WHAT IS THE LIFE OF A (BLACK) PERSON WORTH?

   Derek Chauvin defined the market value of a Black man’s life when he killed George Floyd in response to a storekeeper’s complaint that he had used a counterfeit bill to buy cigarettes.  Thanks to Chauvin, we know that, without slavery and auctions to establish a market value for Blacks and their labor, the value of a Black man’s life in Minneapolis is worth no more than $20, the face value of the bill claimed to be counterfeit.  That claim is unconfirmed, and it is too late to ask whether, if the bill was counterfeit, Floyd knew it to be so.  But the police rule of engagement is: escalate the encounter and kill the Black man first, skip the questions later—unless the murder gets videoed and goes viral.

What Chauvin did, police elsewhere do every day.  They demonstrate the low value which they place on the lives of people, any of us—white, yellow, red, brown, black—, whom they are supposed to protect and serve by killing us for misdemeanors, allegations of misdemeanors, or no misdemeanors at all, merely harmless behavior.  They kill people for having an outstanding warrant for a misdemeanor, selling “loosey” cigarettes, driving with an expired license or a broken taillight, sitting in a parked car, playing with a toy gun, and, perversely, even obeying a police order.  In these cases, public safety was not at risk; private lives were at risk.

The police know that the offenses are trivial.  To get to killing, they initiate, escalate, then execute.  The critical step is escalation.  The police are abusive and aggressive; they provoke resistance, often just their victim’s avoidance or self-defense responses as a pretext for more violent exertions to subdue and apprehend their victim, and charges of resisting arrest.  Many episodes like Chauvin’s murder of Floyd reflect “street justice” by which police punish people before they get access to the judicial system.

Police street justice mocks the legal system which boasts two basic principles: the proportionality of punishment and crime, and equality under the law.  The disparity between legal principle and police practice is too great to take the boast seriously.  These many episodes show us police street justice mismatching death and misdemeanors and, under color of law, inequality reflecting biases based on skin pigmentation or other deviation from a white, male, Christian norm.

Police street justice is Orwellian, as in Animal Farm, in which ruling pigs declare that all pigs are equal but some more equal than others.  Police are more equal by virtue of “blue privilege.”  When accused of misconduct, they benefit from special investigative procedures and prosecutorial inhibitions.  The rarity of legal accountability enables street justice by shielding police who dispense it on the job.

If we are not blinded by quasi-patriotic appeals to the heroism of those wearing the blue, we see that the “overkill” of street justice is a moral and legal regression to early barbaric practices, when disproportionate vengeance was the usual response to a crime.  For example, if a man raped a woman from another village, her family or village would retaliate by killing everyone in the man’s family or village.  Likewise, police street justice whether or not a misdemeanor has been committed is disproportionate vengeance.

The civilized principle of justice which replaced disproportionate vengeance is the principle of proportionate compensation, the Jewish principle underlying most legal systems throughout the world today.  Christians often mistakenly interpret the phrase “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” as a law of revenge, like the Roman lex talionis, also used by other early societies.  No Jewish court in Holy Scriptures or Jewish communities ever applied it but, instead, awarded material compensation deemed proportionate to the damage inflicted.  In cases of murder, judges were duty-bound to find a legal reason to save the life of the accused—in effect, no death penalty.  One court caused a scandal when its failure to find such an excuse led to an execution; it was known thereafter as the “Bloody Sanhedrin.”

Reforms to end police street justice should address rules of engagement.  One, police should not use force or weapons in the enforcement of non-violent offenses, whether felonies or misdemeanors.  Two, police should not use a weapon until the suspect uses or attacks with a weapon (brandishing a weapon does not count).

Other reforms should address investigative procedures and prosecutorial decisions.  One should eliminate special investigative provisions for police.  They should not be allowed a multi-day delay between episode and interview, and they should be required to establish a reasonable basis, not a mere perception, that a suspect posed an immediate threat to his own, another’s, or the officer’s life.  Another should require an independent review of a prosecutor’s proposed decision about charging police.

Reforming recruitment qualifications might minimize police misconduct.  Shortages should not justify recruiting those less likely to exercise self-restraint or good judgment.  The LCPD seeks recruits at least 19 years old with at least a high school degree (23 July Bulletin).  Lower standards for recruits are possible, but these are as close to bottom as it gets without hitting bottom.  In contrast, insurance companies charge their highest rates to drivers under 25 for good reason; they pose high risks to themselves and others, even without the police swagger.  Guns in the hands of inexperienced, immature teenagers wearing badges and uniforms should scare everyone.  Why the Police Chief seeks such recruits for the LCPD is a question for the City Manager and City Councilors.  It should recruit only those at least 26 years old and with at least an associate degree in a relevant discipline.  Better higher salaries to attract suitable recruits and retain proven veterans than expensive settlements for the dead and continuing fear and distrust of the police by the still living.

SHOW SOME RESPECT: DON'T CALL PIGS THE POLICE

No pig has ever lied about or to me.  LCPD Codes Officer Juan Valles lied about me when he falsely charged me the five violations.  LCPD Chief of Police Patrick Gallagher lied to me when he falsely accused me of maligning Valles by lying when, in fact, I had told the truth about those five lies.  Police dishonesty in trivial offenses is not a novelty in Las Cruces or elsewhere.  (The hired police auditor will ignore this actual dishonesty because it will find that the LCPD has an excellent policy on honesty.)  Not to be left behind in lies for serious offenses by the police in big cities or small towns, White LCPD Officer Christopher Smelser threatened on camera “to choke you out bro,” then claimed in court that he did not intend to kill Latino Antonio Valenzuela by a choke hold.

In the past three weeks, not one pig has shot, strangled, or killed a single person.  But in that period, police have shot, strangled, or killed on average of three people a day, over half of them Black and Latino.  These facts, with a long record of comparable facts, signify an occupational culture of violence and, in many incidents, pervasive, vicious racism in police departments.  Not all police offenders are White; some are of color.  These minority police offenders act as they are trained—all target silhouettes are black—and seek to earn or retain the approval and support of their fellow White officers.  But in sties, pigs of all colors get along just fine so long as they are fed their slops.

A few people think that pork is not kosher, most like bacon, but none divides pigs into bad and good.  Police offenders are often labeled and discounted as a few “bad apples.”  The problem, like that of pedophiliac priests in the Catholic Church, is that the many “good apples” shield the “bad apples” with unbroken silence or tacit support.  So just how good are the “good apples”?  Are they not sympathizers, if not accessories, after, if not before, the fact?  Nowhere is the problem more evident than in the positions taken by their unions.  Like the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, police union officials defend their members, and their members, most of them “good apples,” approve their positions.  The most extreme instance is a recent one in Chicago.  CPD union leader John Catanzara said Officer Eric Stillman, who shot and killed 13-year-old Adam Toledo when his empty hands were lifted in response to his order, acted “heroically.”  In the eyes of the police, it is easy to be a hero: shoot an unarmed child.  No pig ever did such a thing.

The list of police shooting-killings and other lesser violent abuses is long and growing longer.  A notable incident in a rural, not urban, setting is the police stop in Windsor, VA, during which Officers Latino Joe Gutierrez and White Daniel Crocker stopped, harassed, threatened, struck, handcuffed, and pepper-sprayed Army 2nd Lt. Caron Nazario, half Black, half Latino, who was in uniform.  Police Chief Rodney Riddle initially tried the usual defense, blaming the victim to justify the officers’ conduct.  He claimed that the victim “created” the situation because he did not react “immediately” to the officers’ commands.  (I'm 81; I react slowly; do I qualify for pepper-spraying?)  Only when the public outcry overwhelmed him, did the Chief say—that is, lie—that he deplored the officers’ conduct.  What especially infuriates me is that police in uniform showed no respect for a soldier in uniform—a clear case of racism at work.

A comparison of zones of operation indicates the degradation of American police.  In Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, American troops operated in a foreign county whose civilians spoke local languages and lived according to local customs, and whose loyalties were neither obvious nor certain.  When I was in Vietnam ’65-’66, almost every American soldier felt some fear for his life 24/7/52.  I am sure that most veterans there before and after me felt the same.  Few could be entirely sure that even a Vietnamese girlfriend was not a spy, a saboteur, or a soldier.  I was one of the few.  Fear often prompted feelings of resentment and hostility, and led to itchy-fingerness.  I felt the fear but responded atypically, with nonchalant fatalism.  Except for special operations and the moral, if not legal, abomination of “free-fire zones,” the general rule of engagement was to fire only when fired upon.  Of course, the rule was honored in its breaches, and many but not all went unreported or unpunished.  War is hell, not least in such environments.

By comparison to soldiers encountering people in a combat zone in a foreign country, police officers operating in peacetime are supposed to protect and serve fellow citizens with whom they share a language and most customs.  Police talk of wars on crime, drugs, or whatever, but none is a war or none justifies the stale rationales for shooting first and asking questions later.  In case after case, the officer initiates contact, escalates it, and executes the victim.  Then, in a U-turn, the police officer justifies the killing because he felt in fear for his life; he claims—a claim often later rendered doubtful or disproven—to have seen, or thought that he saw, the victim holding or reaching for a weapon.  Did the officer not know that his work might be dangerous?  Does he not know how to manage fear?  Does he think that civilians are enemies?  Whose or what interest is he serving?

One thing I know: training is no solution.  Training is another lie.  No pig tells it; only police officers and self-touting police reformers tell it as the easy way to placate public opinion.  It is ineffective; no police bigot has ever mended his ways or reformed his conduct because of sensitivity training.  And remember: pigs do not need it. 

HOUSES OF WORSHIP CAUSE THEIR "DISMEMBERSHIP"

The proportion of Americans who consider themselves members of a church, synagogue or mosque has dropped below 50 percent, according to a poll from Gallup released Monday. It is the first time that has happened since Gallup first asked the question in 1937, when church membership was 73 percent.  (The Washington Post, March 29, 2021)

This news is not big news.  Church attendance has been declining for decades.  Who cares and why?  Aside from sponsored charities, churches are making little contribution to the national weal.  Most are uninspiring or irrelevant; others, especially evangelical churches with substantial membership, contribute more than a fair share to dissension and division, to bigotry and abuse, and to the general dissipation of norms of social decency and personal respect.  Love your enemy—huh?  who said so?

Yesterday, during the mid-twentieth-century Civil Rights Movement, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., vexed David Lawrence, publisher-columnist of U.S. New & World Report, because, so Lawrence opined, King did not know that his place was in the pulpit, not on the pavement.  King was not alone in his social activism; of white clergy, rabbis in disproportionate numbers, some leading Protestant ministers, and a few Catholic priests were also active for civil rights.  As notable as any was Yale Chaplain William Sloane Coffin, Jr., who led the Freedom Rides for Voting Rights in the South.

Today, almost all clergy notable for their views on social matters are from evangelical denominations.  Their message is not a moral plea for societal reform—at his best, Billy Graham was ambiguous about desegregation and opposed to King’s efforts—but a garble of Biblical snippets or interpretations almost invariably at odds with the meaning of the text—at its worst, Joel Osteen’s “prosperity gospel” claims that Jesus wants us rich—or, from a national perspective, political trivia about matters of gender orientation, sexual mores, or procreative choices.  To me, these preoccupations bespeak dirty minds.

The younger generations—I speak broadly, of course; most alt-right misfits are under 40—want or at least accept more in the way of diversity and equality.  The reason is not hard to seek.  The end of legal segregation and the fact of some integration has meant that many people, more urban than rural, have grown up in close(r) association with people different from themselves.  They are classmates, teammates, co-workers, friends, and lovers.  They may have some lingering taint of culturally present bigotries, but they talk as if they are trying to banish them from their lives.  When they seek guidance in dealing with moral issues like honesty, empathy, respect for others, etc., they rarely look to churches, synagogues, or mosques which do not preach or apply such messages to daily life.  Rev. William Barber is a notable exception.  Except for him, when was the last time a prominent man or woman of the cloth was seen leading a movement by organizing efforts at social reform?  So the younger generations have left or continue to leave once-respected institutions in search of something to address their needs.

Obviously, churches are not doing so or, in some cases, doing so for shabby reasons.  As the “rabbi” to my ex-step daughter, an Episcopal priest, I hope for revivals of the Episcopal and Lutheran churches.  I find the efforts of the National Cathedral, the closest thing which we have to a national church, deserving.  The Presbyterian and Methodist churches still have their work cut out for them in their struggle against racism.  Baptist and Catholic churches—well, let me move on.  Even so, the language of faith, grace, redemption, and divine love which fills most sermons offers comfort to some, but it is not the language of action, urges no action, not even self-scrutiny or self-criticism, and, to the modern mind, conveys little meaning and inspires very little.  Anyone aware of the harmful, hateful words and deeds of, say, Christian anti-abortionists, Christian anti-immigrants, or White Christian nationalists knows the signs of the anti-Christ.

One note in line with my previous blogs on matters of religion.  From my Jewish perspective, a defect of Christianity is its lack of a defined code of conduct.  The Nicene and Apostles Creeds speak of Jesus’s miraculous birth and his miserable death, with no word about his teachings, mainly moral.  This gap reflects Paul’s antinomian rejection of the Jewish Law.  Paul’s love is no instruction, guide, or even a restraint.  So Christianity has filled its moral void with locally acceptable cultural, political, and religious customs, norms, and practices.  Today, direction for the many nominally Christian is increasingly political dogmas, culture-wars issues, and alt-right cult causes—not sources of humane, never mind presumably Christian, values, principles, and practices.

Of many who have abandoned religion—I exclude DIY religions—and affiliated with the political extremes, moral atrophy is their distinguishing feature.  The farther one moves to the left, the closer one gets to the right, and vice versa.  Ardent Progressives are little different from ardent Trump supporters; both demand party loyalty, ideological or doctrinal purity, denigrate or attack opponents, deny or avoid facts not conforming to beliefs, and refuse discussion or debate.  Locally, Progressives have failed or refused to face the dodges, deceits, and derelictions of a Progressive-dominated City Council in matters of police reform.  They are wrong to think that causes are adequate substitutes for conscience and character.  Truth, honesty, and the courage of righteous convictions are everywhere in short supply.   I have seen Diogenes with his lantern walking the streets of Las Cruces.

So, in the absence of or silence from worthy moral leadership addressing these issues in churches, synagogues, and mosques, I fear a moral anarchy enabled by mendacious or anodyne media pundits and morally confused or politically opportunistic leaders in business, education, law, religion, and government.  I fear that individualism—“do your thing,” not do the right thing—has corrupted the social ethic, frayed the social fabric, and debilitated the communal impulses of civil society.  These deficiencies, which religious commitments worthy of the name can help remedy, are undermining American democracy.  Americans who do not come to think of themselves as a people, as in “We the People,” can expect to become first a mob, then an autocracy, in an apartheid America.