- Systemic racism or Monopoly of force?
- Ethnic disparity is a problem created by incorrect governance (the “Cultural issue”)
- ∙Is there a systemic racism? a “scientific” reading of the data
- The Police violence problem: towards a solution
In the previous document «Ethnic disparity is a” cultural matter “(a Government issue)» <see> the issue of serious hardships experienced by some ethnic minorities was addressed, highlighting how these problems derive in large part from an approach of the governmental institutions degenerated from their original democratic approach.
This document illustrates how:
● behaviors (and the way of thinking that produces such behaviors) are due to the culture transmitted by the social community in which the individual grew up.
● the loss of the traditional culture of the community is a serious problem with respect to the proper functioning of the community.
.
The problem: today many argue that there is a systemic racism in the US institutions.
In the specific case, it is thought that the American Whites would behave on the basis of a racist mentality: and therefore that the institutions make decisions that favor the White race.
In this document we analyzes the question of the alleged systemic racism using objective data and a rigorously scientific elaboration of them.
.
One of the most important problems of this alleged systemic racism is the force (or violence) exerted by the Police against the citizens.
.
The contested fundamental points, which must therefore be clarified are:
● are the specific cases in which the police use force (in some cases lethal to the Citizen) are driven by racism?
● Is violence – even when it seems to be justified by the dangers of citizens’ actions – really necessary?
Or could this violence be mitigated with a different approach of the police (for example using different methods)?
(The real question, as seen in the document “The Police violence problem: towards a solution”, is “is the concept of the current Police really democratic”?)
The need, in any case, to go towards a solution
The analysis of the problems must be oriented towards the development of a solution,otherwise one remains within a problem; in a vicious circle in which all that is obtained is a further development of frustration> anger> violence – just what target the political forces that foment the riots of 2020.
Note that truly solving the problem of the excessive use of force by the Police also means solving the problem in the problem: the creation of ideological movements aimed at developing forms of socialist government. That is, in the first place, the riots that in the spring of 2020 led to the violent riots which were the cause of countless devastating damages; and many deaths (between citizens and police forces).
.
How can the use of force by the Police in which we want to identify a form of systemic racism can be assessed?
.
In a democratic system, every accusation is legitimate: it implies, at the very least, a clarification by the institutions.
It should be noted that in the case in question, there is a conflict of interest which today prevents the dissemination of truthful information on what is happening:
● the institutions that should clarify the essence of the problem are in reality the same institutions that created the problem: cases of lethal violence by the police are recorded almost exclusively in areas managed by a strong majority of Democrats.
(the cases of 2020 – George Floyd and that of the Atlanta Shooting in the Wendy’s car park have occurred in areas where the Left has long been in the hands of all government institutions).
In the case of George Floyd, the Left administration not only did not immediately intervene against the Policeman, but that Policeman was still in the Police because he had been “pardoned” by Amy Klobuchar – one of the presidential nominations of the left of 2020 – a few years earlier for an episode of serious violence.
And in the case of the person killed in Atlanta, the law that led to the arrest of a Citizen only because he slept in a drunk car – which led to the Citizen’s violent reaction, was wanted by the Left.
<see also, on the question of the use of force for defense, my text “The question of legitimate defense”
.
● the media that should properly inform Citizens so that they get a correct idea of what is happening, actually hide meaningful information (they propose preconceived judgments – not based on real facts – instead of information). <see, for example, the case of Ferguson>
Added to this is the strong censorship exercised by social networks, which prevent the dissemination of information that is not aligned with the pseudo-information disclosed by the Mainstrem media.
It should be noted that correct and exhaustive information is the basis for the proper functioning of a democratic system, since well-informed citizens are able to change, with their vote, the governmental institutions that produce problems.
.
The problem is that this dis-information becomes the cause of actions leading to the development of actions that – in the name of anti-racism – produce serious damage to society (theft, destruction, death).
For this reason it becomes urgent to clarify whether and how much the abuses of force carried out by the Police are motivated by forms of racism.
Analysis of the current situation
In the analysis of the events we start from what is objectively verifiable (which is undeniable):
in the USA there is objectively a problem
both in the action of the Police
(often unjustifiable violence is used)
both in the social conditions of the areas
from which the victims of these interventions come.
It is therefore a matter of verifying whether these actions are due to a systemic racism, or whether they are due to other causes (since, in fact, today it seems necessary to act both to improve the actions of the Police – the cases of unjustified violence are however many – both to improve the social status of the areas from which the Citizens who commit the infractions and the crimes that put the police in difficulty come).
.
As illustrated in the previous document («Ethnic disparity is a” cultural matter- a Government issue» <see>:
● there is a high incidence of cases of police violence against non-white citizens.
What needs to be shown is whether this violence stems from police racism, or whether it stems from other causes.
● but this problem
does not derive from the skin color
of individuals subject to violence,
but from problems of social condition
in which part of the Americans live.
A DEEP READING OF THE FACTORS BASED ON THE USE OF THE FORCE BY THE POLICE
The data reported by most of the Media seem to lead to the conclusion that the Police act on a racial bias (unjustifiably turning their strength towards black minorities).
It is important to understand that the theses developed today by the political institutions and the media do not claim that the police in general exaggerate in applying force, which could also be real – see an analysis of this next document “The Police violence problem: towards a solution”.
But it is argued that the force applied by the Police is unfairly directed towards Black individuals.
the need to integrate all the significant data
The underlying problem of the information currently available from the press releases of the institutions and most of the Media, is that
the arguments indicating the existence of a systemic racism examine only a part of the significant data regarding the actions of the Police.
In other words, the problem is that
by resorting to a partial reading of the data, the underlying error is incurred which leads to an interpretation of the events that has little to do with actual reality.
.
An example of this incorrect interpretation of the data: it is scientifically correct to say that if I say that in a city like Rome the citizens of Rome are the majority of drivers who run over pedestrians.
This is a truth demonstrated by the data.
But if I say that the Citizen of Rome is more inclined to behave illegally when driving a car, in this case I say a false thing.
This happens because I do not take into consideration all the data that represent determining factors to understand the context that you want to evaluate.
So
to truly understand what is happening, it is necessary first of all to examine all the factors related to the context being analyzed (it is crucial to take into consideration all the significant data available).
In the specific case just described, if you really wanted to understand how much a Roman citizen is inclined to invest pedestrians, you should confront the percentage of Citizens guilty of collisions with pedestrians, with the percentage of Roman Citizens driving in the City of Rome.
.
The problem we have today in reading the data relating to the people to whom the Police shoot a Citizen is very similar to that of the example cited: today we take into consideration the isolated figure of the percentage of non-White individuals shooted by Policemen.
But, to understand what is actually happening,
the percentage of the deaths of a certain ethnic group must be
confronted with the percentage of crimes
committed by the same ethnic group
(only in this way it is possible to understand what is the possibility that the Policeman acted against a person actually dangerous).
However, it must be considered that:
● from these data readings no conclusions are reached such as that that the color of the skin is linked to the potential crime of a person (as illustrated in the previous document “the cultural matter”).
● the fact that the data show that a specific ethnic group has the highest number of crimes must not be ignored, however, as they highlight that there are cases of social injustice produced by the democracy system that need to be resolved (with an improvement in the institutions).
To understand the meaning of the actions of the Policemen it is necessary to identify with them
Since – as the data reported below – the percentage of Citizens who commit crimes is decidedly higher in the case of Black people (between 51% and 60%), it can be thought that every Policeman when facing an individual of this color reacts with greater use of force.
Another figure that influences the intervention of the Policeman is that which shows that in some cities such as Chicago (governed for a long time by the Democrats, who support the “strong manners” of the Police) every day there are also more than 20 fatal shootings by Citizens <source> (or even more than 80 total shootings in one day).
Which means that the possibility of running into a person who can shoot a Policeman who stops him – endangering him, since it is quite likely that he is equipped with an illegal weapon – are very high.
This can make it clear what the thought of a Policeman is that in a City of this type stop a motorist who has committed an infraction (the chances that someone will shoot him are very high).
.
So – in the current conditions of our Society, on which it would be necessary to intervene – when interacting with a Citizen who has committed some infraction:
● the Policeman is actually facing a situation of real danger both for him and for the other citizens (not stopping a potentially very dangerous person – at least at that time – would endanger the safety of other Citizens)
● the Policeman is particularly alarmed by the potential violence of the case he is facing (because statistics tell him that there is a high possibility that this situation will turn into a situation of strong violence).
It must be taken into account that currently the Policeman is also aware that the killings of the Policemen are high (in the first months of 2020 the killings of policemen were higher than those of unarmed citizens by the Policemen). And therefore it can overreact.
The need to understand what are the human factors behind violence
To understand the situation in which human beings act violently, that is to understand what instinctual reactions can be that lead them to non-rational (but unavoidable) behavior, it is necessary to put oneself in the shoes of the protagonists of these events.
That is, we must consider that
in cases where Policemen apply force they are,
as human beings,
inevitably driven by uncontrollable instinctual impulses
that cannot be corrected with years of training.
These impulses can precisely lead the Policeman to overreact (compared to how in the aftermath they can realize that they should have acted).
This does not mean that such acts of violence are justifiable within a democratic system: this only means that in these cases the Policemen have been placed in a condition in which they must act without choice, trusting – to guarantee their safety and that of Citizens in the area – of their instincts.
The factors that influence the intervention of the policemen
Deepening the analysis of the problem it emerges that:
1) the policeman is placed by the institutions in a situation of real (albeit potential) danger: it is in fact necessary to understand that the danger is not inherent only in some interventions clearly identifiable as dangerous, but that it is inherent in practically each of the tens of thousands of interventions carried out by him in his career. So the policeman is instinctively led in every intervention to think that he cannot afford to risk being killed (also to protect the safety of other citizens).
2) life-saving reactions – the Policeman learns him in his training – takes place within a maximum of one second.
The Policeman at that moment does not have time for reflections such as that of how the problem can be solved upstream, intervening on the social conditions of the subject he is facing.
.
.
It is obviously also necessary to put yourself in the shoes of the Citizen dealing with a Policeman.
In the subsequent document, aimed at defining a solution to the problem of excessive use of force by the Police, one tries to put oneself in the shoes of the person who died in Atlanta in the Wendy’s parking lot, who had not “seriously” broken any law – he had parked in a private parking lot incorrectly, and as a good family man, he was sleeping instead of driving in a drunken state – and he collaborated 100% with the Police, when the Policemen decided to arrest him (in this case ruining his life, since it already had precedents of this type).
To solve the problems of the violence exercised by Law enforcement, it is necessary to understand what its role should be in a democratic Society
To solve the problem of the acts of violence exercised by the Police, it is necessary to perform an in-depth analysis of all the elements related to these events.
The problem is that, among other things, today there is a tendency not to separate the question of the behavior of the Police from the setting of the rules that Policeman must follow in their interventions.
The fact is that without this in-depth analysis one arrives at wrong conclusions – later denied by further investigations, which are carried out in other points of the document – such as that that the Police is driven by a systemic racism.
.
The analysis developed in the document “The Police violence problem: towards a solution” <see> shows how
there is a systemic error
in defining the role of the Police
Or one of the problems that produce excessive force on the part of the Police is due to the fact that this error in the conception of Law enforcement today has produced an authoritarian dimension that contrasts with the conception of the system of democratic institutions.
A fundamental problem in the evaluation of the use of force by the Police is due to the fact that in the citizens (and in the Politicians, in the Institutions of the Justice, etc …) seems to be a lack of real awareness of
■ what are the human mechanisms that underlie the behavior of Policemen and citizens stopped by them.
■ what is the role of the Police (and any other institution) in a democratic system.
■ HUMAN FACTORS IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLICEMAN AND CITIZENS
In order to truly understand the problem in depth, it is therefore necessary to consider the psychological mechanisms that come into play when such episodes of violence develop:
.
● the confrontation between a Policeman and a Citizen who develops a strong reaction towards the Policeman is not a sport, or rather it is not a matter of thinking that this situation must be faced by the Policeman “on equal terms”.
But the Policeman in that situation has a duty to (not only the right) to use sufficient force to safely neutralize (his and other citizens’ safety) those in front of him.
Some things that we tend to disregard today – because only those who have taken self-defense courses know – are
– the Policeman who is threatened with a knife (it is assumed that if the Citizen has pulled it out, he can use it with mastery) knows that the opponent can stab him in a mortal way even with a jump from a couple of meters (in this case the Policeman’s decision to use a deadly weapon has a justification).
Recall that this is not a duel between the policeman and the attacker, but a more general public safety issue.
.
– another determining factor: the people in the judgments they give on the facts of Police violence often do not realize how crucial is the size of a person in managing a physical confrontation.
In martial sports, the contenders are separated by weight category precisely because a person of a higher category can knock out an optimally trained but lighter person.
In 2020, the cases of both George Floyd and that of the Wendy’s parking in Atlanta concern very large and strong citizens (which does not however justify the suffocation of a person already on the ground, and with handcuffs!).
It is thanks to the physical bulk that Rayshard Brooks has shown, in the Atalanta parking lot, that he can dominate two combat-trained policemen.
(in this last case the police mistake was to provoke a violent reaction in an individual who until then had not created any problem: he slept in the car, and did not drive it – and was collaborating 100% with the Policemen) .
.
– a further factor: the stress experienced in these physical situations generates adrenaline, both in the Policeman and in the person with whom it has to do.
And this adrenaline is responsible for at least two very negative effects: (1) it leads people to overreact, since their psyche is highly alarmed; (2) also puts some people in a position not to feel the pain inflicted by the opponent’s blows: in this case the person becomes practically invincible (he fights trying to bring highly harmful blows even with the broken right arm).
For these reasons it is very difficult to neutralize a Citizen without using forms of extreme force.
The problem is that the Police can end up provoking a violent reaction from the Citizen even when it could avoid it (as it seems to be in the case of the shooting in the Wendy’s car park in Atalnta)
.
● the decisions of the policeman (who is under severe stress due to the conditions described above) must be made within a second.
Or the problem is that when for any reason the Citizen stopped uses force against the Policeman (even just a push), the latter has less than a second to implement an effective counter-move.
Counter move that should be “strong” (violent) enough to neutralize the worst case of evolution of the confrontation (the fact is that the Citizen who reacts strongly, as has been said, can hardly be stopped if he is not seriously injured ).
One of the problems in these cases is, in fact, it is difficult to hypothesize to what extent the violent reaction of the citizen will develop. And in this case it is necessary to be absolutely certain that you can neutralize the person who can potentially cause serious damage to the policeman and other citizens.
To better understand the situation, it is necessary to understand that if the Policeman cannot neutralize the violent Citizen, he can be put in the condition of being totally defenseless, at the mercy of the attacker who can seriously injure him or steal the weapon he has in his possession. endowment (in this case the Citizen would become very dangerous for the people in the area).
.
It is necessary to insist that the Policeman must avoid the consequences described above even when there is only a suspicion that the Citizen may become violent, even when the situation may appear totally peaceful (the peaceful reaction is also typical of those who have just committed a crime, who hopes to convince the Policeman to be foreign to the facts).
(obviously, upstream of everything, the Police must avoid inducing violent reactions in Citizens who are really willing to collaborate, as happened in the shooting of Rayshard Brooks in Atalanta)
■ THE ROLE OF THE POLICE IN A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM
If one of the fundamental problems in the evaluation of the use of force by the Police is due to the lack of awareness of what the human mechanisms are that underlie the behavior of Policemen and Citizens stopped by them, there is another problem of unawareness of the violence exercised by the police:
today the idea of the role that the police must play in a democratic System has been lost.
.
In the following document “The Police violence problem: towards a solution” we highlights – with an in-depth analysis of the data that we have available today – how the Police often act brutally (with a force not justified by the situation) because
it has lost sight of its function as a Public Service for Citizens, and has become a support tool for authoritarian institutions
(this in contrast to the Constitution, for which decision-making power must always and in any case be in the hands of Citizens).
In that document, we analyzes in depth the role of Law enforcement, and we highlights how the Police must take on the role of Social service again (such as that of Firefighter and Paramedics).
Towards a solution
Ultimately, the problem of interventions in which the police used a force not justified by the situation cannot be resolved by acting on the attitude of the policemen. But it must be resolved by attributing a different role to Law enforcement (so that the need to use force is greatly reduced).
Or – as illustrated in the document “The Police violence problem: towards a solution” – it is necessary to intervene upstream of the specific problem:
● by changing the role of the police
● and before that, by modifying the current conception of the Laws, which today tend essentially to attribute repressive powers to the institutions; and which should instead be primarily aimed at helping the Citizen with whom the Policeman comes into contact.
