls, schools, and even churches. Zimmerman represents this pathological fetish with weapons that we attempt to write off as a means of “self-defense.”
Why? Because most neighborhood watch volunteers don’t carry weapons—even those who bravely volunteer in areas of higher crime and threat levels than Zimmerman’s neighborhood (See:  Zimmerman's 911 Transcripts). For whatever reasons, Americans don’t seem ready to let go of either negative attitudes or its pathological reliance on guns for a feeling of emotional and personal security. And until such a thing happens, there will continue to be Trayvon Martins, George Zimmermans, and the two Americas divided by perceptions they represent.

Read More

The Colorado Theater Shooter, The Death Penalty, And Real Punishment

Yesterday in a packed Colorado courtroom, family and friends of victims—as well as surviving victims—of the Aurora theater shooting listened and then applauded as prosecutors announced that they would be seeking the death penalty against the alleged perpetrator of that horrific crime, 25-year-old James Holmes. A fully-bearded Holmes sat and reacted with almost contemptuous casualness as the decision was read. Holmes’ rugged appearance in court was a long way from the orange and red dyed Joker-inspired-hair he sported the night he pushed into the nearly-packed movie theater in Aurora last July. Donned in a get-up reminiscent of the fictional Batman villain, he barged into a midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rises” and began opening fire on the crowd watching the movie with an assortment of weapons, killing 12 and wounding at least 58 people.

Accused Aurora, Colorado theater shooter James Holmes, shortly after his first courtroom appearance last year and more recently.

In past court appearances, Holmes has appeared to be what can only be described as “detached” in his concern for both the proceedings and his apparent actions.
In an action that contradicted Holmes’ cavalier attitude toward his actions, his lawyers last week indicated that Holmes was willing to “plead guilty and spend the rest of his life in prison in order to avoid death row.” His offer was summarily rejected by prosecutors.

In a perfect (in not imaginative) world, executing Holmes would bring both closure to the families of his victims, as their departed loved-ones back from The Great Beyond. But as it stands, putting perpetrators like Holmes to death does nothing but perpetuate a cycle of violence as well as demonstrate how inconsistent we can be by way of our collective behaviors. We have no problem killing to demonstrate that killing is wrong, but we cannot spank/hit our unruly (and oftentimes deserving) children to demonstrate to them that hitting/disruptive behavior is wrong. Are we “civilized” or aren't we? A couple of years ago, I wrote posted a piece calling for a different way of punishing repeat violent offenders. The punishment was based on the premise of the old John Carpenter 1981 sci-fi flick (one of my personal guilty pleasures), “Escape From New York” (See: "A Hollywood Approach to Crime And Punishment"). The thesis of that particular piece was that the death penalty was neither a true deterrent to such offenses, nor has it even invoked a sense of fear or even concern in the minds of those charged with committing such heinous crimes—especially the way it is administered inconsistently and disproportionately. And for those who invoke the “justification” for capital punishment that “taxpayers shouldn't have pay to support such criminals,” these individuals ignore the fact that it actually costs taxpayers more money to execute those charged with capital crimes.
My suggestion was that a true level of punishment for unrepentant, repeat, and incorrigible criminals should illicit fear. In that previous posting, I suggested that criminals be allowed to live in a society of their rules, where only the strongest survive, and where there is no rule of law and enforcement for the laws they hold such concept for. Due process would still apply, but such criminals would truly get to see and live the consequences of their own thinking and actions.
My point is that punishments should hurt, and they should instill fear of consequences as well as that of punishment itself. A true system of punishment would create an environment of such apprehension of consequences that those like James Holmes who knowingly commit crimes of such magnitude against others would rather die—or simply not engage in such behavior—than experience the consequences. Death is seen as a punishment by some, but wishing for death would be a better lesson.

See also:  "Time To Rethink The Death Penalty"

Read More