Morality

Statistics hate men…and police too?

Standard

If I were to tell you that one category of American is twenty-seven times more likely to be killed by police, would you sense an injustice?

Well, it is true that men were twenty-seven times more likely to be killed by police than women in the years between 1988 and 1997.  In fact, according to the NCBI data, of those killed by police from 1979 to 1997 of them 97% were male.

I suppose we could conclude from the statistical data that men are victims being systematically slaughtered by the law enforcement agencies.  But, that would likely be the wrong conclusion and I believe most of us can come up with theories as to why men are more likely to be killed by police than women that do not include a nefarious plot or even include mention of anti-male sexism.

Men are typically more testosterone driven and aggressive.  Men are also probably more likely to be involved in criminal behavior.  Men are killed more often by police because they are more likely to be involved in activities that put them at risk of being killed.  I could spend time proving those statements, but I think most people do not need further proof because it is fairly obvious and understood without needing to go into great depth.

There is another ‘endangered’ group of people that includes men, women and minorities.  This group is those who respond to our calls for help, they are tasked with bringing law breakers to justice and the people we complain about when their serving their duty involves enforcing laws pertaining to us.  This group is those who are police officers.

According to one statistical analysis I found, more than ten per 100,000 police officers are killed in the line of duty each year.  In a recent column Michelle Malkin gave this breakdown of the numbers:

“The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF) reports that a total of 1,501 law-enforcement officers died in the line of duty during the past ten years, an average of one death every 58 hours, or 150 per year.”

But, how many, one may ask in retort, are killed by police per year?

Reliable statistics are hard to find on police homicides.  However, from what I have found, from those trying to fill in the gap of information, is that around one thousand people are killed by police per year.  In a population of around 316 million people that works out to be around 0.31 people killed per 100,000 people living in the US.  So, combined and compared, police are over thirty-two times more likely to be killed by us than we are to be killed by them.

Understandably, police have chosen a career that increase the chance they will encounter violence and the occasional innocent person who is gunned down had less of a choice.  However, the vast majority of those killed by police have made choices that have increased their likelihood of a violent encounter and in most likely could’ve avoided the outcome had they employed a bit of restraint themselves.

The real tragedy in recent cases that have been deemed newsworthy where young men have been killed by police is the absence of conversation on more obvious reasons.  The mainstream media is quick to point out a possible racial motive, but fail to mention all of the other factors from culture to behavior that have an influence over outcomes.  We do a great disservice to both police and young men by claiming that this is a matter of systematic oppression.

It is not a matter of oppression or sexism that men are vastly more likely to be killed by police than women.  No, it is a matter of men being more likely to do things that lead them to violent encounters and to fix that we need to encourage men to work out their problems differently.  Similarly, disproportions between men of different races may also be explained by other factors rather than by oppression or racism.

I do not believe we should ignore statistics nor should we downplay history either.  However, if we are to have a conversation, we should make it an honest and fair conversation.  We should not just be discussing police abuses, but we should also be discussing fatherless homes, cultural glorification of violence, the idea that manhood means avenging all insults and a mentality of blaming circumstances rather than overcoming them.

The real injustice is that we apply a different logic or reasoning when it comes to considering the statistics that show men are disproportionately more likely to be killed by police than women.  If we would apply the same logic and reasoning we would be holding ‘male lives matter’ signs and creating hashtags like #alivewhilemale or #crimingwhilefemale would be trendy.

And, yes, apparently women do get away with criminal behavior.  That is, at least at DWI checkpoints where men are disproportionately selected despite not being more likely to drink and drive.  From the article linked:

“A surprising study finds women have the advantage when it comes to DWI checkpoints. They are more than 3 times less likely to get singled out for inspection.”

Encouraging outrage will likely only contribute to a continuing cycle of violence.  At very least angry protests or promotion of mistrust and hatred for police is not a solution.  We need less dividing people into categories of blue, black or white and more discussion of factors other than race or gender that have an influence.

More understanding, more truth and love all around is what we need.

Walking with hands in pockets…

Standard

I was trying to find a less controversial example to illustrate a point and have found it.  The point is to get to the bottom of the conflict between citizens and police that can too often lead to unnecessary violent ends.

This case, captured in a video that has gone viral, involves a man being questioned by a police officer and is framed as a matter of race.  The narrative being suggested is that this man was being harassed because of skin color and is presented as an example of overbearing policing at very least.  However, as often is the case, there are two sides to this story and important contextual information the video does not show.

The bigger picture is that the business had been robbed several times.  The man being questioned had apparently walked past the store multiple times, the store workers were nervous and called the police.  The officer who arrived was simply responding to the call and doing his job to investigate the issue.  The video was a police officer doing his job to serve and protect, nothing more or less.

I suppose one might allege the store employees were overbearing or racist for their suspicion.  But, after being robbed several times, I think their vigilance is not unwarranted and they did the right thing by calling the police.  It was the behavior of the man and not his race that was mentioned in the call.  It was his behavior that the officer questioned.

I too, white and a noncriminal, was once questioned by a bank manager because I was parked across from the bank and had been sitting in my car on the phone.  I could’ve got all in a huff over it and belittled those who were suspicious of me, but it did not bother me.  I answered respectfully and that seemed to put him at ease.  There was simply no reason to be combative or agitated about my being questioned.

In another incident, I was broke down along the highway, waiting for roadside service to arrive and a state policeman arrived.  He approached and I met him halfway.  We were talking as it snowed, having a conversation that seemed friendly enough, I went to put my hands in my pockets (because it was cold) and was startled when he abruptly ordered me, “don’t do that!”  His hand simultaneously dropping towards his sidearm as he spoke the command.

In both cases I was quickly able to resolve the issue by being friendly and nonthreatening.  I could’ve told the bank manager to “mind his own business” or accused him of being an idiot.  I could also of resisted the officer’s warning and bristled in indignation that I was being treated like a criminal.  Instead, I quickly identified with their concern, complied without showing an attitude of disrespect or agitation and the end results were pleasant for all involved.

“My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.” (James 1:19-20)

So, going back to the viral video, the conversation is described as tense and there is definitely a tone of defiance.  What bothers me is how this could quickly have escalated for no good reason other than the insecurity of a man who takes being questioned by someone as an insult.  There was no reason for hostility towards nervous store employees or the officer and the incident had nothing to do with anything on a national stage.

What can we learn?  First, there is often a bigger picture and additional information to be considered, so it is wise to wait for context before drawing conclusions about a particular incident.  Second, use your freedom to choose to be respectful and responsible in all circumstances, there is no reason to ‘get an attitude’ with someone simply because they request something of you.  Third, do not be easily offended, do not presume anything you don’t truly know and respect others if you wish to be respected.

“You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.”  (Galatians 5:13-15)

It is sad, but a little common sense compliance may have been the difference between life and death in some recent cases.  How one responds to questions or requests and what they assume will potentially change their outcomes dramatically.  We need to teach our young people to treat all people with respect and dignity whether they agree with them or not.  Do not abuse your own rights if you don’t want to be abused.

I leave you with the words of Jesus…

“Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.  Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:30-31)

“You can’t handle the truth!”

Standard

One thing I have not fully learned yet is that people are not emotionally able to handle the whole truth.  My penchant for full-disclosure of hopes, fears or intentions can be discomfiting to those who ask “be completely honest” and are themselves unaccustomed to the same level of transparency.  Few people are honest with other people about their own agenda and whether that is good discretion or dishonesty is debatable.

People may ask for the truth, but that doesn’t mean they are emotionally mature enough or able to handle the complete truth.  None of us can.  We may want to know, but we could not function if we knew the truth of everything.  It would overwhelmed if we knew completely what people thought of us, all of what we would face in the future or understood fully the consequences of our poor choices.  Lack of disclosure is not always a way to protect others or of conscious good discretion, some people withhold truth as a way to manipulate and get their way.

People are also not honest with themselves.  It could be a lack of logical maturity, mental development and ignorance.  It could also be a matter of emotional self-preservation and a deliberate semiconscious choice of mind or completely willful ignorance.  Our minds sometimes are more aware than we are consciously aware.  For example, most of us know we are going to die, our mind always is aware of this at some level and yet we are able to live in the present moment without consideration of our own mortality.  Even those who are thrill seekers or get an emotional high from taking risks because of the possibility of death are a conflicted mix of natural (subconscious) fear and conscious hope for survival.

The title of this blog comes from a movie classic.  The movie “A Few Good Men” is about a military murder trial.  The title quote, “you can’t handle the truth,” comes from a heated exchange, a climatic defining moment in the story and you will need to watch the linked clip to understand my commentary.  You will see the Colonel on the stand trying to simultaneously defend his own innocence, his honor and code.  But there is a conflict in his logic that the prosecutor seeks to reveal in his questions, the conflicted claims of Colonel become very apparent and the resulting emotional outburst exposes a lie.

This is a study on cognitive dissonance. The Colonel had two sets of ethics, one for his protecting of the greater mission of saving life and another that applied to discipline within the the platoon and the one that didn’t protect Santiago’s life. The Colonel becomes emotional when his own conflicted views are presented back to him, he’s being defensive of an irreconcilable position and thus his only defense is an attempt to attack the character of his questioner. He got caught in his own self-deception.

This is more than just good drama, it is a window into how our minds work and illustrates the need for an outsider’s perspective on our own consistency applying our ethics.  Most people are trying to be good, most people think they are good because they are trying to be good and do not see the exceptions they make to their ethical principles. The Colonel yells, “you can’t handle the truth,” when in reality he could not handle the truth of his own failure to consistently live up to the good ethics he claimed to be protecting.

We aren’t on trial, we do need to show discretion when we speak to others and not reveal truth.  We also have blind spots where we aren’t consistently living up to the ethics we claim to hold and need to be open to those who challenge our own assumptions about ourselves and that requires humility.  Our taking offense, our becoming defensive or burying our heads in the sand can prevent growth and is a form of faithlessness that kills us spiritually. If you’re religious, tradition and theological dogma can prevent knowing truth. If you’re scientific, materialistic logic and known evidence based reasoning can be likewise blinding.

Truth is something that exists beyond our own full ability to comprehend. Without truth, with tradition, theology, material evidence and facts we can only build a rational. Rationals are not truth. Rationals can be disproven with more evidence or changed with a different perspective of the evidence. We cannot handle the truth if we are unable to realize the fallibility of our own opinions or if we are afraid to have faith and trust. We must realize that we are shaped by our various influences and that those influences themselves could also give us a corrupted version of reality.

So be humble, be open to correction and be able to repent when wrong…