Others have addressed the problem of police brutality far better than I ever could. The death penalty is not an appropriate penalty for shoplifting. Being maced or beaten is not an appropriate penalty for "talking back" or asserting your Constitutional rights. Black people are not inherently criminal and prone to rioting; people riot for a reason. I know this. You know this. All intelligent, decent people know this. So I'm not going to waste my time arguing that it's not ok for police officers to openly assault people. Instead, I think it's more important to address the problematic reasoning behind police violence.
The bullshit spewed forth by people who want to defend the trampling of basic Constitutional rights, though, is absolutely ceaseless. Enter Sunil Dutta, whose recent op-ed for the Washington Post endeavors, like so many other fluff pieces full of unsupported assertions, to defend the brutality of police officers. So let's slay some bullshit and attack each of Dutta's claims, point by point.
It's not the duty of civilians to stop police brutality.
Dutta repeatedly claims that it is civilians, not police, who can end brutality. I'd be inclined to believe him if he were arguing that civilians should protest, write their representatives, or demand more police oversight. Nope. Dutta simply argues that the people police stop can somehow end police brutality by behaving correctly. Clearly Dutta is woefully unfamiliar with the myriad stories of police brutalizing or even killing peaceful people. Like this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or the thousands of other stories you can access with just a quick Google search.
It is the job of police officers to stop violence. Indeed, that is arguably their most significant job duty. Dutta wants us to believe -- and be comfortable with -- the idea that police cannot control themselves and cannot prevent violence. But civilians, with no formal training, are somehow supposed to be able to accomplish just that.
A democracy should not demand blind obedience to authority.
We have a Constitution to specifically protect rights we don't like. We don't, for example, need to protect the right to behave nicely; no one goes and assaults someone for being too likable. Instead, we protect rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and religion precisely so that people can engage in obnoxious expressive behavior. But Dutta asserts, "Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me."
This is utterly terrifying. In a country that protects people's rights to engage in nonviolent but annoying behavior, it is galling that an officer would argue that such behavior warrants an arrest, and perhaps even a beating. It does, however, provide some insight into police psychology; apparently Dutta is so fragile and feels so vulnerable that he cannot tolerate even the slightest questioning of his authority. Pretend he's not a cop for a second. Weigh a few of these sentences:
"Don't wear short shorts and don't even think about ignoring my advances if you want not to be raped."
"Don't even think about giving me the finger in traffic if you want not to be shot."
"Don't even consider ignoring my request for your phone number if you don't want me to bludgeon you to death."
It is here that Dutta makes it clear that he thinks cops have less of a duty to control themselves and uphold the law than normal people. Even more terrifying is the fact that Dutta is a professor of homeland security. He's teaching other cops. And he's teaching his terrifying values -- values that are not reflective of the law or the Constitution -- to people whose job it is to uphold the law.
Saying no to an illegal stop is not an option.
Later in his piece, Dutta asserts, in contradictory fashion, "...you don't have to submit to an illegal stop or search." Yet in the same piece he says that if people argue with him, they increase their likelihood of being victimized by him or another cop. The hypocrisy here -- and the apparent lacking awareness -- is breathtaking. You can't assert that questioning your authority will yield violence in the same article that you tell people they have a right to question authority. One thing that Ferguson and dozens of other interactions between police and citizens has made clear is this: you cannot question a cop. Ever. Better to allow yourself to be arrested and sue later. At least then you'll survive.
We deserve better than authoritarian pieces of garbage like Dutta. There is nothing wrong with being a police officer, and there are many good cops. But in a corrupt system, cops will tend toward violence and corruption, as evidenced by Dutta's endorsement of police brutality. We deserve a better system, and a system that actually protects public safety.
There should be cops marching alongside protesters opposing police brutality. Because good officers should oppose this shit. Every time I hear a police officer defend brutality, argue that it's not a problem, or insist that there are no systemic biases in the way police officers do their jobs, I know that officer is part of the problem. So in some small way, I appreciate that men like Dutta are willing to out themselves. It lets me know who to avoid.
No comments:
Post a Comment