It's not about the parking ticket.
The following comment was posted by Will Newman, the author of the guest column posted Saturday entitled "Arrogance: What a parking ticket and Aaron Campbell have in common."
I find the responses fascinating, and in some cases, saddening.
It is interesting to see how many people don't actually read what I said, just what they seem to want me to have said.
Let me try again to distill my piece:
I did not write the piece because I got a parking ticket.
I wrote the piece because, once again, the Portland Police murdered an innocent, unarmed fellow human being. And, once again, the victim was a young black man. And once again, no one was held responsible.
I am neither young, nor am I black. But I am outraged.
I have also looked down the barrel of a gun held by a nervous, hyper police officer.
I know there is a categorical difference between a parking ticket and murder. I tried to make it clear to readers, and clearly did not, that I wanted to get people to think about why and how we end up with police forces that murder unarmed citizens. I know it is partly racism, partly classism, partly economics, partly process, partly a citizenry overloaded with other concerns, and a host of other factors, but it is also, to some extent, the attitude that policies and process are more important than people.
I tried to start with something that many people might be familiar with (the policies surrounding a parking ticket), and show the structural parallels with the murder of an innocent, unarmed, non-threatening fellow human being.
The parking ticket is unimportant in itself, but the underlying attitudes and processes are critical to why Aaron was murdered. I don't care much if we solve the parking ticket inequity. I care a lot that we solve the problem of fellow human beings being murdered.
|
March 02, 2010
Posted in notable comment. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:10 a.m.
Mar 2, '10
for the record: Yes, I am the editor that posted the original guest column. I post almost all of the guest columns around here.
Posting a guest column here is not a statement of unqualified support of the argument made - either by me, the other editors, or the broader BlueOregon community.
I post guest columns I disagree with all the time. I post columns that are topical, interesting, well-written, and thought-provoking. Will's column was all four.
I simply don't think it's possible read Will's column as equating a parking ticket with the violent death of a human being. I read it as Will intended it, and made a bit more clear in this comment: That a system that values process over people, and values rules over common sense and compassion, is a system that can have small and stupid effects - and tragic and horrifying effects.
Mar 2, '10
Can the author belatedly apply some precision in using the verb "murder?" Thank you in advance.
Mar 2, '10
In regards to the Aaron Campbell and other alarming police shooting victims, my thought tends to be that a major problem responsible for those shootings seems to be excessive reliance on simplistic thinking.
I beieve the parking ticket anecdote was a simple way to argue that the city seems to find it simpler to take a ticketed person's money before it discusses whether the action was justified. Somewhat similar thinking may have befallen Aaron Campbell. We've all heard the following before haven't we?:
'Shoot first, ask questions later'.
City's thinking appears to be, 'Why take a chance we won't get our money from parking violators?'. 'Why take a chance on one of our highly paid, expensively insured city employees being shot, insured or killed by some citizen that does not follow police orders?' Bang. Problem solved.
Mar 2, '10
Kari:I read it as Will intended it, and made a bit more clear in this comment: That a system that values process over people, and values rules over common sense and compassion, is a system that can have small and stupid effects - and tragic and horrifying effects.
OK, I've been sucked in by this.
Living in Eugene, I am not well informed on the Aaron Campell case in detail, but traffic tickets are a constant in the universe.
Yes, there is a process for tickets. From what I read here, PDX followed it, precisely, while Mr. Newman appears not to have, to his detriment.
Question: can it be fairly said the the core of the Campbell case is the the PPB Officers followed proper procedure, in detail? If not, it would seem that the original point Mr. Newman made is invalid.
I would speculate that the cases are most likely very dissimilar in that the shooting probably stemmed from not following procedure.
And yes, I also read Mr. Newman's original piece as trying to legitimize his personal angst over a parking ticket by comparing it to a tragic shooting.
12:53 p.m.
Mar 2, '10
Honestly, Will, I don't think YOU read the responses. I'll try to ignore the shocking gap between the murder of an unarmed citizen and what you think was an unfair ticket
You tried to equate two different "policies" (your words) as showing bureaucratic and political indifference and arrogance to individuals.
But let's look at your examples. You are outraged that you had to post bail when you were accused of a crime. Let's be very clear here--a parking ticket is a police officer accusing you of a crime.
Under our criminal justice system, you have to post a bail while you are fighting criminal prosecution. Most commonly, you would have a bail hearing at which you could plead your case for a lower bail. In these hearings, judges consider the ability of the accused to pay bail, the likelihood of flight, etc. But I have never heard the claim that you are making that the very existence of a bail system constitutes an assumption of guilty until innocent.
The root of your complaint, then, has little to do with your overblown rhetoric about innocent until proven guilty and essentially boils down to the fact that you were not given a bail hearing.
You may attribute this "policy" to bureaucratic arrogance; I would attribute it to simple necessity. There are 100's if not 1000s of tickets given out daily, and many citizens are slow or don't pay at all. Allowing bail hearings for all of these is just silly--instead, have you pay the fine up front and appeal. In your case, we are talking less than $50, right?
==
Now Aaron Campbell. Your rhetoric here is similarly overheated and off target. You write:
It is that arrogance that allows police to shoot unarmed people simply because the officer fears for her/his life. In the process it ignores the fact that the murder of unarmed citizens is a huge contributor to the tension and distrust that officers feel on the streets, leading them to fear for their lives.
It is that arrogance that allows an armed professional to be held less responsible than a typical citizen, and to murder people because it is easier, and more efficient, than dealing with the real problem.
First, do you REALLY think it is "arrogant" to allow police to use their weapons if they "fear for their lives"? I mean seriously, Will: you have a police officer confronting a potentially life threatening situation and you would have the policy be ... what? Run away?
Now it may be that Aaron Campbell was not threatening the officers. It may be that officers grossly overreacted. But to claim that the root cause here is some arrogant "policy" about what police should do when in imminent danger of bodily is mind boggling.
Next you argue that officers are committing "murder" because it is "easier and more efficient than dealing with the real problem." What problem is that? Are you claiming this is police "policy"? Are you aware of evidence that use of force by the PPS is way down over the past five years?
<hr/>But let's get back to your main claim. You think there is a parallel between a "policy" that requires someone who is appealing a parking ticket to post a "bail" (e.g. pay the ticket) prior to an appeal, and what appears to be a situation caused by a serious breakdown in police policies and a serious ignoring of established communication procedures (as the grand jury noted).
Sorry, I just don't see the parallel. Especially not when we go back to square one: you purposely underpaid for parking as you admitted in your original story.
Mar 2, '10
Posted by: Boats | Mar 2, 2010 10:45:32 AM
Can the author belatedly apply some precision in using the verb "murder?" Thank you in advance.
Gak! I guess I will agree with anyone as long as the point is valid. I tried to make that point in the first op. ed. piece on the subject here, "Now is the Time...", back on February 21. To whit:
One other point, about systemic change, is that the law, as written, actually allows for racism as a motive in a shooting. It is about how the officer feels, first, then facts. If a black man makes the officer feel more uneasy, then it is a justification. Obviously giving that power to someone that felt that a 4 year degree wasn't necessary, and that Rush is probably right, is monumentally stupid. But murder is illegal killing, and the law is so certifiably screwed as to make many of these shootings simply killings, not murders. My original point is that the system is not designed to bring justice. This is a good example. When the Normans introduced the first murder statutes, murder was defined as the death of a person that could not be shown to be non-Norman, at the hands of a non-Norman. It's a definition, not a moral principle. "Killing is wrong" is a moral principle. "Murder" is a legal definition. The average person considers these killings murder. Alignment is best accomplished by changing the law to agree with the common language perception, don't you think? And BTW, it's worse vis a vis the legal protections given the dog, versus my pet. If my pet defends me, she gets put down. If the cop hound kills, it gets a medal. (But, on retirement, do they get PERS? Cat joke.)
But, then, factual definitions seem to have little effect on the course of debate here. (See "plagiarism", "Boston Tea Party", "800 Cell Phone Towers", etc.).
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 2, 2010 12:10:52 AM
for the record: You are made of stern stuff, to post a follow-up.
I simply don't think it's possible read Will's column as equating a parking ticket with the violent death of a human being.
Thanks though, because the fact that an important editor has serious reservations, and many posters continue to act like an infant being potty trained way before it has the capacity to conceptualize the activity, has, I think, caused a lot of us to more realistically balance our radar when it comes to issues and how people think. I can tell you that I take back 90% of what I said during the M66/67 debate about the constantly advertised need to correct facts and logic being promulgated by the "no" folks.
Posted by: paul g. | Mar 2, 2010 12:53:23 PM
Honestly, Will, I don't think YOU read the responses.
I mean, if that's an honest comment...
5:02 p.m.
Mar 2, '10
First, do you REALLY think it is "arrogant" to allow police to use their weapons if they "fear for their lives"?
Not speaking for Will here, but I'd like to see training and employment screening that would lead to an outcome that has officers "fearing for their lives" in a lot fewer (and hopefully more realistic) situations.
I have personally been both behind and in front of the gun several times in my younger days, and I state categorically that thinking and talking your way through such events works very well, as long as all parties understand that lethal force may follow immediately upon a breakdown in dialogue........
Mar 2, '10
Parking tickets are not enforced by "the police," which is why any attempt to make a comparison is ludicrous.
Mar 2, '10
Parking tickets are not enforced by "the police,"
You can document a "meter maid" arresting someone for failure to pay a parking ticket? If not, then who does enforce the citation?
Mar 2, '10
I think the arrogance displayed since this posting is the writer's unwillingness to admit his posting was unfortunate, and convoluted.
I find the whole debate only enlightening to the extent of the writer's arrogance to accept that a parking ticket should not be convoluted into arrogance on the part of government that the likes of a police killing.
Mar 3, '10
Frashour is the police officer that, back in 2006, for some reason, thought taser-ing a guy doing some videotaping, was a good way to get the guy to stop videotaping:
"PORTLAND, Ore. -- Chief Rosie Sizer testified against Officer Ron Frashour in an abusive use-of-force lawsuit against the city, according to a Portland group that watches police.
The lawsuit was brought by Keith Waterhouse, who claimed Frashour Tasered him in 2006 for videotaping police that were on the private property of some friends. The City of Portland settled the Waterhouse suit in 2009 for $55,000.
On Jan. 29, Falshour shot Aaron Campbell in the back during a welfare check prompted by a 9-1-1 call that described the 25-year-old man as suicidal." KGW/'Sizer testified against Officer Frashour in city lawsuit'/Eric Adams/Posted on February 12, 2010 at 12:19 PM/Updated Saturday, Feb 13 at 8:23 AM
This mistake in efficiency thinking was cheaper than a human life...or more expensive depending upon point of view; it cost the city just $55,000 in a settled lawsuit.
There was a good article in last week's Oregonian that emphasized the many hundreds of arrests using violent force by Portland Police that didn't result in death or serious injury. So maybe most Portland Police officers do get it. But then, so...why do they back up the Frashour type cops? And why does the city let them back him up?
10:01 a.m.
Mar 3, '10
Someone who is afraid for their life when they've got a semi-automatic rifle trained on a man with his back turned standing dozens of feet away with no visible weapon while they're under partial cover is too nervous to be a police officer. Frashour was there with a number of other armed police officers, as well as a police dog, it's not as if he was on a lonely road by himself in easy handgun range.
Mar 3, '10
Of course, being fair and realistic, part of Frashour's stated reason for shooting was that he did so not just out of fear for his own safety, but for that of the other people in the area he feared could be shot as well.
But what about the videographer protester? What was it about Frashour's thinking and city police officer training that led him to tase the camera guy? I don't remember hearing a lot about this incident.
Did the tase come after a series of requests by Frashour to the videographer protester to stop taping? I hope this wasn't one of those 'Get 'er done' instances, but it seems as though it may have been.
11:12 a.m.
Mar 3, '10
Then again, if you read the grand jury testimony, you know that Campbell had backed up across an entire parking lot without incident and stopped about ten feet from the three officers behind the police car where Frashour was, that they'd shined a spotlight on the small of his back where they thought there might be a gun, and that's when they first hit him with the shotgun because he didn't follow commands quickly enough. Then they shot him in the back six more times as he ran away.
Mar 3, '10
While I'm sympathetic to Mr. Newman's intent to carve out a wider sphere for discussion about what leads to something like Mr. Campbell's death, his post missed the mark by a mile. Half of the original post consisted of the story of his parking ticket, when he ought to have spent his precious words laying out his actual case, concerning bureaucracy and arrogance.
As a reader of this blog, I encourage Mr. Newman to start over, and to give some thought to how to write about institutions, bureaucracy, and inequity without spending so many words on an uninteresting and barely relevant story about a parking ticket.
6:53 p.m.
Mar 3, '10
if anyone is interested in reading the 453 page grand jury transcript, it can be downloaded here
9:43 p.m.
Mar 3, '10
What is troubling about this is that the transcript reads as though he was cooperating with the police up until the point where he was asked to raise his hands. He sent out the kids as asked. He walked out backwards, fingers interlaced behind his head. Everything was tense, but seemed on course to resolve okay until he refused to raise his hands from the back of his head after being so instructed. He was given a warning that he would be shot if he didn't comply. He responded by telling them to shoot him and again refused to raise his hands. Then an officer shot him with a beanbag. He stumbled, then took off running away from the officers when the police dog was set on him and he was shot in the back and killed.
A couple of observations ..
- I was struck with how stressed out I would feel if I was listening to the chatter as an officer. A man with a history of violence and illegal possession of a gun is threatening to bring a gun if the police get involved. There is a woman and three children who may be at risk. The guy may be suicidal and looking for death by cop. etc...
- Very few of the characterizations I have read, particularly by outraged citizens strikes me as terribly accurate descriptions of what happened based on how the testimony played out before the grand jury.
- I was impressed by the intelligence and compassion of officer Quackenbush.
Although I think that many of the comments about Will's post are severe over-reactions, after reading the transcript, I do not agree with his argument. I can understand the temptation to chalk this death up to arrogance or indifference on the part of police, but any honest read of these officer's testimony does not support that view. What happened had less to do with arrogance than it does with the fact that some police officers do not have the capacity, temperament, or training to handle this kind of situation appropriately (i.e., don't use lethal force when it is not indicated). It seems pretty clear that officer Frashour should not have been in a position to respond to this kind of call, particularly armed with an assault rifle. He'd been sued twice for excessive force in the last 3 years, and seems to have perceptions of these events that are badly out of line with those of his colleagues. Perhaps better psychological evaluations are needed? Better training? Would any amount of training yield a different result for someone who fits Frashour's personality profile? The problem isn't the Portland police en masse. I've lived in cities where I've been afraid of the police because of the color of my skin, but I have never felt anything like that here in Oregon. The problem is that they need to do a better job of identifying the Frashours in the force and making sure that they don't find themselves in these kinds of situations.Mar 3, '10
The parking ticket was no big deal. Will Newman has repeatedly said this. Most everybody eventually learns to deal with today's ever present robots, at least, they do the electronic ones. Humans with patterns of thinking similar to that or robots can represent a far more daunting challenge.
I hope robotic patterning isn't occurring in some of the people we're hiring to be police officers.
Mr. Peralta...thanks for that link. Once I get to a computer with a fast connection. Must have been one heck of a grand jury experience for jury members.
Mar 4, '10
Boats - Can the author belatedly apply some precision in using the verb "murder?" Thank you in advance.
From my Merriam-Webster on-screen dictionary: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"
The Grand Jury says it was not unlawful, because it complied with policy. I disagree. I thi8nk the officer's past history indicates th malice aforethought.
paul g. - Under our criminal justice system, you have to post a bail while you are fighting criminal prosecution. Most commonly, you would have a bail hearing at which you could plead your case for a lower bail. In these hearings, judges consider the ability of the accused to pay bail, the likelihood of flight, etc. But I have never heard the claim that you are making that the very existence of a bail system constitutes an assumption of guilty until innocent.
(Let me state again that my concern is not with the parking ticket in and of itself, it is the policies and the tinking underlying the policies that concern me.)
You seem informed enough to know that most people, in minor criminal cases, are released on their own recognizance, providing they do not pose a threat to the public and will not flee the jurisdiction of the court - that is, in most cases they do not have to post bail.
The policy I was referring to, and the apparent underlying reasoning, was that if I did not post bail the city would seize my car, not arrest me. It seems clear that the concern is not that I show up for my hearing, but that the city would not get paid after I was found guilty. That is not supposed to be what bail is about.
In this case, I did not ask for a court date, simply for a judge to read my letter and take into consideration the facts otherwise unknown to the court before rendering a verdict. I did not ask for a public appearance in court and the concomitant costs to the city.
Since I could not get a hearing without either paying bail or losing possession of my car (in which case it is not clear that I would receive a hearing even then) I consider the situation one in which I am treated as guilty without a hearing.
You may attribute this "policy" to bureaucratic arrogance; I would attribute it to simple necessity. There are 100's if not 1000s of tickets given out daily, and many citizens are slow or don't pay at all. Allowing bail hearings for all of these is just silly--instead, have you pay the fine up front and appeal. In your case, we are talking less than $50, right?
You make my point - "I know that this approach is easier, for the city, and more efficient, for the city. And so it is policy. But it is not easier for me," [or you]" nor more efficient... But, it is policy.", and I repeat, it is not the amount of the money, nor did I ask for a bail hearing.
First, do you REALLY think it is "arrogant" to allow police to use their weapons if they "fear for their lives"? I mean seriously, Will: you have a police officer confronting a potentially life threatening situation and you would have the policy be ... what? Run away?
Good reasoning - there are only two possibilities for someone who is purported to be a trained professional - shoot or run away.
I am told by acquaintances in the Portland Police that they are trained that if they pull their weapons they should be ready to shoot, and if they shoot they should shoot to kill. And I am very uncomfortable with the idea that all the justification an officer needs in order to justifying killing someone is that they "felt" they were in danger of their life."
It seems that your ideas align well with department training.
I feel in danger of my life every time an officer approaches me. Does that mean I would be justified in killing them? I don't think so, and I don't think it should be so.
So yes, I do "REALLY think it is "arrogant" to allow police to use their weapons if they "fear for their lives"? absent good evidence that their fear is based on a real and present threat.
Please keep in mind that police officers are in a job that they asked to have, that they competed to get, that they have been trained for, and that they are given special privileges to do. Of course it is a dangerous job, Of course there is a lot of pressure. And I know it is hard to make good decisions under pressure in little time. In short, being a police officer is a very hard job. But it is a job each officer asked to do, and they should be held responsible for how they do it.
Now it may be that Aaron Campbell was not threatening the officers. It may be that officers grossly overreacted. But to claim that the root cause here is some arrogant "policy" about what police should do when in imminent danger of bodily is mind boggling.
Actually, I said that the policy, the arrogance embodied in the policy, and our acceptance of policy over the specifics of the situation, are A root cause, not THE root cause.
Next you argue that officers are committing "murder" because it is "easier and more efficient than dealing with the real problem." What problem is that? Are you claiming this is police "policy"? Are you aware of evidence that use of force by the PPS is way down over the past five years?
What I claimed was that adherence to (and hiding behind) policy overrides dealing with the specifics of the situation and leads (in this case) to unnecessary death.
The problem is that Aaron died, and did not have to. The problem is that seems to be part of a continuing pattern of behavior by the Portland Police.
"use of force" may be down, I don't know. I do know that "use of force" and "shooting to death" are not the same things, and that while it may be better to lose two fingers than to lose three, it cannot be considered solving the problem of having your fingers cut off.
When I was three and a half years old I was hit by a car and seriously injured. It did not matter to me how many other kids had been hit by cars. For me, it was 100%.
...you purposely underpaid for parking as you admitted in your original story.
If you read my original post you may notice that I did, in fact, put more than enough money into the meter to cover the time desired, and the time I was parked there.
7:53 p.m.
Mar 4, '10
Will, I did read it. You put money in and the meter malfunctioned. You had a case at that point to contact the city and ask for a refund.
Instead, you chose to purposely underpay, and thought that an explanatory note would be sufficient. It was not.
I feel in danger of my life every time an officer approaches me. Does that mean I would be justified in killing them? I don't think so, and I don't think it should be so.
No, it is not. You are not a police officer. (Actually, if the statement above is truly accurate, then you are exceedingly paranoid.)
Police are empowered by society to use force to maintain public order. You are not. You seem to constantly deny this distinction. Being a cop is not just another job.
And you are ducking your initial claim. You claimed that when a police officer "simply fears for their life" (your words, especially the odd use of "simply" as if there is something else that should happen, like bullets whizzing by their heads) that it is "arrogant" that they be empowered to use force.
Now you want to put all sorts of caveats in--you want evidence of real and present danger. Fine. You want officers to be held responsible. Fine. (There was a grand jury hearing after this shooting by the way, so it seems the system is functioning they way you want.)
Your first statement, which you essentially repeat, holds no caveats. Again you write: And I am very uncomfortable with the idea that all the justification an officer needs in order to justifying killing someone is that they "felt" they were in danger of their life."
What MORE do you want? What MORE could you ask? If not "felt" than what?
Should training be improved? Yes. Should officers know how to use non-lethal force? Yes. But ultimately, you can never take the power of use of force out of the hands of the police when they (feel)(judge)(interpret)(evaluate) that they or fellow citizen are being put in imminent danger of bodily harm.
11:52 p.m.
Mar 4, '10
Should officers know how to use non-lethal force? Yes. But ultimately, you can never take the power of use of force out of the hands of the police when they (feel)(judge)(interpret)(evaluate) that they or fellow citizen are being put in imminent danger of bodily harm.
That's fine, Paul. But if you have several police with non-lethal weapons and a few police with lethal weapons, dealing with a single suspect would it be too much to ask that the ones with the itchy trigger fingers be among those with non-lethal weapons -- particularly if they have demonstrated poor judgment in the past?
Mar 5, '10
Incredible. So now Will is saying it was really murder in his mind, and Paul G. is saying Will should give the police more credit.
<h2>Paul, didn't you join this thread to object that he was trivializing the shooting? Who's reducing it and who's magnifying it now? This is what causes mal de blog. It's obvious that you care more about arguing. Not that one couldn't tell by the non-response to entering some facts into the record.</h2>