THE ATTACK ON LAW AND ORDER MAKES EVERYONE LESS SAFE

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College by Heather MacDonald, author of the forthcoming “War on Cops” and “How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Us Less Safe.”  She has a BA from Yale, a MA from Cambridge, a JD from Stanford Law and writes for the Wall Street Journal and New York Times.

For almost two years, a protest movement known as “Black Lives Matter” has convulsed the nation.  Triggered by the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014, the Black Lives Matter movement holds that racist police officers are the greatest threat facing young black men today.  This belief has triggered riots, “die-ins,” the murder and attempted murder of police officers, a campaign to eliminate traditional grand jury proceedings when police use lethal force, and a presidential task force on policing.

Even though the U.S. Justice Department has resoundingly disproven the lie that a pacific Michael Brown was shot in cold blood while trying to surrender, Brown is still venerated as a martyr.  And now police officers are backing off of proactive policing in the face of the relentless venom directed at them on the street and in the media.  As a result, violent crime is on the rise.

The need is urgent, therefore, to examine the Black Lives Matter movement’s central thesis—that police pose the greatest threat to young black men.  I propose two counter hypothesis:  first, that there is no government agency more dedicated to the idea that black lives matter than the police; and second, that we have been talking obsessively about alleged police racism over the last 20 years in order to avoid talking about a far larger problem—black-on-black crime.

Let’s be clear: police have an indefensible obligation to treat everyone with courtesy and respect, and to act within the confines of the law.  Too often, officers develop a hardened, obnoxious attitude.  It is also true that being stopped when you are innocent of any wrongdoing is infuriating, humiliating, and sometimes terrifying.  And needless to say, every unjustified police shooting of an unarmed civilian is a stomach-churning tragedy.

Every year, approximately 6,000 blacks are murdered.  This is a number greater than white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are only 13 percent of the national population.  In Los Angeles, blacks between the ages of 20 and 24 die at a rate 20 to 30 times the national mean.  Who is killing them?  Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks.  The astronomical black death-by-homicide rate is a function of the black crime rate.  Blacks of all ages commit homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined, and at eleven times the rate of whites alone.

The police could end all lethal use of force tomorrow and it would have at most a trivial effect on the black death-by-homicide rate.  The nation’s police killed 987 civilians in 2015, according to a database compiled by The Washington Post.  Whites were 50 percent—or 493—of those victims, and blacks were 26 percent—or 258.  Most of those victims of police shootings, white and black, were armed or otherwise threatening the officer with potentially lethal force.

This incidence of crime means that innocent black men have a much higher chance than innocent white men of being stopped by the police because they match the description of a suspect.  This is not something the police choose.  It is a reality forced on them by the facts of crime.

The geographic disparities are also huge.  In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian. As a result, police presence and use of proactive tactics are much higher in Brownsville than in Bay Ridge.  Every time there is a shooting, the police will flood the area looking to make stops in order to avert a retaliatory shooting.  They are in Brownsville not because of racism, but because they want to provide protection to its many law-abiding residents who deserve safety.

Who are some of the victims of elevated urban crime?  On March 11, 2015, as protestors were once again converging on the Ferguson police headquarters demanding the resignation of the entire department, a six-year-old boy named Marcus Johnson was killed a few miles away in a St. Louis park, the victim of a drive-by shooting.  No one protested his killing.  Al Sharpton did not demand a federal investigation.  Few people outside of his immediate community know his name.

As horrific as such stories are, crime rates were much higher 20 years ago.  In New York City in 1990, for example, there were 2,245 homicides.  In 2014 there were 333—a decrease of 85 percent.  The drop in New York’s crime rate is the steepest in the nation, but crime has fallen at a historic rate nationwide as well—by about 40 percent—since the early 1990s.  The greatest beneficiaries of these declining rates have been minorities.  Over 10,000 minority males alive today in New York would be dead if the city’s homicide rate had remained at its early 1990s level.

What is behind this historic crime drop?  A policing revolution that began in New York and spread nationally, and that is now being threatened.  Starting in 1994, the top brass of the NYPD embraced the then-radical idea that the police can actually prevent crime, not just respond to it.  They started gathering and analyzing crime data on a daily and then hourly basis.  They looked for patterns, and strategize on tactics to try to quell crime outbreaks as they were emerging.  Equally important, they held commanders accountable for crime in their jurisdictions.  Department leaders starred meeting weekly with precinct commanders to grill them on crime patterns on their watch.  These weekly accountable sessions came to be known as Compstat.  They were ruthless, high tension affairs.  If a commander was not fully informed about every local crime outbreak and ready with a strategy to combat it, his career was in jeopardy.

For decades, the rap against the police was that they ignored crime in minority neighborhoods.  Compstat keeps New York commanders focused like a laser beam on where people are being victimized most, and that is in minority communities.  Compstat spread nationwide.  Departments across the country now send officers to emerging crime hot spots to try to interrupt criminal behavior before it happens.

Police operating in inner-city neighborhoods now find themselves routinely surrounded by cursing, jeering crowds when they make a pedestrian stop or try to arrest a suspect.  Sometimes bottles and rocks are thrown.  Bystanders stick cell phones in the officers’ faces, daring them to proceed with their duties.  Officers are worried about becoming the next racist cop of the week and possibly losing their livelihood thanks to an incomplete cell phone video that inevitably fails to show the antecedents to their use of force.  Officer use of force is never pretty, but the public is clueless about how hard it is to subdue a suspect who is determined to resist arrest.

As a result of the anti-cop campaign of the last two years and the resulting push-back in the streets, officers in urban areas are cutting back on precisely the kind of policing that led to the crime decline of the 1990s and 2000s.  Arrests and summons are down, particularly for low-level offenses.  Police officers continue to rush to 911 calls when there is already a victim.  But when it comes to making discretionary stops—such as getting out of their cars and questioning people hanging out on drug corners at 1:00 a.m.—many cops worry that doing so could put their careers on the line.  Police officers are, after all, human.  When they are repeatedly called racist for stopping and questioning suspicious individuals in high-crime areas, they will perform less of those stops.  That is not only understandable—in a sense, it is how things should work.  Policing is political.

On the other hand, the people demanding that the police back off are by no means representative of the entire black community.  Go to any police-neighborhood meeting in Harlem or South Central Los Angeles, and you will invariably hear variants of the following:  “We want the dealers off the corner.”  “You arrest them and they’re back the next day.”  “There are kids hanging out on my stoop.  Why can’t you arrest them for loitering?”  “I smell weed in my hallway.  Can’t you do something?”  I met an elderly cancer amputee in the Bronx who was terrified to go to her lobby mailbox because of the young men trespassing there and selling drugs.  “Please, Jesus,” she said to me, “send more police!”

Unfortunately, when officers back off in high crime neighborhoods, crime shoots through the roof.  Our country is in the midst of the first sustained violent crime spike in two decades.  Murders rose nearly 17 percent in the nation’s 50 largest cities in 2015, and it was in cities with large black populations where the violence increased the most.  Baltimore’s per capita homicide rate last year was the highest in its history.  Milwaukee had its deadliest year in a decade, with a 72 percent increase in homicides.  Homicides in Cleveland increased 90 percent over the previous year.  Murders rose 83 percent in Nashville.  In Chicago, where pedestrian stops are down by 90 percent, shootings were up 80 percent through March 2016.

The number of police officers killed in shootings more than doubled during the first three months of 2016.  In fact, officers are at a much greater risk from blacks than unarmed blacks are from the police.

We have been here before.  In the 1960s and early 1970s, black and white radicals directed hatred and occasional violence against the police.  The difference today is that anti-cop ideology is embraced at the highest reaches of the establishment; by the president, by his attorney general, by college presidents, by foundation heads, and by the press.

I don’t know what will end the current frenzy against the police.  What I do know is that we are playing with fire, and if it keeps spreading, it will be hard to put out.

ArtSchwartzSig

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Blog

4 responses to “THE ATTACK ON LAW AND ORDER MAKES EVERYONE LESS SAFE

  1. Maybe you can get the republican presumptive nominee to call for gun control for Black men.

  2. Elimination of all multi cartridge weap[ons would help everyone

  3. Gary W.

    Art, great commentary. Thanks for sharing it. Here’s my take.

    Gun control or elimination of multi-cartridge weapons will do NOTHING to reduce these killings. Chicago has some of the tightest gun control laws in the nation, but the thugs there could care less with 74 homicides in June alone.

    Those who think more laws will be the solution are naive. This problem is complicated and will require lots of folks, both NRA supporters and gun control advocates, to come together and work toward a sustainable solution. Unfortunately, this won’t happen anytime soon and there’s no simple answer to this vexing problem. Expect black on black killings to continue.

  4. Pingback: The Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe – The National Association for Black Veterans of America

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s