Law Enforcement, Race and the Gun Culture – Discussion

This is the fourth in this series. I recommend that you read or re-read Part I here, Part II here, and Part III here.

I have received two comments on the first two posts and I want to share those with you, together with my responses:

Michael Cerratto Esq. of Westville, New Jersey, wrote:

Good, something I don't feel so intimidated commenting on!

 The closing incident reminds me of a comment I once heard about the "cops vs. bad guys dynamic" being nothing more than our young delinquents vs. THEIR young delinquents. In any event, there are just too many dead bodies littering the streets lately, and the fact that we are only just now beginning to ask the questions which will, I pray, lead to some explanation of what is going on does not speak well of us. But then, again, I wonder if we really want the answers? Time will tell.

To which I replied:

You ask: "But then, again, I wonder if we really want the answers?"

According to CNN we do not.

I quote from my blog: "Law Enforcement, Race and the Gun Culture - I”:

How many people are shot by police every year? Nobody seems to know the exact number (something that is itself disturbing -- no official government agency tracks the full data for the entire country)

… nobody wanted to fund it and the (police) departments didn't want it. They were concerned with their image and liability. They don't want to bother with it.''

If you have any observation on my later post, I welcome it.

And Bob Russo of Montclair, and its former mayor, chimed in with:

I loved your 20 year old letter to the Editor... and the reference to the Ham sandwich being indicted...the more things change, the more they STAY the same, I think is the correct version. Anyway, I think you are absolutely right on all counts. I just have a hard time as former Mayor and Deputy Mayor demonstrating against my police department as I have been asked to do by protestors of police brutality, which I believe really does exist, but should probably be referred to as overzealous excessive use of force. I just don't know what the solution to mistrust of police based on legitimate fears and negative past experiences is...while we still need the security provided by adequate community policing and foot patrols. I think we should be putting more police on the streets and devoting more resources to public safety and security at this time of increased violence and potential terrorism.....but the nation does not seem to care.....We should devote energy to securing our communities,  especially urban areas and cities,  rather than spending billions on foreign adventures that seem to only fan the flames of more hatred toward us....and we should fix our bridges and infrastructure which are crumbling due to neglect.   We really need another TR and FDR with a public works agenda to make things right again......sorry to write so late......I was just catching up and that is my commentary on yours tonight! 

Which prompted this response from me:

Sorry about not getting the idiom correct. I usually check things on the web, rather than relying on my memory, but in this case, apparently, I felt so comfortable with the form I used, (incorrectly) that I never thought of checking it.

On the substance, neither a TR nor an FDR, nor an LBJ, would make any difference. They all had collaborative Congresses, and overwhelming majorities in those Congresses. Congress does make a difference. And it used to be that politics ended at the water’s edge. All that is gone. 

The Supreme Court is no longer a judicial body, but a purely political one, with power greater then that of either the President or that of Congress. The Congress can be vetoed by the President, and the President can be overridden by 2/3rd in both houses, but SCOTUS can only be overridden but 2/3 of both houses and 3/4th of the legislatures of the states. That is awesome power, and when it is abused, e.g. Bush v. Gore, or the United case, which effectively legalized bribery and extortion, it does harm far beyond what people realize. Had Gore been allowed his victory, as was in fact the intent of the voters, the Supreme Court would have a totally different composition, would be handing down entirely different decisions, and even elections might be run differently, if a different court where to strike down the outrageous suppression of voters and the gerrymandering.

I have become convinced that SCOTUS must be weakened. I think 5-4 decisions should be treated as a tie and of no force and effect. I am aware that this might means that the upcoming 5-4 decision on gay marriage would be of no effect, but that would still leave most of the US with legal gay marriage. I assume that in any case giving effect to the Constitution’s, Full Faith and Credit clause (Article VI -Section 1) so that each state has to recognize a legal marriage in another state, is unavoidable even for the Right wing nuts on the Court. The language in the Constitution is too plain.

As for the police, I don’t think that we have inadequate forces. That may have been true once - I don’t think it is true any longer. But the police must be held accountable. If they are not, we are in deep trouble. But it goes way beyond the police. It is our whole criminal justice system, as I will elaborate in future posts.

As for "securing our communities, especially urban areas and cities” the best way to secure them in the long run is to deal with their economic and social problems. The outrageous under-financing of their schools, which should not be financed by local property taxes, which by their very nature finance poor neighborhood schools poorly, and wealthy ones extremely generously.  But, schools are not enough, unless we attack the underlying poverty and the social and cultural problems that have arisen from years, indeed generations of persecution, under-employment, and neglect.

As for "foreign adventures” I believe we must guard against isolationism (that has never served us well), while guarding against foolish involvement. Examples of sound involvement were the actions taken by Clinton in Bosnia and by George H.W. Bush in stopping the invasion of Kuwait, while Iraq, and of course, Vietnam were major errors. I think we are doing the right thing in punishing an expansionist Russia, but as I have indicated, we are wrong to allow an expansionist Israel.

Well, that’s a lot of area to cover in a nutshell, but on the criminal justice system, stay tuned.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office. 

Law Enforcement, Race and the Gun Culture – III

This is the third in this series. I recommend that you read or re-read Part I, which you can find here as well as Part II, which you can find here.

In both Parts I and II I outlined misbehavior by police in my own experience, as well in the news. I don’t want the reader to come away as a result with the impression that I think the police, as a whole, is corrupt or anxious to kill. It is the usual situations of a few bad apples.

But there are many important reasons why there is often incompetence and/or corruption in the police. Most important is that the police in the US are unionized. I happen to favor unions in the private sector, where the bargaining power of the individual worker is none existent, and where the demise of unions is a major factor in the wage stagnation that we are now experiencing.

But the police are different. The police are in many ways a quasi-military force, who like the military, often have to put their lives on the line, and have the power of life or death over those they confront. It is vital that they obey orders from their superiors, and not put the interest of themselves, or of their comrades, over that of the public. Insubordination ought to no more be tolerated in the police, than it would be in the military.

Can anyone image a members of our military turning their back in disrespect on the President of the United States, or large numbers staging a slow-down because they are displeased with the policies instituted by their superiors, as the police recently did relative to the mayor in NYC. A quick court marshal would follow. We need the same discipline for our police forces throughout the US.

All this occurred in New York because the mayor, who has a son of color, expressed empathy for the demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights to peacefully demonstrate, and put into words what every father of an African-American knows (but which is probably good advise for all races) be very polite and non-confrontational with the police. Or maybe it occurred because the police were angry because they liked the freedom to stop and frisk at random in neighborhoods of color, which the new mayor and new police commissioner ended.

But what finally triggered the expression of their pent-up anger, was the assassination of two of their comrades by a deranged man, who had indicated that much of his anger against the police was triggered by the demonstrations. Of course, his anger wasn’t just directed against the NYC police, for before undertaking that wanton act, he shot his girlfriend, and thereafter shot himself, something he had considered doing in the first place.

So what are we to make of this wanton killing by a deranged man. The head of the police union immediately pointed the finger at the mayor.

I rather think that there is a clearer connection, for it falls into line with the many killings by deranged men at schools, recently at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Connecticut. See here, but less unusual then most think. CNN reports: 

After Tuesday's shooting at an Oregon high school, many media outlets, including CNN, reported that there have been 74 school shootings in the past 18 months.

That's the time period since the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where 20 children and six adults were shot to death.

It prompted me to publish a letter in the North Jersey Record, which I reproduce below:

As I did in my previous blog posts, I set forth below the transcript of the letter for those who may have difficulty reading the clipping.

The tragic death of New York Police officer Rafael Ramos makes him another victim of a deranged man with a gun, though it has been presented as being the result of demonstrations against the killing of unarmed African-American men, and even as a result of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s action in ending the racially charged and racially profiled policy of stop and frisk.

It is no such thing!

It is no different from the many tragic death around the country, highlighted most recently by the murders at Sandy Hook in Connecticut. These are murders by deranged persons, who should have been in treatment, and who have easy access to guns.

How much longer must this country live with an atmosphere where the joy of owning a gun and the feeling of power that it gives its owners, not to speak of the all the money to be made by manufacturers and dealers, trumps the right to life of innocent people, whether they are school children or police officers.

It is difficult to understand why the right to own and drive an automobile can be licensed, but the right to own and shoot a gun cannot.

The second amendment has been completely distorted and given a meaning, which it does not have, and was never meant to have by its authors and did not have for most of this countries history.

Emil Scheller
Fort Lee, December 27

As I write this blog post I am reminded of the reaction of the President of the NRA, the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers, after the Sandy Hook shooting. He said:

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Well, the two cops had guns. It didn’t stop their killer. Does the NRA care? Do they care about anything but the profits of the gun manufacturers for whom the solution will always be “we want to sell more guns – we want more profits!!!

But let us not be deceived. We have many more problems with our criminal justice system.

I will go into greater detail in future posts. But for now allow me to just set out a graph that speaks volumes.

What is there about the US that would make us have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world?

I will come back to this in another context, but for now allow me to express my disappointment that our President, in his sixth State of the Union address, did not speak about this subject. It is one of the few areas where he might be able to find common ground with Republicans.

The Washington Post reports: 

But on issues of sentencing reform and prison recidivism, Republicans — especially several governors in Southern states — have been the leaders, earning praise from prison reform groups on both sides of the aisle for efforts to save money by implementing rehabilitation programs and curbing skyrocketing prison costs.

A nonpartisan study issued last year about how one of the bluest states in the union, Massachusetts, could cut prison costs credited Republicans states for how they have tackled prison reform…

‘This is our chance to show we can provide solutions to affect significant problems,’ said Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

The renewed focus on costsaving reforms marks a dramatic, decade-long shift by Republican governors, many of whom previously won election by stumping on tough-on-crime platforms.

But, as many of those governors have noted, one way to cut state costs is to decrease the number of people being locked up for nonviolent offenses and rid the law books of mandatory minimum sentences for such offenses.

In addition to Perry, prominent Republicans who once trumpeted tough-on-crime ­stances and now call for sentencing changes and rehabilitation programs for drug and other nonviolent offenders include former Florida governor Jeb Bush and former House speaker Newt Gingrich. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a tea party hero, has made reform of mandatory minimum sentences a major focus in recent months.

“We’re not a soft-on-crime state, you know what I’m saying? . . . We’re tough on crime,” Perry said. “But I hope we are also seen as a smart-on-crime state.”

That is quite a change from the tough on crime of Republicans in years and decades past, when, e.g. George H.W. Bush used the famous, or infamous, Willie Horton ad (See here) in his campaign against Michael Dukakis.

But whatever the past, this is an issue that now appears to have Republican support, and if the President and the Democratic Party don’t seize the opportunity, the chance for reform may well be wasted.

I will have more to say in the area of the American Justice system next time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

While I have decided not to dwell on the Israeli issue any further, I cannot ignore the outrage of the Boehner/Netanyahu axis. They are both a disgrace in meddling in the domestic affairs of the other’s country. Netanyahu will face elections in Israel on March 17 according to Fox News, but instead of campaigning in Israel, he will campaign by addressing the US Congress on March 3, two weeks before the Israeli election. This is a blatant and transparent attempt on the part of both the Speaker and the Prime Minister to meddle in the affairs of the other country. Even while this is likely to aid Netanyahu in Israel, it is at the same time an attempt to embarrass the President of the US, by Netanyahu coming here, once again, in his ongoing and endless attempt to influence the US not to negotiate with Iran and instead go to war. He has said the US has no right to tell Israel not to attack Iran, which the US has never done, while trying to ensnare the US into war with Iran.

Netanyahu’s crude attempt to meddle in American domestic affairs has a long and infamous history. He is the proverbial child always crying wolf and has been doing so since more than two years. On September 12, 2012 I published an article entitled: “I am an American”, from which I quote:

But Netanyahu has gone out of his way to violate every rule of diplomatic behavior. In my view he has been a disaster for Israel. Since any Letter to the Editor has to be short I commend readers to "Peter Beinart on Netanyahu’s Bullying Act" from The Daily Beast.

That article relates in some detail Netanyahu’s long history of meddling in American politics, so much so that the Republican Secretary of State James Baker briefly had him banned from the State Department. But beyond that, and I quote from the article, “Netanyahu has been brazenly intervening in American politics—often with an eye to screwing Democratic presidents.”…

But now he has the gall to come to the US and use our airwaves to try to dictate American foreign policy. Appearing on US Television, Netanyahu declared: “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.” I agree with the Prime Minster that no one has a right to place a “Red Light” before Israel. But, in fact no one has!!!...

The attempt by any country to dictate American policy, particularly on issues of war and peace must be rejected by all Americans.

What did the Prime Minister show to the US to demonstrate the imminent danger? Look here.

That was two years ago. Is Iran now in the final stage? Not even the man who keeps crying wolf claims that is the case. The negotiations, whether they finally succeed, or not, have delayed the Iranian progress. If the danger ever was anywhere near as imminent as the fear monger claimed, the Iranian’s would have the bomb today.

And what is the alternative to the present course? To go to war? Netanyahu is ready to hold the coat of the US. Israel is not about to commit that folly, nor would its military and intelligence agencies allow it. Should there be more sanctions by the US, which would end the negotiations, and worse, end the unity of the allies in imposing multi-lateral sanctions?

But quite aside from that, does his diagram look like an atomic bomb?

Here is a terrific YouTube video on that subject.



I urge the reader to watch it. If nothing else, it is funny and it does a good job of relating the history of the “the boy who cried wolf”. He points out that the cry that Iran is about to get “the bomb” goes back to 1992.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

Law Enforcement, Race and the Gun Culture – II

This is the second in this series. I recommend that you read or re-read Part I, which you can find here.

When we look at the killing of Eric Garner in New York resulting from a chokehold, and of Michael Brown of a gun shot in Missouri, what I find disturbing is that most have an opinion, often broken down by race, but no one seems to actually know what happened. Both cases were presented to Grand Juries, and in neither case was there an indictment.

In both cases the prosecutors told the public that they should respect the verdict of the Grand Jury. What they did not tell the public, and neither did the media, is that Grand Juries are rubber stamps for whatever the D.A. wants, or as is explained by the website of the law firm of Solomon L. Wisenberg:

As a practical matter, a federal grand jury will almost always return an indictment presented to it by a prosecutor. This is the basis for Judge Sol Wachtler's famous saying that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to 'indict a ham sandwich.'

While this quote refers to federal grand juries, it is equally true, if not more so, when it comes to local grand juries. The Grand Jury is not supposed to determine guilt or innocence of the accused; it is only supposed to determine if there is probable cause for the charge. It is for a “petty jury” to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Thus when the Grand Juries failed to indict in either of these cases, it meant only on thing, I.e. that the prosecutor did not want an indictment. The presentation to a Grand Jury was for show only. The prosecutor had already decided that he not want a jury trial. Thus this farce simply prevented the public from ever hearing all the evidence both against the officers and in their defense.

___________________________________________________________

In my last post on this subject I concluded:

“This was not the last time I discovered that police officers are not always paragons of virtue. More next time!”

I learned much more about how our law enforcement agencies often function much later, and it was summed up in an exchange of Letters to the Editor that I had while living in Montclair, NJ, in 1997. A letter from one, Frank Trico appeared in the local Newspaper, The Montclair Times, and I reproduce it below: 

For those who may have difficulty reading the clipping I set forth a transcript of the letter here:

3/6/97

Montclair Police Deserve Support

Editor, The Times

I have owned and operated a small business in Montclair for the last 20 years. Recently, I have had the pleasure of working with the very fine people of the Montclair Police Department on several projects.

What has impressed me the most is their total attitude of professionalism and commitment to community. From the top man down to the newest recruit, these are people who greet you with courtesy, respect and a smile and never forget to say ‘thank you”. These are people who know how to work with people.

It is easy to forget that police officers are just plain folk, who sometimes wake up with head colds or back problems or that their cars didn’t start or they just might be having a bad day. Police officers put their lives on the line each day. Imagine what it must be like to walk up to a car and not now how the driver of that car is going to react.

I think if we all tried to understand the difficult situations our police face on a daily basis, we might all benefit. Start by saying “Good morning” to a local beat cop or calling him or her by name. Or you might try being polite next time you’re stopped for going a little too fast on Upper Mountain Avenue. Get to know them; they really are here to help you.

Some time ago I read a letter to the editor by a woman who claimed to be more afraid of the Montclair police than she would be of a group of young men.

My grandmother would always say, “You never have anything to fear from the police, that is unless you are doing something wrong!”

FRANK TIRICO

Montclair

My response tells of my experiences and I reproduce it below:

For those who may have difficulty reading the clipping I set forth a transcript of the letter here:

4/10/97

Innocent At Risk

Editor, The Times:

The “Montclair Police Deserve Support” letter, which appeared in your March 6 issue, demands response. While I agree with the positive comments about the Montclair police, the last paragraph, “You never have anything to fear unless you have done something wrong “ is a naïve and dangerous fiction.

Unfortunately, many law enforcement officers do not believe it to be their function to enforce the law. They often decide on guilt and manufacture evidence to insure conviction or administer their own “justice”.

Some 40 years ago, the assistant US attorney, whose office I was assigned to, obtained an indictment on the basis of an officer’s testimony that he had seen a drug transaction under a street corner lamp, and saw another through the window of a bar. Before the trial, we visited the scene and found no street light on the corner and the bar window had a curtain. We dismissed the indictment.

Such outrages were not then general knowledge, but since the Rodney King incident, since the recent killing through a stranglehold by a New York City police officer, angered because a football had accidently hit his car; since officers admitted to the Mollen Commission that they perjure themselves to assure convictions, and commit other criminal acts; since one police officer after being convicted of brutality, theft, drug dealing and perjury, explained he did not feel he had anything to fear from the law because, after all, he was the law; since those cases have surfaced, the belief that the innocent need have no fear from law enforcement officers leaves the innocent at risk.

EMIL SCHELLER

Montclair

I can’t add very much. My letter tells the story.

But for those who might say that was almost 20 years ago, I can only set forth the oft repeated saying: “The more things change, the more they are the same.”

See the New York Times on January 15, 2015 from which I quote:

In researching the case, a lawyer for Mr. Herring, Debora Silberman of Brooklyn Defender Services, found others that mirrored it, involving the same group of police officers. In the other cases, defendants also said the guns were planted, with the police saying that officers saw the suspects storing the guns in plastic bags or handkerchiefs. 

 After the arrests, more similarities arose: The use of confidential informers was suddenly mentioned months into the proceedings, and the informers were never produced in court even after judges’ and lawyers’ requests. Judges had called some of the police version of events “incredible,” and the accounts “extremely evasive.”

Or the New York Times of December 11, 2014:

There were other similarities: Each gun was found in a plastic bag or a handkerchief, with no traces of the suspect’s fingerprints. Prosecutors and the police did not mention a confidential informer until months after the arrests. None of the informers have come forward, even when defense lawyers and judges have requested they appear in court. 

 Taken individually, the cases seem to be routine examples of differences between the police account of an arrest and that of the person arrested. But taken together, the cases — along with other gun arrests made in the precinct by these officers — suggest a pattern of questionable police conduct and tactics… 

 Mr. Hooper spent a year in jail awaiting trial, eventually pleading guilty and agreeing to a sentence of time served after the judge in his case called the police version of events “incredible… 

 In that case, a federal judge said she believed that the “officers perjured themselves.”

More next time!

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

Law Enforcement, Race and the Gun Culture - I

It is time to take a break from the discussion of Israel and to turn to other pressing issues. I intend to return to the subject of Israel, if for no other reason, to give Albert Nekimken an opportunity to complete his rebuttals. But now onto other issues!

There have been many unfortunate deaths in the United States lately.

“Each year, nearly 900,000 Americans die prematurely from the five leading causes of death – yet 20% to 40 % of the deaths from each cause could be prevented according to the CDC. Allow me to stress that these are pre-mature deaths, and at least 20% of those, or 20,000, and possibly as many as 40%, or 40,000, of those are preventable. More than 39,000 people died by suicide in the United States in 2011, more than twice as many who died as a result of homicide, (17,000). See here. How many die at the hands of police officers is difficult to determine.

As these figures show, homicide is far down on the scale among the causes of death. Yet our fear of homicide and our fascination with it is insatiable. Murder mysteries are a genre that has, always had, and continues to have endless fascination for us.

It apparently matters how and why we die.

The idea that we could be in danger from the police, the very people we depend on to protect us, is unacceptable and horrendous. Is it something we need to worry about? Do African Americans need to fear the police more than other races?

These questions have been forcefully brought into our consciousness by the police killings of Eric Garner in New York resulting from a chokehold, and of Michael Brown in Missouri, by the use of a gun that has led to demonstrations, which have become an increasing source of friction, and to some extent a political football.

Fox News ran a clip, widely viewed on YouTube, where the demonstrators appeared to chant: “we won't stop, we can't stop, so kill a cop", when they actually chanted: "we won't stop, we can't stop, 'til killer cops, are in cell blocks,"

This was quickly picked up by many in the press, particularly on the Right, and even a faux apology by Fox (See here) that it was all a mistake, when in fact the recording had been doctored, (See here) did not catch up even with the so-called liberal media. Thus Nicholas Kristof writing in the New York Times, after Fox had already disavowed the video, stated: “Some extremist protesters turned to the slogan ‘arms up, shoot back,’ or to chants of ‘What do we want? Dead cops.’ That was inexcusable”, showing how even well intentioned media get taken in.

But in all this heat has anybody checked the facts?

CNN had a very interesting analysis from which I quote:

Syndicated columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote this week that young black men are 21 times more likely to be shot and killed by police than young white men. Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly had a much different take on his show Monday night, offering that more whites are killed by police than blacks.

In 2012, 123 African-Americans were shot dead by police. There are currently more than 43 million blacks living in the U.S.A.," O'Reilly said on his program.

"Same year, 326 whites were killed by police bullets. Those are the latest stats available.

 Two dramatically different statistics -- and they could both be right. 

But CNN didn’t bother to do the arithmetic. I did!

I focused on the O’Reilly figures. He gives the number of “blacks” in the total population but doesn’t give us a figure for the number of “Whites” in the total population. According to the Census Bureau the figures are about 198 million “Whites” in the US to about 42 million “Blacks”. That is a ratio of about 4.74 or about 5 times as many “Whites” as “Blacks”.  The killed by police ratio according to O’Reilly is 2.65 as many Whites as Blacks, so that using O’Reilly’s own figures, Blacks are killed by police as a ratio of their presence in the population at a far higher rate than Whites.

Of course, O’Reilly could have argued that this is because Blacks are more crime prone, or more given to resisting arrest, but he didn’t. His own figures seem to show that police are much more likely to kill a Black person than a White person by far.

CNN goes into a lengthy discussion as to why Kristof and O’Reilly came up with such different figures, but they miss the point. O’Reilly’s own figures show a huge discrepancy between the rate at which police kill between the races.

Does that mean that the police like killing Blacks or that Blacks are more violent and more crime prone? That there is more crime in Black communities than in White ones, there can be no doubt.

But I think the problem may lie more in police perception, than in any reality.

The North Jersey media published an interesting article entitled "Something good coming out of Ferguson" from which I quote:

Several months ago, I was struck by another incident, this one in Columbia, S.C. A young black man was pulled over by a white officer. In complying, the young man pulled into a gas station and got out of his car. He learned he was stopped for a "possible seat belt infraction."

The officer asks for the driver’s license and car registration. The driver opens the car door and reaches in to get his wallet from the front seat. As he does that, the officer starts screaming at him to get out of the car, to put his hands up, to get down on the ground. And while yelling, in an almost hysterical tone, he starts shooting at the man.  

The young man was shocked. He yelled, "You told me to get my wallet. I was just getting my wallet. Why are you shooting at me?"

Then a touch of humanity entered the conversation. The officer said, quietly and with some concern, "Were you hit?" The young man said, also quietly, "Yes, I think I feel blood running down my leg," or something to that effect.

The officer kept his gun aimed at the man, but called for help.

It’s easy to brand this cop as a violent man, intent on creating a situation in which it would be reasonable to shoot a young black man.

However, what became clear to me in watching the video was that the cop was terrified. You could hear it in his voice. You could see it in the way he moved, the way he held the gun, the way he shouted at the man.

Returning to the CNN article, CNN reports

That reality, (unreliable statistics) in part a result of weak local reporting and national data gathering efforts on police homicides, has long frustrated researchers and analysts who say they need to know more about those shootings…

 The problem, experts say, is that the United States doesn't collect accurate statistics and verify nearly enough information to show definitive trends in police shootings.

 There isn't a mandatory reporting. It is a self-reporting. Almost on the honor system," Sunny Hostin, a CNN legal analyst, said on CNN's "The Situation Room" on Tuesday.

 Although the FBI does have some statistics, most people know that those statistics can't even be counted upon, because they are self-reported," Hostin said. "So my suggestion has been all along that we need mandatory reporting from our law enforcement agencies around the country and I think that the number of officer shootings involving young black males is actually much higher than is even self-reported. That's something that needs to be part of the conversation.

 "We've been trying for years, but nobody wanted to fund it and the (police) departments didn't want it. They were concerned with their image and liability. They don't want to bother with it.''

But it may be that we have become too obsessed by the race issue. It is real, and much of what is happening in this country is dictated by race, but there is an even more fundamental problem.

CNN has an interesting commentary on the broader aspect. Again allow me to quote from its web site.

The difference in the number of killings in the U.S. and the rest of the world is startling. While police in other major countries typically kill a few people every year, the numbers here are enormous….
 How many people are shot by police every year? Nobody seems to know the exact number (something that is itself disturbing -- no official government agency tracks the full data for the entire country)
 On average, at least one person is killed by a cop every day in the U.S. In contrast, not a single one was killed in Britain last year, where police fired their guns a grand total of three times, according to The Economist. In 2011, when the FBI reported 404 justifiable law enforcement homicides in the U.S., police killed six people in Australia, two in England, six in Germany.

Whether one is of white, black, brown, or of yellow complexion, these are very disturbing facts and figures.

I have long been disturbed by the behavior of some who wear the police uniform and a badge and carry a gun. I am of white or rather pink complexion, but I have had my own experiences.

I will always remember when as a teen, (or maybe it was in my early twenties) I was in the resort town of Greenwoodlake, NY, a summer vacation community straddling New York and NJ, but with the town itself in NY. I had gone into town to buy something and had parked my car legally. When I came back I found that my car was wedged between two cars so that there was very little maneuvering space for me to get out. Backing up to the maximum possible, I touched the bumper of the car behind me, and then started to move out of the space, when a police officer accosted me and accused me of trying to leave the scene of an accident. I tried to explain that I had barely touched the bumper of the car behind me and that there was no damage, where upon the officer, who appeared to also be in his early twenties, suggested that I should put up my fists, and we would duke it out. I declined, and the officer relented. But it left a lasting impression on me, that, particularly in small towns, the kids that get a uniform, a badge and a gun, may be no different from the local hoodlum, without one.

This was not the last time I discovered that police officers are not always paragons of virtue.

More next time!

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.