Most often, when several cartoonists come up with variations on the same take, it's because that response was obvious and their effort was kind of lazy. Something with a more nuanced, unique insight would be better.
Other times, however, the reason the response was obvious is because the response was obvious and needs to be out there. This is one of those times.
I'm in favor of putting cameras on cops. This is not in the same category as general surveillance of the public, because the cameras would only be used while they were in performance of official duties.
Don't want to carry a camera? Don't sign up for the gig.
But, while I think the move is necessary, it is -- as all three cartoonists point out -- clearly not sufficient.
There are times when there is an explanation that would clear the officer. Maybe the majority of times. But there are certainly times when it wouldn't, and the case of Eric Garner seems to be a pretty good example of how evidence can be trumped by a lack of will.
When someone dies, "don't confuse me with the evidence" is not funny. When someone dies from the use of a technique police have been specifically told not to use, one would think the burden of proof would be relatively easy to meet, perhaps not for conviction but certainly for an indictment.
And when the response is "Why do you have to make this a racial thing?", the person using that debating point is simply illustrating the problem.
From the above-linked and well-worth-reading WashPost article, here's one reason we "have to make this a racial thing":
In May of 1982, (LA Police Chief Daryll Gates) called for investigation into whether African Americans were more vulnerable to chokeholds than white people, citing “a hunch.” “We may be finding that in some blacks, when it is applied the veins or arteries do not open up as fast as they do on normal people,” Gates told the Los Angeles Times. “There may be something arresting the blood flow after the flow is applied. We’re going to look at that very carefully.”
Less than a week later, backing away from such medically unfounded suspicions, the chief announced a moratorium on chokeholds.
And what if he had found proof that some black people don't respond the way "normal people" do to being choked? Would they get MedicAlert bracelets?
Here's the other reason we have to make this a racial thing: Statistics are hard to pin down because they are not reliably kept. It's not a racial thing -- it's a "who do you value and care about" thing.
And if that takes on a racial element, then it is a racial thing. So, how come the stats aren't being kept?
An analysis by ProPublica suggests that young black men are 21 times more apt to be killed by police than young white men, but they concede a lack of reliable numbers:
Vast numbers of the country's 17,000 police departments don't file fatal police shooting reports at all, and many have filed reports for some years but not others. Florida departments haven't filed reports since 1997 and New York City last reported in 2007. Information contained in the individual reports can also be flawed. Still, lots of the reporting police departments are in larger cities, and at least 1000 police departments filed a report or reports over the 33 years.
This CNN piece criticizes the Propublica report for its limitations relative to this incident, since they were examining police shootings of those between 15 and 19, and Eric Garner was not in that age group nor was he shot.
Though, boy, is that not the point. However, okay, the 21x stat doesn't apply to all deaths in all age groups.
More important is that the CNN article also criticizes one leading inciter of the anti-race-card mob for twisting numbers to a level that cannot be blamed on stupidity.
To count up raw figures without allowing for relative size of population rather than figuring the rate within each group, and to then present your results as evidence that it's not "a racial thing" is as transparently dishonest as "he slipped on a bar of soap" or "he was trying to escape."
Bill O'Reilly is not stupid enough to do this accidentally. And what can you possibly make of this blandly confident, utterly, completely off-the-wall statement:
Some national TV networks reported most of the demonstrators were not violent but that is false. Once you see crimes being committed in any situation, you must walk away or you become part of the violent mob, part of the criminal activity. The protesters who did not loot or burn or assault the police but who remained in the fray are guilty of aiding and abetting those who did by providing them cover and support.
I assume this means that, if some racist screwball sees his show and then goes out and attacks a black person, Bill will either retire or turn himself in as an accomplice.
Yeah, we're aiding and abetting all right, Bill.
It's "aiding and abetting" to continue to try to persuade people who are deeply invested in the Big Lie as political strategy. Helping them to forestall justice by wasting time in pointless non-conversation-conversations is "aiding and abetting."
But you're not innocent, my friend. It is not innocent ignorance to turn away from the common experience of an entire community.
It requires intent, and -- conscious or subconscious -- malice.
Meanwhile, overseas ...
Norwegian cartoonist Fadi Abou Hassan with a reminder that there are all sorts of topics in the world that aren't particularly funny.
One of the things I do when a cartoonist draws a maze is to look to see if there is a place where the lines go all the way across, which would make it impossible to navigate.
Then I wonder if he did it on purpose.
Comments