One of the most distressing things to me in considering the Trayvon Martin case is the sobering reality that had George Zimmerman had a badge we likely never would have even heard of Trayvon Martin. His life, in all likelihood, would have passed unremarked outside of maybe a few local news stories and a small protest or candle light vigil attended by family and friends.
Why do I think this? Because it happens all the time. Police brutality, which goes hand in hand with the militarization of the police, is a pervasive reality. Consider these three videos.
There are a few things to note about these videos. The first is that I didn’t have to search to find them. I just picked three, but if you look at the links that come up when you watch these it’s easy to see that there are countless similar videos, some too disturbing to even watch. Likewise with a few Google searches you can find numerous websites that track these things. They are generally taken about as seriously and receive about as much attention as your average conspiracy theory website.
Secondly, let’s consider who the victims are in these videos. In the first one we have a young black male being brutally beaten by a white cop, and then tazed multiple times while incapacitated as other white male cops stand around. In the second we see a black male officer beating another black male senseless with his baton, while a white or Latino male officer stands by as backup. Finally, in the third we see a white male officer savagely kick a white female who was handcuffed, seated, and intoxicated in the head. So police brutality is not merely a racial thing (although I don’t doubt that a strong case could be made that black males are on the receiving end more than any one other group).
No, police brutality is a power thing. It is the result of a culture that says that some are above the law. A culture of intimidation that views officers not as the agents of the people, hired to protect and serve, but as the hired thugs of the state, free to use whatever means necessary or preferred to carry out the will of the state, usually motivated by a financial incentive (i.e. traffic stops, the war on drugs, etc.). The kind of men we see in the videos above are not just a few bad apples, and they didn’t just have a moment. As mentioned above these kinds of events happen routinely, and it is not uncommon for those who engage in such brutality to keep their jobs or be hired by another force. Further, the ability to carry out the sustained beating of an unarmed person, to hear bones cracking, screams, pleas for help, to witness the body of a teenage boy convulsing under electrical shock when he is already incapacitated, the willingness to kick a woman in the face for a minor offense—these are not typical human capacities. I’m not saying that humans are not naturally capable of great evil—we surely are. But most of us simply would not do these kinds of thing. This kind of behavior is developed. It requires de-sensitization. It is developed by an internal culture that winks at violence and corruption, that begins to find a thrill in violent encounters, that finds its self-worth bolstered by being outfitted with greater and greater authority and more militaristic equipment and assignments. Permanent SWAT teams create police-soldiers.
But perhaps more disconcerting than the internal culture prevalent within so many law enforcement agencies is the external culture that tolerates and even celebrates it. I watched in horror a few months ago as the city of Boston was literally taken over and shut down by the military-police complex in a search for two (and then one) teenage boys. Armored vehicles with gun turrets drove through the streets aiming at anyone they pleased. The right against unreasonable search and seizure was wholly suspended as families were forced out of their homes at gunpoint—women and children with military rifles pointed at them simply because they were there, in their homes. Businesses were forced to close as citizens were told to stay in their homes. And despite the fact that all of this proved wholly ineffective and the suspect was found by a regular citizen just outside the militarized perimeter moments after the lock-down was lifted, the nation celebrated all of this. We took a sort of perverse pride in the lengths that the state would go to to “keep us safe,” never noting the irony that our safety came at the expense of the law, at the expense of any semblance of liberty, and at the end of a gun barrel. Nevertheless we lauded the effort as nothing but heroism and congratulated ourselves on a job well done.
Similarly, when it came out that an armed and violent criminal was eventually just burned to death in a cabin because it was taking too long to try and capture him there was no outrage. Once again we cheered. We got the bad guy. But at what cost? Of course Dorner was an evil man, and of course it’s hard to have much sympathy for him, but this isn’t about sympathy. It’s about precedent. It’s about a police department that shot two innocent people in a moving vehicle and then essentially said, “oops sorry about that.” It’s about a police department that decided it was up to them when to just kill someone rather than make every effort to capture him and put him to justice via a trial.
These and countless other examples from Waco and Ruby Ridge to the purveyors of raw milk who routinely have their homes invaded and property destroyed, to the kids walking down the street who don’t look right and end up the victim of an armed man’s god complex tell a story of a growing lawlessness in our culture. If the politicians aren’t bound by the law (and we know that’s been the case for a long time), and their armed enforcement personnel aren’t bound by the law, the law has effectively ceased to function. It is now just another tool for the manipulation and coercion of the populace, to be used as a pretext for abusing those already in a position of relative weakness, those who are already at a power deficit, while the powerful, the elite remain impervious to its strictures.
And so we return to Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. I am convinced that neither I nor most of the rest of the population have enough knowledge to really understand fully all the rights and wrongs of the way things ended up. But two things do stand out to me.
One is that Zimmerman behaved foolishly by following Martin after he was told not to. At some level his behavior seems to have been provocative. But more than that, as others have noted, Zimmerman may well have been acting and thinking as he thought a cop would. He evidently greatly admired the police and aspired toward law enforcement himself. Could it be that his aggressive behavior, his unwillingness to let it go and to leave the situation alone, came down to his perception of what it meant to be involved in law enforcement? Provoking and then responding with overwhelming force? I don’t know, but it seems like a real possibility.
The second thing that stands out is what I started with. If Zimmerman had actually been a cop I have a hard time believing we would have heard about this story. Yet in a sane world, had he been a cop he should have been held to an even higher standard. Police are given training to defuse tense and violent situations, and invested with a veritable monopoly on the use of force in public society. They ought to be held to the strictest levels of accountability in the use of violence precisely because they are naturally in a position that without that kind of oversight lends itself to the abuse of power and corruption. Yet what we see today is just the opposite. A citizen who at least was able to make a case that he killed in self-defense (albeit perhaps preceded by foolish and provocative behavior) is being crucified in the media, in pop-culture, even by the federal government. And yet story can be piled on top of story of abuse and even murder by law enforcement officers just over the period of time since Trayvon’s death and it goes unremarked on by the media and unnoticed by the population.<>
“But perhaps more disconcerting than the internal culture prevalent within so many law enforcement agencies is the external culture that tolerates and even celebrates it.”
I think this is the heart of it. There seems to be a reinforcing relationship between those wielding power (and not wanting to be restrained) and those under their power who, counterintuitively, do not appear to want it to be restrained, even expressing gratitude when it is not restrained and their rights are suspended. This seems surprising at first, but if there were not that symbiotic relationship where the ruled celebrate unrestrained power and suspect, dislike, or view as antagonistic the restraints that have been placed on that power, then I wonder if police militarization and even brutality could even exist. Why would we celebrate the disregarding of our rights and protections as citizens? It seems to me that often our view of the police and their actions is in some part an extension of our own desire for power and to be unrestrained in the wielding of it. We always think of it (quite honestly, I believe) as power to punish evil and deal with aggressors. But there is an intolerance for restraint — a lawlessness — that runs through all of it. Everybody wants the One Ring so they can save the world, but they must be allowed to wield absolute power in order to do it — no restraints, no rules.
Perhaps there is a kind of vicarious identification with the police force. They’re the good guys, and we place ourselves on their side and in their camp. (Also, they hold the virtual monopoly on force, so it pays to be identified with them and loyal to them.) The tolerance of and celebration of shows of force that break through restraints may be a sign of our own lawlessness and contempt for restraints. Likewise, the indifference to or cruelty toward suspects (especially guilty ones) seems in some part an extension of this. Our attitude toward criminals is reflective of our humanity or lack thereof. There is a reason several OT laws required restraint in the treatment of convicted criminals — it was to protect the people meting out the punishment [“lest he be degraded in your eyes”]. You respect the rights of criminals in order to protect yourself from becoming lawless like them. But if we reject restraint and fail to respect the rights even of the guilty, then we are all of us lawless, and the only difference between the criminal and the upstanding citizen is the outlet he has chosen for his lawlessness. The lawlessness of the police force is in some sense an extension of the lawlessness of the general populace. We will not be ruled and restrained by God and His law, so we wish not to be restrained in our exercise of power or our treatment of those under our power. This gets expressed vicariously in adulation of police action and indifference toward the accused.
I am not refuting or affirming the rest of the article, but as someone who lives in Boston and spent the day in my home 1-2 miles from where they found the bombing culprit, I have to take serious issue with your characterization of the manhunt. To quote:
“But perhaps more disconcerting than the internal culture prevalent within so many law enforcement agencies is the external culture that tolerates and even celebrates it. I watched in horror a few months ago as the city of Boston was literally taken over and shut down by the military-police complex in a search for two (and then one) teenage boys. Armored vehicles with gun turrets drove through the streets aiming at anyone they pleased. The right against unreasonable search and seizure was wholly suspended as families were forced out of their homes at gunpoint—women and children with military rifles pointed at them simply because they were there, in their homes. Businesses were forced to close as citizens were told to stay in their homes. And despite the fact that all of this proved wholly ineffective and the suspect was found by a regular citizen just outside the militarized perimeter moments after the lock-down was lifted, the nation celebrated all of this. We took a sort of perverse pride in the lengths that the state would go to to “keep us safe,” never noting the irony that our safety came at the expense of the law, at the expense of any semblance of liberty, and at the end of a gun barrel. Nevertheless we lauded the effort as nothing but heroism and congratulated ourselves on a job well done.”
First, you are mischaracterizing the threat posed by the two brothers. Only one of the “boys” was a teenager (19). The other was 26. Both were heavily armed. Prior to being pinned down, they had set off the marathon bombs, robbed a convenience store, murdered an MIT police officer, hijacked a car, engaged in a high-speed chase while throwing bombs from their car, and then opened fire on police with automatic weapons in a densely populated residential neighborhood. They were both adults who were capable of inflicting a great deal of further harm on residents of the city.
Second, your characterization of the police activity is unfounded. Although the governor’s recommended “shelter in place” for citizens was voluntary, compliance was almost universal. I, and my neighbors, were happy to see police cars patrolling our streets. They did not search my house, but I would have happily let them in (as did almost all of the residents in that area). The police did not “take over Boston,” as if they had to conquer it. The citizens welcomed the police, many of whom are our neighbors. Nor did “gun turrets” drive through the streets “aiming at anyone they pleased.” I’ve noticed that these sorts of characterizations are common place for those who were not in Boston–but no one I knew, not even my libertarian friends, who went through it complained about it.
Legally speaking, if a citizen allows a search, then there is no violation of the 4th amendment. But even assuming some refused to allow police to enter (I am not sure anyone actually refused to allow police in their house, but its plausible), then according to the 4th amendment police could still enter to conduct a “reasonable” search or seizure even without having a Warrant. In such a situation, where the police knew the suspect was within a one-mile radius, expected him to be heavily armed and perhaps have bombs, and the time required to obtain warrants for each house, I find difficult to argue that a warrantless search was “unreasonable.”
In the end, the police got Jhokar alive, and before he killed anyone else. They rescinded their “shelter in place” request as a calculated risk and it paid off. A citizen thought he saw someone suspicious hiding in his boat and immediately called the police. The police, our neighbors, were definitely heroes. The community lined up to bring them food during the search and people lined the streets of Boston at 9:00 PM to thank them for their 24 hours of effort.
I like a lot of what you have said about how the police should be servants or agents of the people. I completely agree. I just happen to believe that the Boston manhunt is an example of ideal police behavior.
I am not disputing that the brothers were dangerous, and I take your point that one was barely a teenager and the other was not. My point was that we have had manhunts for dangerous criminals, even terror suspects and bombers many times in this country without lockdowns, military police, armored vehicles, and house to house searches at gun point. Many, many times.
I understand that the police presence was welcomed by many, but I stand by the claim that there was a virtual takeover at least of portions of the city. I watched the footage live. It is documented. Further, you cannot have “probable cause” (which is what you need to search without a warrant) for all the houses in a general area. The very definition of probably cause entails a specific reason to believe that something illegal is taking place immanently in a specific place. Probably cause is when you’re chasing a suspect and you see him run into a house. It’s not, ‘well he could be anywhere so every house in this area is subject.’ And I don’t think it’s really voluntary when it happens at gun point.
I’ll leave it at that, but I think these videos substantiate my claim.
http://youtu.be/2LrbsUVSVl8
http://youtu.be/cfOvHuojEB4
http://youtu.be/alZPOvh8XW8
http://youtu.be/GzX1HmOylAo