Shodan, Terr, Steophan, y’all sound so *shocked *at the idea that a long-standing persistent and pervasive pattern of racial bias in law enforcement might lead some people to examine all cases with a jaundiced eye.
.
It is commonly accepted that he did a lousy job and had a violent confrontation. His explanations of his behavior at all times during and after were poor and misleading.
You can put your own word in there for it other than embarrassed. I’m OK with that.
And maybe the recent history of hype and assigning racist motives to people without any evidence for it might lead some people to dismiss that “jaundiced eye”.
Every absurdity has an equal and opposite absurdity. Do you have any evidence that the police officer was entirely unaware of the racial identity of Ms. Bland?
If I say that cigarette smoking causes cancer, and people should not do that, I have not even hinted that all cancer is caused by cigarette smoking. To restate my position thus would be transparently stupid.
I haven’t the least doubt that there are police officers who are evolved and intelligent to a degree that they are largely, if not entirely, capable of treating a black person with precisely the same dignity as a white person.
In this case? If we were to believe that the officer treated all his subjects with the same callous and provocative disdain, would that be an improvement? Would you suggest that the officer be commended, then, for his unbiased and egalitarian contempt for all persons?
In my experience, the objects of generalized misanthropy tend to take it personally. …zif I care.
Dismissing it entirely is astoundingly foolish.
“Boy who cried wolf”.
:shrug: OK. I find that analogy simplistic and deeply flawed.
He made an assertion. If he examined anything before making it, he didn’t say what it was. That’s what I would like to see - the evidence he examined.
If there was none, then we know how much weight to give the assertion. and adjust our estimates of his opinion accordingly.
Regards,
Shodan
Naw, I hear you, and it’s a good point. But the fact remains that there is evidence, albeit entirely circumstantial, to consider racial motivation in this case: a history of systemic and pervasive disparate treatment of blacks by law enforcement. I agree entirely that there is no *direct *evidence that racial–or sexual–bias played a part in this case. But I think its also silly to dismiss the possibility out of hand, which seemed to be the thrust of Terr’s and Steophan’s endorsements.
Blacks also commit a disproportionate amount of street crimes. Is that circumstantial evidence that Bland was a criminal?
Regards,
Shodan
Then we are left with the exquisitely pointless question of whether the officer should be dismissed because he is a bigot or because he is an equal opportunity asshole.
Yes, IMO.
It is, however, circumstantial evidence that an officer of the law should not base his actions upon. In theory.
.
Between 1877 and 1950, Waller County had among the highest number of lynchings in Texas, according to a report from the Equal Justice Initiative. Hempstead became known as “Six Shooter Junction” because of white supremacist violence in the 1800s.
How much circumstance are you willing to look at?
Do they? Or might they get stopped a lot more by a predominately white, bigoted, amateur police force looking for an easy stat to take home?
So just to be clear, you simply made it up based on your feelings. I’m OK with that.
The perceived racial bias in most of the high profile cases recently vanishes under close examination. This case is a good example - there is quite literally no evidence that Bland’s race played any part in the way she was treated. None.
1877 thru 1950? That’s certainly relevant to the Bland case, somehow. Or not.
Well, that’s the question that people who are highlighting the racial aspect of this case are bringing up.
And yeah, it doesn’t appear especially relevant in this case. I can vouch for the fact that a certain breed of cops in Texas kind of have a habit of trying to bait white males into higher offenses at traffic stops if they think they can get away with it. I assume the same ones do it to everyone. In my experience, the DPS officers are actually the least likely to do this - they’re usually the most professional of the bunch (and some are actually nice!). The officers in the large cities are usually almost as professional, but I have had some be lunatics. In the burbs and the smaller towns, I’d guess about a third of them play that dumb game.*
So, as far as that question goes, I don’t see any hard evidence that would prove a racial motivation on the officer’s part. Fire him for being an equal opportunity asshole.
*ETA: And on a semi-related note, universty cops are absolutely the most likely to do this.
Okay, try this:
Sheriff in Sandra Bland Case Was Fired in 2008 After Racism, Brutality Allegations
That incident involved the arrest of a black man named Cory Labba; the Chronicle says Smith “acknowledged he used profanity and was unprofessional” during Labba’s arrest but denied race was a motivating factor in his behavior. A Chronicle story later in 2008 on Smith’s campaign to become Waller County sheriff said he may have been fired because of “incidents involving police misconduct toward African-Americans,” mentioning a department raid on a home that was targeted in error and an incident in which young black men were publicly strip-searched.