Black Lives Matter
Image
Our nation was rocked by the image of a white police officer pressing his knee onto the neck of a black man for more than eight minutes. George Floyd could be heard gasping for breath and moaning “I can’t breathe,” but Officer Derek Chauvin refused to back off. Bystanders appealed for Chauvin to release his victim, but he ignored them. The resulting death plunged the USA into chaos as protesters by the thousands took to the streets of nearly every city, and in some places windows were smashed, stores looted and buildings torched. Police, protesters, and bystanders alike were injured and a few killed.
Most Americans were appalled by this tragic death, and sobered by the undeniable evidence of police brutality. It’s now impossible to pretend it doesn’t happen. Sadly, this was not a mere aberration, but the latest example of a pattern of abuse that spans decades. Many black Americans have genuine reason to fear unequal treatment at the hands of the police. Serious reform is overdue.
Do black lives matter? Yes they do! We need to acknowledge that long standing racial prejudice continues to erode the American promise of equality. Too many white Americans seem oblivious to the unequal treatment that blacks experience on a regular basis. One nation under God? In theory yes, but often it looks more like two different nations occupying the same territory, one white, one black.
But if there is going to be lasting change, we must be willing to engage in honest conversation about every aspect of this issue. Talking about only one slice of the pie while stifling conversation about the other pieces will not achieve harmony. We need to be able to discuss a number of related matters, not simply abuse by bad cops.
Black People Killed by Other Blacks Matter Too
Every year, thousands of blacks are murdered in the neighborhoods of Chicago, Philadelphia, and other major cities, more often than not by the violent actions of black thugs. Black drug dealers and gang leaders kill people of their own race at alarming rates. Where are the protesters marching in these high crime neighborhoods demanding the end of such wanton slaughter? Do black lives matter only when they can be used to promote a particular agenda? Why does someone killed by a rogue policeman create an international uproar, but the myriads killed weekly by criminals merit little attention?
White Lives Matter Too
In today’s heated environment, saying, “White lives matter too,” can get you fired from your job. Since when does an affirmation of equality become evidence of racial prejudice? Can’t we agree that ALL lives matter? Murder is unacceptable wherever it occurs and whomever it victimizes, regardless the color of their skin. Can I get an “Amen”?
Police Lives Matter Also
How many policeman are killed each year at the hands of law breakers, both black and white? Why is it acceptable, even desirable, that cops lose their lives, but people of color should not? Surely decent people agree that whenever anyone loses his life by an act of violence, it is a serious tragedy. Defunding the police is a convoluted response to police brutality. Does anyone really think that eliminating the police will end violence? It is precisely because there are violent and lawless people in this world that we need the police. It is an unspeakable tragedy when a policeman, sworn to uphold the law and protect human life is himself an angry and violent person who abuses his authority to assault others. But most of the people who do this are not wearing police uniforms. Let’s identify the bad cops and get them off the streets, because we desperately need the good ones, who are the vast majority, to protect us from thieves, rapists, and murderers.
Families Matter a Lot
Studies reveal that the vast majority of criminals come from broken homes without a stable father. Why isn’t more attention directed to the break-down of the family? But not only is that an all too often ignored piece of the pie, but some actually applaud the disintegration of the family. Are we swatting flies while ignoring camels? Clearly, a legitimate movement of genuine grievances about racial disparity is being co-opted by some whose goal is the dissolution of American society.
Unborn Babies Matter Too
Why do only some black lives seem to matter? Thousands of babies are aborted every year in America, and statistics demonstrate that more black babies are aborted per capita than white. If black lives matter, shouldn’t protesters be marching on abortion clinics to demand the end of murder in the womb? Do black lives matter only when they are killed by the police, but not when butchered by abortionists?
Stores and Businesses Matter Too
No building is worth as much as a human life, but burning down businesses only hurts the neighborhoods that benefit from those establishments. Groceries, pharmacies and restaurants pay taxes to maintain schools, pave streets, and deliver clean water, not to mention provide valuable goods and services and much needed jobs. The people who live where rioting occurs are hurt most by looting and destruction. In most cases, rioters descend from other places, satisfy their thirst for violence, and then return to the safety of their homes. They say they advocate for justice, but seriously harm the very people they claim to help. Nothing justifies theft and destruction of property. Where are the protesters demanding protection for the businesses that benefit people of every color?
Racial Prejudice Is a Two-Way Street
I recently read a newspaper column asserting that only white people are racially prejudiced. Really? How can anyone believe this? Only by first creating a skewed definition of racial prejudice and then utilizing it to deny what both observation and experience know to be true. Let’s be clear about two things. First, racial prejudice is wrong whenever and wherever it occurs. It should be eradicated from human society. Second, racial prejudice is practiced within every segment of society among every race and color. Progress moves slowly when one group accuses another of prejudice while ignoring the same among themselves. Everyone needs to own and deal with the prejudice that lingers within his own heart.
There Is No Solution Apart from God
We need to acknowledge that racial prejudice is a sin which can only be cleansed by the blood of Christ. We can educate people to behave differently with some success, but lasting change occurs only within a renewed heart created by the regenerating power of God’s Spirit. The problem isn’t skin as much as sin. Failing to recognize this consigns reform to failure. You cannot have peace apart from the Prince of Peace. You cannot have love without the God of love. You cannot have equity while rejecting the God who is no respecter of persons.
Eternal Souls Matter the Most
Finally, we must realize that black lives, white lives, and all human lives matter here upon earth, but eternity is far more important. What does it profit a man if he gains the dignity and respect he desires, but dies without Christ, spending eternity under God’s righteous condemnation? Let’s talk about what matters most, the gospel of Christ, without ignoring real injustices that need to be addressed.
Greg Barkman 2018 Bio
G. N. Barkman received his BA and MA from BJU and later founded Beacon Baptist Church in Burlington, NC where has pastored since 1973. In addition, Pastor Barkman airs the Beacon Broadcast on twenty radio stations. He and his wife, Marti, have been blessed with four daughters and nine grandchildren.
- 70 views
“It’s obvious that Chauvin committed a murder.”
This type of statement should not be made.
It’s not a statement I would normally make. I think I noted that already maybe? Let the courts do their job. I probably should have said “It’s obvious to me, and I’m not alone” or maybe “it’s obviously a murder in the popular, not legally technical sense of the term.”
Kind of like we say abortionists are murdering babies.
Of course, defense is going to argue that Chauvin didn’t realize he was killing him. This is quite likely true, because calmly and intentionally killing a man in front of many witnesses you know are there watching is such a self-destructive act for a cop (or anybody, really), who would make that choice? But most of us are looking at the situation in moral terms, not legal ones. He clearly took a man’s life in a situation in which he was responsible for the moral equivalent of murder… because he had no excuse for not knowing, for not finding out, for not listening… on and on it goes. Morally, it’s murder, and the legal parsing is of minor importance relative to the morality of the act.
As for MNPLS PD policy, as someone who typically reads about 60 police dept policies a month in detail, I’m skeptical. If I were a defense lawyer, I’d go for that defense. Juries are often readier to blame an entity over an individual. But was there a policy that said kneel on a guy’s neck until long after he ceases to move and becomes silent? Not a chance.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Minneapolis PD’s Use of Force Policy
The UOF policy does have some recent additions. They’re dated. (e.g., 5-303.01 DUTY TO INTERVENE)
Graham v. Connor is referred to quite often in UOF policies, so this bit is not unusual…
5-303 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE (10/16/02) (08/17/07)
Minn. Stat. §609.06 subd. 1 states, “When authorized…except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other’s consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
When used by a public officer or one assisting a public officer under the public officer’s direction:
In effecting a lawful arrest; or
In the execution of legal process; or
In enforcing an order of the court; or
In executing any other duty imposed upon the public officer by law.”
In addition to Minn. Stat. §609.06 sub. 1, MPD policies shall utilize the United States Supreme Court decision in Graham vs Connor as a guideline for reasonable force.
The Graham vs Connor case references that:
“Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including:
The severity of the crime at issue,
Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and;
Whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.
The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”
Authorized use of force requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each case. Sworn MPD employees shall write a detailed, comprehensive report for each instance in which force was used.
There’s a section calling officers to attempt de-escalation. Then this..
5-305 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE (08/17/07) (08/18/17)
A. Statutory Authorization
Minn. Stat. §609.066 sub. 2 – “The use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only when necessary:
· To protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;
· To effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly force, or;
· To effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person who the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person’s apprehension is delayed.”
B. United States Supreme Court: Tennessee v. Garner
In addition to Minn. Stat. §609.066, MPD policies shall utilize the United States Supreme Court decision in Tennessee v. Garner as a guideline for the use of deadly force.
The Tennessee v. Garner case references that:
“Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement.”
“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.”
C. Sworn MPD employees shall recognize that:
· The use of a firearm, vehicle, less-lethal or non-lethal weapon, or other improvised weapon may constitute the use of deadly force.
· This policy does not prevent a sworn employee from drawing a firearm, or being prepared to use a firearm in threatening situations.
D. For the safety of the public, warning shots shall not be fired.
E. Moving/Fleeing Motor Vehicles
1. Officers are strongly discouraged from discharging firearms at or from a moving motor vehicle.
2. Officers should consider their positioning and avoid placing themselves in the path of a vehicle when possible. If officers find themselves positioned in the path of a vehicle they should, when possible, tactically consider moving out of the path of the vehicle instead of discharging a firearm at it or any of its occupants.
F. Officers’ Actions that Unnecessarily Place Themselves, Suspects, or the Public at Risk
1. Officers shall use reasonableness, sound tactics and available options during encounters to maximize the likelihood that they can safely resolve the situation.
2. A lack of reasonable or sound tactics can limit options available to officers, and unnecessarily place officers and the public at risk.
I rarely see Tennessee v. Garner cited in UOF policies but it doesn’t seem important.
Prosecution might argue that a section calls for hobble restraint rather than some kind of hold/knee to neck: 5-316 MAXIMAL RESTRAINT TECHNIQUE (05/29/02) (06/13/14) (07/13/17) (04/02/18).
There is a lot in this policy on methods of restraint, e.g. below (MRT is not a choke hold but can result in inhibited breathing, so the rule is there to avoid letting that happen…)
B. Maximal Restraint Technique – Safety (06/13/14)
1. As soon as reasonably possible, any person restrained using the MRT who is in the prone position shall be placed in the following positions based on the type of restraint used:
a. If the hobble restraint device is used, the person shall be placed in the side recovery position.
The portion on choke holds has been updated, but did exist before. I don’t know how the previous version read…
5-311 PROHIBITION ON NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKE HOLDS (10/16/02) (08/17/07) (10/01/10) (04/16/12) (06/09/20)
(D) Neck Restraints and choke holds are prohibited. Instructors are prohibited from teaching the use of neck restraints or choke holds.
It looks like choke holds were in some way limited since as long ago as 2002. It would be interesting to see how earlier versions were worded.
Well, this is a digression from the main topic, but it’s something I would have done anyway for my own education as part of my day job, so… thought I’d pass it on.
(Any policy based defense of Chauvin is going to have to contend with clear calls to use Graham v. Connor “reasonable” force alternatives to what he actually did. I’d say I wish him luck, but I don’t.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion