As I began reading the U. S. Department of Justice’s “Executive Summary” of its extremely damning and comprehensive report of March 4, 2015, on Ferguson, Missouri, I wondered how that police department’s undue focus on revenue generation could possibly explain Officer Darren Wilson’s killing of an unarmed 18-year old boy, Michael Brown, on August 9, 2014, in the middle of the street?
With that troubling question in mind, I kept reading. Then on page 3, I found a partial answer. I quote:
“Even relatively routine misconduct by Ferguson police officers can have significant consequences for the people whose rights are violated. For example, in the summer of 2012, a 32-year-old African-American man sat in his car cooling off after playing basketball in a Ferguson public park. An officer pulled up behind the man’s car, blocking him in, and demanded the man’s Social Security number and identification. Without any cause, the officer accused the man of being a pedophile, referring to the presence of children in the park, and ordered the man out of his car for a pat-down, although the officer had no reason to believe the man was armed. The officer also asked to search the man’s car. The man objected, citing his constitutional rights. In response, the officer arrested the man, reportedly at gunpoint, charging him with eight violations of Ferguson’s municipal code. One charge, Making a False Declaration, was for initially providing the short form of his first name (e.g., “Mike” instead of “Michael”), and an address which, although legitimate, was different from the one on his driver’s license. Another charge was for not wearing a seat belt, even though he was seated in a parked car. The officer also charged the man both with having an expired operator’s license, and with having no operator’s license in his possession. The man told us that, because of these charges, he lost his job as a contractor with the federal government that he had held for years.”
Still reeling from the impact of this encounter—which no law school text ever featured—I drew ever closer to an explanation of my primal question, why is that young black man dead? Again, I quote:
“Ferguson’s law enforcement practices overwhelmingly impact African Americans…..FPD appears to bring certain offenses almost exclusively against African Americans. For example, from 2011 to 2013, African Americans accounted for 95% of Manner of Walking in Roadway charges, and 94% of all Failure to Comply charges…. the evidence shows not only that African Americans are represented at disproportionately high rates overall, but also that the disparate impact of FPD’s enforcement practices on African Americans is 48% larger when citations are issued not on the basis of radar or laser, but by some other method, such as the officer’s own visual assessment. These disparities are also present in FPD’s use of force. Nearly 90% of documented force used by FPD officers was used against African Americans. In every canine bite incident for which racial information is available, the person bitten was African American.” P.4-5
Even more damning, the DOJ Report finds intentional violation of the 14 th Amendment motivated Ferguson, in part:
“Our investigation indicates that this disproportionate burden on African Americans cannot be explained by any difference in the rate at which people of different races violate the law. Rather, our investigation has revealed that these disparities occur, at least in part, because of unlawful bias against and stereotypes about African Americans. We have found substantial evidence of racial bias among police and court staff in Ferguson. For example, we discovered emails circulated by police supervisors and court staff that stereotype racial minorities as criminals, including one email that joked about an abortion by an African-American woman being a means of crime control. City officials have frequently asserted that the harsh and disparate results of Ferguson’s law enforcement system do not indicate problems with police or court practices, but instead reflect a pervasive lack of “personal responsibility” among “certain segments” of the community. Our investigation has found that the practices about which area residents have complained are in fact unconstitutional and unduly harsh. But the City’s personal-responsibility refrain is telling: it reflects many of the same racial stereotypes found in the emails between police and court supervisors. This evidence of bias and stereotyping, together with evidence that Ferguson has long recognized but failed to correct the consistent racial disparities caused by its police and court practices, demonstrates that the discriminatory effects of Ferguson’s conduct are driven at least in part by discriminatory intent in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
That explains Michael Brown’s death. Racial “bias and stereotyping, together with evidence that Ferguson has long recognized but failed to correct the consistent racial disparities caused by its police and court practices, demonstrates that the discriminatory effects of Ferguson’s conduct are driven at least in part by discriminatory intent in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.” In short, racism!
Given, this discriminatory intent, one is left to wonder—at least I am—why no court action of any type civil or criminal was commenced by DOJ against Darren Wilson or the City of Ferguson or both? My surmise is that it has to do with the ridiculously high U.S. Supreme Court burdens and elements of proof, set by it, in racial discrimination cases. These we will explore in the next installment of this analysis.
#30
Rev. Dr. Larry Delano Coleman
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Intentional Violation of the 14th Amendment Motivated Ferguson Police
INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF THE 14 TH AMENDMENT MOTIVATED FERGUSON, SAYS JUSTICE REPORT
By Larry Delano Coleman, Esq.
March 15, 2015
As I began reading the U. S. Department of Justice’s “Executive Summary” of its extremely damning and comprehensive report of March 4, 2015, on Ferguson, Missouri, I wondered how that police department’s undue focus on revenue generation could possibly explain Officer Darren Wilson’s killing of an unarmed 18-year old boy, Michael Brown, on August 9, 2014, in the middle of the street?
With that troubling question in mind, I kept reading. Then on page 3, I found a partial answer. I quote:
“Even relatively routine misconduct by Ferguson police officers can have significant consequences for the people whose rights are violated. For example, in the summer of 2012, a 32-year-old African-American man sat in his car cooling off after playing basketball in a Ferguson public park. An officer pulled up behind the man’s car, blocking him in, and demanded the man’s Social Security number and identification. Without any cause, the officer accused the man of being a pedophile, referring to the presence of children in the park, and ordered the man out of his car for a pat-down, although the officer had no reason to believe the man was armed. The officer also asked to search the man’s car. The man objected, citing his constitutional rights. In response, the officer arrested the man, reportedly at gunpoint, charging him with eight violations of Ferguson’s municipal code. One charge, Making a False Declaration, was for initially providing the short form of his first name (e.g., “Mike” instead of “Michael”), and an address which, although legitimate, was different from the one on his driver’s license. Another charge was for not wearing a seat belt, even though he was seated in a parked car. The officer also charged the man both with having an expired operator’s license, and with having no operator’s license in his possession. The man told us that, because of these charges, he lost his job as a contractor with the federal government that he had held for years.”
Still reeling from the impact of this encounter—which no law school text ever featured—I drew ever closer to an explanation of my primal question, why is that young black man dead? Again, I quote:
“Ferguson’s law enforcement practices overwhelmingly impact African Americans…..FPD appears to bring certain offenses almost exclusively against African Americans. For example, from 2011 to 2013, African Americans accounted for 95% of Manner of Walking in Roadway charges, and 94% of all Failure to Comply charges…. the evidence shows not only that African Americans are represented at disproportionately high rates overall, but also that the disparate impact of FPD’s enforcement practices on African Americans is 48% larger when citations are issued not on the basis of radar or laser, but by some other method, such as the officer’s own visual assessment. These disparities are also present in FPD’s use of force. Nearly 90% of documented force used by FPD officers was used against African Americans. In every canine bite incident for which racial information is available, the person bitten was African American.” P.4-5
Even more damning, the DOJ Report finds intentional violation of the 14 th Amendment motivated Ferguson, in part:
“Our investigation indicates that this disproportionate burden on African Americans cannot be explained by any difference in the rate at which people of different races violate the law. Rather, our investigation has revealed that these disparities occur, at least in part, because of unlawful bias against and stereotypes about African Americans. We have found substantial evidence of racial bias among police and court staff in Ferguson. For example, we discovered emails circulated by police supervisors and court staff that stereotype racial minorities as criminals, including one email that joked about an abortion by an African-American woman being a means of crime control. City officials have frequently asserted that the harsh and disparate results of Ferguson’s law enforcement system do not indicate problems with police or court practices, but instead reflect a pervasive lack of “personal responsibility” among “certain segments” of the community. Our investigation has found that the practices about which area residents have complained are in fact unconstitutional and unduly harsh. But the City’s personal-responsibility refrain is telling: it reflects many of the same racial stereotypes found in the emails between police and court supervisors. This evidence of bias and stereotyping, together with evidence that Ferguson has long recognized but failed to correct the consistent racial disparities caused by its police and court practices, demonstrates that the discriminatory effects of Ferguson’s conduct are driven at least in part by discriminatory intent in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
That explains Michael Brown’s death. Racial “bias and stereotyping, together with evidence that Ferguson has long recognized but failed to correct the consistent racial disparities caused by its police and court practices, demonstrates that the discriminatory effects of Ferguson’s conduct are driven at least in part by discriminatory intent in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.” In short, racism!
Given, this discriminatory intent, one is left to wonder—at least I am—why no court action of any type civil or criminal was commenced by DOJ against Darren Wilson or the City of Ferguson or both? My surmise is that it has to do with the ridiculously high U.S. Supreme Court burdens and elements of proof, set by it, in racial discrimination cases. These we will explore in the next installment of this analysis.
#30
Rev. Dr. Larry Delano Coleman
As I began reading the U. S. Department of Justice’s “Executive Summary” of its extremely damning and comprehensive report of March 4, 2015, on Ferguson, Missouri, I wondered how that police department’s undue focus on revenue generation could possibly explain Officer Darren Wilson’s killing of an unarmed 18-year old boy, Michael Brown, on August 9, 2014, in the middle of the street?
With that troubling question in mind, I kept reading. Then on page 3, I found a partial answer. I quote:
“Even relatively routine misconduct by Ferguson police officers can have significant consequences for the people whose rights are violated. For example, in the summer of 2012, a 32-year-old African-American man sat in his car cooling off after playing basketball in a Ferguson public park. An officer pulled up behind the man’s car, blocking him in, and demanded the man’s Social Security number and identification. Without any cause, the officer accused the man of being a pedophile, referring to the presence of children in the park, and ordered the man out of his car for a pat-down, although the officer had no reason to believe the man was armed. The officer also asked to search the man’s car. The man objected, citing his constitutional rights. In response, the officer arrested the man, reportedly at gunpoint, charging him with eight violations of Ferguson’s municipal code. One charge, Making a False Declaration, was for initially providing the short form of his first name (e.g., “Mike” instead of “Michael”), and an address which, although legitimate, was different from the one on his driver’s license. Another charge was for not wearing a seat belt, even though he was seated in a parked car. The officer also charged the man both with having an expired operator’s license, and with having no operator’s license in his possession. The man told us that, because of these charges, he lost his job as a contractor with the federal government that he had held for years.”
Still reeling from the impact of this encounter—which no law school text ever featured—I drew ever closer to an explanation of my primal question, why is that young black man dead? Again, I quote:
“Ferguson’s law enforcement practices overwhelmingly impact African Americans…..FPD appears to bring certain offenses almost exclusively against African Americans. For example, from 2011 to 2013, African Americans accounted for 95% of Manner of Walking in Roadway charges, and 94% of all Failure to Comply charges…. the evidence shows not only that African Americans are represented at disproportionately high rates overall, but also that the disparate impact of FPD’s enforcement practices on African Americans is 48% larger when citations are issued not on the basis of radar or laser, but by some other method, such as the officer’s own visual assessment. These disparities are also present in FPD’s use of force. Nearly 90% of documented force used by FPD officers was used against African Americans. In every canine bite incident for which racial information is available, the person bitten was African American.” P.4-5
Even more damning, the DOJ Report finds intentional violation of the 14 th Amendment motivated Ferguson, in part:
“Our investigation indicates that this disproportionate burden on African Americans cannot be explained by any difference in the rate at which people of different races violate the law. Rather, our investigation has revealed that these disparities occur, at least in part, because of unlawful bias against and stereotypes about African Americans. We have found substantial evidence of racial bias among police and court staff in Ferguson. For example, we discovered emails circulated by police supervisors and court staff that stereotype racial minorities as criminals, including one email that joked about an abortion by an African-American woman being a means of crime control. City officials have frequently asserted that the harsh and disparate results of Ferguson’s law enforcement system do not indicate problems with police or court practices, but instead reflect a pervasive lack of “personal responsibility” among “certain segments” of the community. Our investigation has found that the practices about which area residents have complained are in fact unconstitutional and unduly harsh. But the City’s personal-responsibility refrain is telling: it reflects many of the same racial stereotypes found in the emails between police and court supervisors. This evidence of bias and stereotyping, together with evidence that Ferguson has long recognized but failed to correct the consistent racial disparities caused by its police and court practices, demonstrates that the discriminatory effects of Ferguson’s conduct are driven at least in part by discriminatory intent in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
That explains Michael Brown’s death. Racial “bias and stereotyping, together with evidence that Ferguson has long recognized but failed to correct the consistent racial disparities caused by its police and court practices, demonstrates that the discriminatory effects of Ferguson’s conduct are driven at least in part by discriminatory intent in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.” In short, racism!
Given, this discriminatory intent, one is left to wonder—at least I am—why no court action of any type civil or criminal was commenced by DOJ against Darren Wilson or the City of Ferguson or both? My surmise is that it has to do with the ridiculously high U.S. Supreme Court burdens and elements of proof, set by it, in racial discrimination cases. These we will explore in the next installment of this analysis.
#30
Rev. Dr. Larry Delano Coleman
