The Bloggomist: The Lost Traveller

The sounds of sirens break the silence. Figures stand cold and undaunted, as their ‘armor’ radiates against the stark, blue sky. Commotion rings loud in the midnight air. Shouts of desperation are pleaded and just within seconds, gunshots trumpet, blaring like the commencement of war. Thick, smoke ripples through the flesh as a mother wails for the loss of her only son. Images of giving birth to him flash in between moments of despondency and rage as she holds onto her last living memory of her child.

Throughout the United States, police brutality remains an epidemic in urban communities. According to October 22^nd Coalition, in 2009, during one of America’s most celebrated holiday weekends, Memorial Weekend, the “law enforcement killed at least 23 people nationally.” But people of color have been subjected to police abuse dating back to the early nineteenth century. You may not read about it in your historical texts or it may not be visible in the mainstream news outlets, but it exists. To date, unreasonable force enacted by the police is still openly exerted.

Before we get into a discussion about police brutality, we should try and define it. Fred C. Pampel (2004) asserts that police brutality is an “illegal use of excessive force by police against suspects and citizens” (p.125). However, there is much debate around the terms ‘brutality’ and ‘excessive.’ Some argue that using the term ‘brutality’ suggests unwarranted use of behavior. In their argument, some instances of police force are necessary. Those who support this theory have added that the usage of ‘brutality’ creates an emotionally driven response, rather than a rational one. Additionally, the term ‘excessive’ is dismissive of the fact that some use of force is not extreme. Amongst these scholars, the phrase “abuse of authority” was adopted (Carter and Radelet, 1999). Regardless of the terminology used, however, the LAPD Policy and the Penal Code illustrate that police officers are advised to use a limited amount of physical force in order to capture a suspect. If a “citizen is physically uncooperative… police may move into the type of force known as ‘pain compliance’ techniques” (Stewart, 2005, p. 18). It is suggested that only when an officer’s life is in danger, may he/she use lethal force.

Researchers find it difficult, however, to decipher when police use of force is necessary. For many police officers, maintaining order requires the use of violence. Within this binary, Ronald G. Burns and Charles E. Crawford (2002) discuss police violence as a result of situational determinants. In their study, they conclude that police violence largely depends on the factors that develop as the situation arises between the officer and the suspect. Pampel(2004) argues that the police are forced to submit to psychological and social pressures that lead to police brutality. The implementation of specific police programs, such as “crime prevention” or “war on crime” has contributed to police presence in ‘high crime areas.’ In Karen S. Glover’s (2007) study, she finds that most police “racialize” minorities if they are found outside what they consider their “spatial” region. In this thought, police then affiliate minorities with neighborhoods that are susceptible to crime.

In exploring the nature of police use of force, evidence shows their actions are reflective of a society embedded in racism. During the early 1900s, lynching Black people was a common means of maintaining order. Kelley (1995) asserts that “not only have police officers and deputies openly participated in lynching, but it was not uncommon for law enforcement officials to release a Black prisoner into the waiting arms of a lynch mob” (p. 29). As a known fact, Black Americans were beaten and even killed because of their skin color. And police officials were instructed to enforce this oppressive political agenda.

Recent studies have highlighted that people of color or those living in economically deprived neighborhoods are most susceptible to police violence. In Seron’s et al. (2006) study, it was concluded that police often use racial epithets while arresting civilians. They also engage in racial profiling techniques that target minorities, regardless of their class background. Scholars examining police motives have become particularly interested in how racial profiling is often an antecedent to police brutality. Racial profiling can be defined as “any police-initiated action that relies on race, ethnicity, or natural origin, rather than the behavior of an individual” (Pampel, 2004, p.5). In fact, racial profiling and police brutality have a longstanding relationship. The use of “slave codes” and the segregation of Blacks were early signs of racial profiling.

When the “stop and frisk” method was initiated in the 1960s, police officers were allowed to search individuals in public. People of color were the ones targeted on the street. The “zero tolerance” model is another impetus used to racially profile minority communities. Researcher Paul Chevigny(1995) has examined how police use of force is disproportionately higher within inner city neighborhoods in Los Angeles, than in other cities throughout the United States. In the ‘90s, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) initiated the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (CRASH). Their goal was to prevent crime within the Rampart area of Los Angeles. However, a member of the CRASH division, Rafael Perez, revealed that officers within the CRASH unit were framing, physically assaulting and harassing innocent Rampart residents.

Immigrant families are largely affected by police brutality as well. The October 22^nd Coalition recognizes that in July 2009, the “expansion of 287 (g) of the Illegal Immigration Law, empowering local law enforcement agencies to make immigration arrests, has resulted in an increase of racial profiling arrests,” (DWH, Driving While Hispanic). Collectively, these factors have attributed to the increased amount of police brutality incidents. Dating back from 1986 to 1991, “Los Angeles paid at least $20 million to settle excessive-force cases… and an average of more than $1,300 per officer in 1990” (Lawrence, 2000, p. 64). An estimated “300 lawsuits dealing with the excessive use of force” were brought against the Los Angeles Police Department (Jacobs, 2000, p. 81). Yet, an average of 278 police officers involved in those cases was acquitted.

Yet, many police justify their non-regulated behavior by claiming that in order to contain violence and crime within the streets, as well as themselves and other citizens, violence on their part is necessary. Although police are required to maintain order, there is a divide between what is permissible and what is considered excessive. The police are organized around a unique sub-culture. They form as a collectivity, creating a bond and embody a morality that encourages them to view themselves as preservers of civility. Studies show they often identify themsleves as outsiders to the common public. Thus, the police force often creates a division between itself and the rest of society, establishing an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality. When a police officer witnesses a fellow officer commit an unjust crime against a civilian, a “code of silence” is usually called upon.

Photo Courtesy of TimeCNN-Licensed Under Creative Commons

Ronald Hampton, a member of the National Black Police Association, confirmed that “these guys [Black police officers] internalize the racist, oppressive culture of the police department in order to succeed” (Stewart, 2005). If these standards dominate the police force, how do we collectively break down these barriers? According to Human Rights Watch (1998), “the excessive use of force by police officers… [exists] because overwhelming barriers to accountability make it possible for officers who commit human rights violations to escape due punishment and often repeat their offenses.” It has been pointed that a “blue wall of silence” further inhibits police brutality cases from being exposed. The “blue wall of silence,” otherwise known as the “blue line,” encourages police to keep quiet when police brutality is under scrutiny. Establishing this type of environment enables police brutality to be repeated. Police officers have openly discussed how reporting against a fellow officer can hinder one’s reputation. One officer spoke about being labeled a “rat” if he were to report an officer’s improper behavior (Stewart, 2005, p. 32). Upon entering the police academy, individuals begin to conform to a set of guidelines. It seems for many police officers to feel venerated by their beat community, they exercise their powers in an excessive manner.

For example, most of you are familiar with motorist Rodney King who was engaged in a police chase on March 3, 1991. After the chase ceased, King came face to face with twenty-one Los Angeles police officers and the California Highway Patrol. King was severely attacked by four of the officers. George Holliday’s video coverage of the incident drew national attention to the fact that racially motivated police violence still exists.

Photo Licensed Under Creative Commons

“If we’re going to talk about police brutality, it’s because police brutality exists. Why does it exist? Because our people in this particular society live in a police state,” Malcolm X.

As a response to the beatings, Attorney Warren Christopher initiated a thorough investigation of the L.A.P.D. Known as the Christopher Commission report, political officials examined police practices, as well as citizen complaints filed against the L.A.P.D. The report entailed that management failed to correctly administer police brutality complaints. In addition, the findings illustrated that many officers were repeat offenders of excessive force, yet they were never admonished for their misconduct. The report also indicated that there was corruption within the Internal Affairs Division (IAD). According to the report, investigators were withholding incriminating information brought against its officers. Although some of these issues were later rectified (an estimated 5 years), nothing would prepare Los Angeles for what was yet to come.

When the four officers accused of assaulting King were acquitted, the Black community was outraged. The verdict confirmed that Blacks from every social background could be unlawfully harassed and assaulted and there were no repercussions for those actions. On April 29, 1992, Los Angeles lit up in flames. Riot goers burned property, looted and demonstrated in protest. An estimated fifty-four people were killed and 2,383 were injured (Human Rights Watch, 1998). In comparison to the Watts uprising, scholars have found that the Los Angeles rebellion was more complicated. Although both reverberated shouts of resistance, the Watts uprising appeared as a Black and White struggle. Their frustration was identifiable and reflected the political climate at the time. Blacks were openly brutalized by the police and racism was publicly exerted.

The Los Angeles uprising, however, challenged society to reevaluate the political structure. The public seemed divided, reflecting how fragmented Los Angeles had become. There seemed to be a strong sentiment amongst the minority community that neither Mayor Bradley, nor Chief Gates could be trusted. Both Blacks and Latinos participated in protest and expressed frustration with the police system. The Los Angeles rebellion was an all encompassing struggle, tackling police abuse.

Los Angeles in the 1990s and till this day is armed with racial strife largely due to the fact that the LAPD openly boasts about using excessive force against people of color. Documentation illustrates that police brutality problems in Southern California is consistent, yet the mainstream media fails to critically expose this issue in its entirety. Lawrence (2000) records that between 1985 and 1990, The Los Angeles Times only covered four police brutality related incidents. Before the King case, police violence in the media was portrayed as an isolated issue. However, the general public and official leaders were challenged to recognize police brutality after the King beatings were videotaped and available for American viewers to see. Public opinion is an important component in media coverage of crisis situations. Specifically, the subject of police brutality is of widespread interest amongst urban communities.

For the masses, the King incident harked back to the past when Black youth were beaten with batons by police officers. The combination of the visual representation of King’s attacks and the profound wave of public protest caused people to react. Through the civil rights movement, leading to the King Uprising and to today, organizers and community leaders alike have fought diligently for better rights of minorities. This fight continues as countless police brutality cases have followed.

In the next entry, Part Two: “No Justice, No Peace” (a phrase I picked-up while protesting against police brutality), I will return with a discussion involving recent police brutality cases and explore the idea of justice and accountability of police officers. I will touch on Oscar Grant, a 22-year-old youth who was killed by the BART transit police. While lying subdued on his back, he was fatally shot by Officer Johannes Mehserle, 27, in Oakland, CA. In comparison to King, his case was recently moved from Oakland and Alameda County to Los Angeles County and his murder was videotaped, just like King’s beatings. But this time, hundreds of people witnessed his death in person. Community activists and family members who have lost their loved ones to police brutality are speaking out. Read about their demands, as I draw upon their battle against living in a police state.

Photo Courtesy of  Revolution-Licensed Under Creative Commons

“From left to right: Antonio Rosario, Margarita Rosario, and Juanita Young of the October 22 Coalition To Stop Police Brutality and attorney Seth Harris on the day a jury awarded Juanita Young $10.5 million for the police murder of her son, Malcolm Ferguson, New York, June 6. ”

***

Get involved or learn more about this pressing issue, here.

Published on 3 February 2010 | |