The Fort Worth Police chief said he was "disturbed" by viral video showing his officer provoking a confrontation with a woman who called 911 then arresting her when she reacted. But, said the chief, “There’s a difference between rude and racism.” Grits agrees. But there are also similarities between rudeness and racism. For example, if dash-or-bodycam footage showed the same officer isn't routinely "rude" to white folks, that could be revealing. OTOH, if the guy is just rude to people generally and is not guilty of racism, why do you want him representing your department? In fact, why is he on the force in the first place and why didn't his bosses catch it before if that's just generally how he treats people? Which leads to the question, in their routine, day-to-day functions, do Fort Worth PD supervisors discourage these behaviors, or do they or teach them? After all, they're recruiting Stormtroopers, right? (See Grits' earlier commentary.)
The practice of police verbally provoking victims, drivers, etc., lies at the root of a lot of these confrontations and the fact of the matter is, officers are trained to do it. I'm sure that will be the police union's defense if and when the department tries to fire the guy. And there's more than a grain of truth to it. Police officers don't behave that way because they're all racist jerks. They do so because of the training they receive, the culture they work in, and the values and priorities of management, which are expressed through the actions of their employees more than through public statements. The Fort Worth chief is right that the problem may not be racism. But that's a much bigger concern than if this were just a one-off where a single racist slipped through the cracks and made it onto the force.
MORE: From James Ragland at the Dallas News.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
23 comments:
Interesting that the woman doing the filming and narrating was the first person to overtly inject race into the discussion by referring to the man who allegedly put his hands on the seven year old as a "white man." Apparently, this officer walked into a racially toxic situation from the very beginning. While it's pretty easy to see how the officer's remarks added fuel to the fire, I think it's too easy to characterize his remarks as being "rude" and just walk away. On many levels this incident was a collision of cultures in the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting, the Sandra Bland suicide and the whole BLM movement. I do wonder how this situation might have been different had the officer encountered the exact same facts, attitudes and behaviors with the racial roles reversed. I know cultural sensitivity training is mandated for law enforcement in Texas but right now there sure does seem to be a major "us against them" atmosphere when it comes to relations between the African American community and law enforcement. While FWPD can make an easy example of this officer by punishing and/or firing him, I'm afraid these larger social issues are going remain for quite a long time. The problem is not an easy one to fix.
@11:50, take race entirely out of it and the officer's actions were unjustified. The racial allegations are ambiguous- you're right we can't discern the officer's motives from the available evidence. But wouldn't it be just as offensive if he'd behaved that way to the mother of a white 7-year old victim whose son had allegedly been assaulted? You're posing the culture-clash stuff as though it excuses the officer's behavior or indicts the mother-daughter, but really it's a sideshow. IMO the cop's behavior was objectively bad on its face, no matter why it happened. The existence (or not) of a racial motive is irrelevant to the questions of whether the guy should be punished and/or whether he has an appropriate temperament for the job.
Back during WW2 the SS who controlled German concentration camps would place certain Jews in charge of the others. These Jews were called a kapo or "prisoner functionary". They were culled from the other Jewish prisoners because they exhibited certain characteristics, known in psychologist's circles today as psychopathic traits.
Germans liked using these brutal psychopaths because they put fear into the minds of the prisoners so it took only a few kapos to police several thousand of the Jewish prisoners who were deathly afraid of them after witnessing their brutal attacks on others.
American society is facing similar kapos today. The psych evaluations used to determine the suitability of personnel as police officers are now geared toward actually finding these psychopaths and hiring them, which is why district attorneys and judges don't hold them accountable for their criminal actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapo_(concentration_camp)
It's not about race, police are abusive regardless. The U.S. has a real danger with police officers murdering citizens and not being charged by the DA's.
@7:01 That is delusional. Way to buy into the whole false "hands up don't shoot" narrative perpetuated by a liberal media. Thank God Trump won! I don't think this country could have survived another four years with people who promote that type of insane liberal BS running this nation.
Trump will be the best thing that ever happened for police misconduct activists. Trump will have the justice department investigating fewer abuses than ever before and this will embolden police officers to set records for murders and brutality which will only bring even more awareness to police misconduct. The democratic party will then embrace comprehensive police reform as a main goal on their 2020 platform. And by 2020 this nation will have learned an awful lesson in regards to the Trump Experiment and will elect either Bernie Sanders or someone very much like him as president.
@TriggerMortis, most of the people who enjoy fighting with the police aren't eligible to vote.
It matters, very much, what you call it. If we call all rudeness, disappointment, and injustice "racism," we dilute real racism and fail to deal with it. And, in this case, we will fail to deal with excessive force by assigning the wrong motive to it.
I struggle to find a logical scenario where what that officer did and how he did it would be exonerating to what almost everyone views as very very poor police work. But here is what I got. If the officer has interviewed witnesses and the suspect and has come to the conclusion this was a false report, then his display of bad attitude may not be as bad as it appears. If the woman complaining about her son being assaulted also has arrest warrants, then the video distorts the situation. Absent facts like that, this cop just fired himself.
This situation is the job. It's the work none of us wants to do but cops do it everyday. You have a bad day at work and maybe say something rude to someone, no big deal. Cop has a bad day, someone could get killed.
The mother had every right to be indignant to the cop's attitude. In hindsight, she should have asked for a supervisor. But that would take presence of mind and she was rightfully angered. I see this headed to a civil lawsuit.
@7:50, which is the "wrong" motive in this case? And how can you tell? And why does the motive matter to the target of the behavior? Please be specific.
Motive matters because it will drive "remedial" measures. For instance, if you believe race is the motive, you might conclude that changing the demographic of law enforcement would help correct the behavior. But, if you believe that police training and attitude is the motive, you would likely target training and organizational culture. In my opinion, Blue is not a race; and the problem of excessive force and authoritarian attitudes are systemic. By incorrectly branding it "racism," we shut down the conversation.
Glad you can tell the correct and incorrect motive, 9:27. Your superhuman mind reading powers are impressive.
IMO his motive doesn't matter a whit. I don't want officers acting that way no matter what is their color or the color of their victims. You're the one who wants to shut down conversations when they go somewhere you don't like. All discussion of the officers' motive - whether to accuse or exonerate him - is speculative. Why not focus on what we know instead of what we guess?
The full video is out. You've been bamboozled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj1NxJ1LYlc
The part where the 911 operator reveals that they were not the initial callers was edited out.
The part where the woman threatened to assault the neighbor to the 911 operator (surely relayed to the responding officer) was edited out.
The part where they called in their cousin to come and threaten the neighbor was edited out.
The part where the cop says, "anyone else interferes is going to jail too" was edited out.
The part at 21 minutes where she admits that he told her she was being arrested for her outstanding warrants was edited out.
The part where she refuses to give her name (the failure to identify a fugitive charge) was edited out.
You keep backing the wrong horses and getting horribly, horribly unfavorable poster children because you don't think skeptically.
After this cop is fired and he is no longer protected by the badge, someone should slap him around a bit and teach him some manners.
Always anonymous, no?
The Cops War On America has long been power & racially motivated. Any given day, it could be any combo. They were early-trained; see the documentary "13th."
Cops are being used as enforcers, fodder & cover, by those with higher power.
If we had "representatives" who weren't paid off by corps & Gulen & unions & lawyer clubs, etc., we MIGHT be able to keep things level.
The power issue has to do not only with human nature, but also KEEPING whatever power whoever gets. We The Poor People need not apply, have no voice or real vote--because we can't afford to get organized, beyond little temporary groups.
The law industry wagons are circled, and patriot groups and a few big lawsuits teach the law industry how to BETTER circle. Lawyers-judges-politicians take an oath to themselves, vote laws to protect themselves, fail to have the Constitutionally-required license to practice law, yet beat down anyone outside the club/guild. Count the brutalization & deaths. Count the cops indicted.
"Our" "Reps" will NEVER vote anything to limit their power or chances to amass wealth, stay in office, girls gone wild, etc. THE ELITES KNOW THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW, BECAUSE CITIZENS NEARLY NEVER RIOT, more than some minor, temporary complaint.
MAINSTREAM MEDIA ALSO SYSTEMATICALLY DECEIVES WE THE POOR PEOPLE. Why on Earth don't the other "Reps" get their own radio station? Because they already have more to overeat than they can handle. They are rolling in it.
KLAATU BARADA NIKTO!
I am a white woman. If I were describing a man that had inappropriately put his hands on my 7 year old, I would certainly include his appearance as a white, black, hispanic, or asian right along with estimated height, weight, body build, color hair and cut style, etc. So why do you see her as the one thatovertly interjected race into the discussion?
This is crazy that someone here is trying to defend the officer. Even my dad who is 79 years old and almost always backs the police is saying this officer should be fired. I realize Phelps is probably a troll and is just wanting attention but still! You do a great job here, Scott, keep it up.
Right, dehumanize me because I disagree.
Classy.
Phelps, let me assure you that you're in to majority in this situation. While the officer might not have acted as tactfully as most would like, the video link you attached speaks volumes in regard to the relative equities of those involved in the encounter. The vile, offensive behavior on the part of those arrested is repulsive---the obscene language and anti-social behavior inexcusable under any civilized standard. Keep in mind that the author of this blog and many of the commenters here support a lawless society that borders on anarchy. Keep the faith, brother. The results of this last election prove you're in the right.
I agree with Phelps and I have yet to comment on this particular thread.
Grits - would you kindly comment on the full video?
He won't, because now he realizes what happened -- that this FWPD officer did what the Austin PD didn't do when he was walking with his granddaughter -- apply common sense. Someone who loses so much control that they choke a 7 year old doesn't go back to calmly painting their fence -- even while they have a cursing, threatening mob looming over them. It took one look to realize that this guy isn't violent, and that the mob is hysterical because someone assumed that a child was in danger. It's what Austin PD should have done.
Meanwhile, you have a hysterical woman ready to lead a lynch mob against a man because of a fantasy of her 7 year old (and yes, 7 year olds have a hard time distinguishing between imagination and real life) who also, BTW, has multiple outstanding warrants.
The common sense solution? Deal with the warrants, and that will remove the leader of the lynch mob from the scene and defuse the situation.
Grits doesn't want that because he wants to side with the black people, because they are black and the cop is white. Nothing about the reaction is rational, and all the commentary is simply rationalization of the emotional, irrational reaction.
Post a Comment