Warning: Graphic Material

Today there was a tragedy the video of which has been published for the world to see. In it is yet another example of a police officer shooting a black man. The response to it is understandable outrage and condemnation as well as calls to acknowledge the institutional racism that exists in America. It is not my intention to tell anyone they are "wrong" for feeling a certain way, or to defend the police in any way. I do not believe they are wrong and any attempt to twist my words into this meaning would be disingenuous and counterproductive. It is my desire to talk about real solutions to these real problems that aren't driven by anger and hatred.

I understand that this might not be a conversation many people want to engage in and if you feel that way I eagerly encourage you to not read further. You are not wrong. You should be emotional. You should be upset. This article might make you more upset because I doubt it will perfectly reflect how you are currently feeling. It's not that I argue that anyone is wrong (again, they're not), it's because no one wants to hear logic at times like these and that's fine. This article is only for those who want to discuss real solutions to these real problems without letting their emotions govern their thinking. If that's you, then feel free to read on. If that's not you, again you're not wrong. We're just looking at it from different perspectives.

Institutional Racism

I hate to diverge from the crowd, seeing as we live in a world where the nail that sticks out is promptly hammered down, but I have to say that acknowledging institutional racism is not the solution. That question is over. We're all on board. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone claim there wasn't institutionalized racism within our authoritarian institutions (like Law Enforcement). And yet many people seem to be taking this stance as exemplified by one of my favorite YouTubers Casey Neistat:

I appreciate the sentiment, and again, I'm not saying he's wrong. But I will also say that there is a vanity to what he is doing. He is saying that he is part of the problem because he hasn't acknowledged the existence of institutional racism. Perhaps his popularity has gone to his head. Perhaps he really does believe that if people like him (famous white people) simply acknowledge institutional racism, the problem will be solved. This, undoubtedly, eases his conscience. He, like all of us, was gripped with the feeling of powerlessness we are overcome with when those in power use their position to tyrannize others. Sorry to bruise your ego Casey, but you ... don't ... matter. Your words are as empty and without consequence as any claim that institutional racism does not exist. You have eased your conscience. That is all.

Labelling institutionalized racism as the problem only enables law enforcement to enact incremental, cosmetic changes that in reality "change" nothing. In other words, it serves the masters just fine for you to call them a racist. Want them to arrest as many white people as black people? Sure they could do that. Want them to shoot as many asians as they do latinos (I'm just picking random groups, don't read into this)? They can do that too. As long as they continue to exist, their function largely unaltered (using force to impose their will on civilians), they're good (to use a Neistat-ism).

As long as you don't want them replaced they can live with you hating them. After all, cops have decades of experience with that. Centuries actually. Do you know what the original purpose of law enforcement was? The clue is in the title, "Sheriff." Remember "The Sheriff of Nottingham?"

He was the tax collector. Do you think he cared about the underprivileged? Of course not. They were his biggest problem! Do you think he wasn't bigoted against them? That he didn't think that they "deserved" their station and this warranted his ill-treatment? Of course he did! How do you think he lived with himself? Now do you think that getting him to admit that he was a bigot would solve their problems? "Ok, I'm a bigot, now give me your gold or I will stab you with this sword." Is that really so different than, "Your tail light is out, if you make any suspicious moves I will shoot you with this gun?"

If drawing this parallel seems far-fetched, I would simply point out that (at least in New York City) Tax Enforcement is a Branch of the Department of Finance ... which operates under the umbrella of, drum-roll please: the Sheriff's Office.

The problem with law enforcement isn't who is policing (e.g. racists) it's how we police: violently. Consider all of the resources law enforcement spends having officers sit in cars, burning God knows how many barrels of oil, so that they can physically detain (that's what they are doing when they force you to pull over, present your information, etc.) citizens in order to ticket them for non-violent offenses. Given the undoubtedly massive amount of resources (just think of all the officers' salaries) expended is anyone really going to claim that they can't figure out a way to ticket people for violations in a way that doesn't present any danger to either the citizen or the law enforcement officer?

I promise you that police are not performing this task because there is no other way. They are performing this task because it is a source of revenue, because it is a task that justifies the employment of the officer, and because people tolerate it. And believe me, it gives me no pleasure to say this, but as long as people tolerate the pervasive use of force by law enforcement, these problems will continue. Ticketing a person who has a weapon on them is inherently dangerous. Now, if the person tells you that they have a weapon on them, one would think that this dramatically reduces the risk of them actually pulling the gun on you. However, it does not reduce that risk to the equivalent of ticketing a person who does not have a weapon on them.

In other words, there is an elevated level of risk which justifies an elevated level of vigilance. In a country of 319 million people, this elevated level of risk will result in mishaps like this one. After all, I doubt anyone would contend that the officer pulled these people over with the intent of shooting one of them. Racism might have motivated the mishap, but it did not create the scenario. That doesn't justify it. Precisely the opposite. This is exactly why any situation that needlessly creates such a dynamic must be avoided. Because eventually, Murphy's Law wins.

At the same time, when a human being that is armed (in this case a Police Officer) approaches another human being, that alone also increases the risk that the other person (the civilian) will be harmed. After all, the officer cannot shoot someone if they are not armed, but more importantly they cannot shoot someone if they are not there.

Now, I am not remotely saying that there are no scenarios which justify having armed law enforcement on site. On the contrary, I can think of many. What we should be asking is whether the benefit of having an armed officer dealing with the "violation" physically (meaning with his physical, bodily presence) is worth the inherent risk that arises any time armed human beings are in a state of conflict. After all, the ticketing scenario is inherently contentious. It's you versus the cop.

Now imagine you have a warrant out for your arrest. Now imagine the cop knows that there is a chance, any time he pulls someone over, that there is a warrant out for this person's arrest and that this person might fear incarceration enough (and dislike police enough) to choose shooting a police officer rather than dealing with them peacefully. And, of course, imagine that the person being pulled over has a long and contentious relationship with the police that is entirely not their fault. Now imagine that the cop is well aware that in scenarios such as this it is not uncommon for people in the vehicle to shoot at the cops. This. Is. Dangerous.

It doesn't matter if the cop is or isn't racist. It doesn't matter if the civilian has nothing to fear from the officer. It is perfectly reasonable for both people in this scenario to fear one another and to respond accordingly with precautions. Who knows, it could very well be that the victim in this most recent case was carrying his gun precisely because he was afraid of the police. In that case he wouldn't have been wrong! This is a zero-sum game where both players have imperfect information and weapons. It's a powder-keg looking for a spark.

The problem is that no one is talking about getting rid of the powder-keg. No one is talking about removing sparks from the scenario. Removing the fuse. No one is talking about changing this scenario from a zero-sum game where the players have imperfect information and so have to assume the worst about their opponents. Until that happens this will not stop.

The Solution

I'm not going to claim to have the solution and frankly, talking about specific solutions also isn't going to solve the problem. Until we can agree on the proper target no effective solution will be able to muster sufficient support. Step 1 was acknowledging institutionalized racism. Step 2 is refusing to tolerate institutions that use violence to impose their will on others. Even if eliminating bigotry were possible (it isn't) this is not actionable intelligence. The goal cannot be: to create good institutions by making sure they are inhabited only by perfect individuals. Good institutions must work despite imperfect individuals, otherwise it will not work at all. Steemit is a perfect example of this. Are there bad people using this site? Maybe. Doesn't really matter though does it?

Yelling at bigots doesn't convince them they are wrong. Pointing guns at bigots does not convince them they are wrong. That we have a group of people who are above the law, who have the right to shoot other people and who, after doing so, are held to a different standard than the rest of us gives bigotry a violent outlet. But we are not going to seriously contend that if today's victim had been white this wouldn't have been a problem are we? Unnecessary and unjustified murder is the problem.

Slavery was abolished because we, The People, refused to tolerate the institution. It has nothing to do with the laws that those in power wrote down on worthless pieces of paper. They were, after all, the same people who wrote the laws which institutionalized slavery. Once slavery was no longer tolerated the wealth of solutions that erupted to replace it created orders of magnitude more wealth and success than the institution itself ever did.

The same is true about Civil Rights. Those in power write the laws that we rage against and then flip-flop at the last possible moment so as to remain in power and take the credit. The Police are a violent and authoritarian institution. THAT'S the problem. After all, if Mark Zuckerberg were a racist, this wouldn't result in anyone's death because Facebook is not an inherently violent and authoritarian institution endowed with the right to extinguish life. Facebook isn't that because we wouldn't tolerate that. Just look at the outrage that results from minor changes to their terms of service! We only tolerate the violence of the Police because they've always been that way. Because we're told "this is the way it is has to be." Because it is more important to those in power that they retain the right to commit violence against innocent civilians than it is for them to be viewed as non-racists.

Once we realize this and refuse to tolerate their violent solutions to these trivial problems (a broken tail light? seriously?!), the solutions people will come up with will be (as always) an order of magnitude superior to the archaic methods currently employed. It will happen, the only question is, how many more people have to die before it does?