黑人和警察长期以来的关系紧张而敌对。黑人从奴隶变成自由人之后,受到的是居住地带的种族隔离、受教育的种族隔离、各种社会设施分“白人”和“有色人种”区别使用的明显不公对待。从1960年代黑人发起非暴力、不抵抗平权运动开始,他们为自己的族裔和所有的少数族裔争取到了许多公民应该享有的权利;但是主流社会特别是法律系统一直并没有把非裔当成平等的人来看待,现在的一些学者已经指出,从1970年代尼克松总统宣布“美国最大的公开的敌人是毒品”开始,美国掀起了反对使用毒品、对毒品使用和贩卖者进行极其严厉的打击的运动,1982年里根总统正式宣布开始“对毒品宣战“(War on Drugs)。而这个运动的直接“关注对象”和打击对象可以说是黑人为主的少数族裔。公民权律师、法律学者Michelle Alexander指出,因涉及毒品的犯罪而被关押在监狱里的黑人已经比奴隶制时代的黑人奴隶还要多。这是新时代的“New Jim Crow”。
一部反映黑人被法律系统歧视性对待主题的纪录片电影是“The House I Live in." 其中揭示出: 黑人是美国人口中的13%,而2013年在监狱中的黑人是美国监狱人口中的近一半,即接近100万。大多数是35岁以下的黑人男性。 美国犯罪与少年犯罪国家委员会2007年报告指出,非裔美国人占年轻人比例的16%,他们占青少年被捕的28%,占被法院审理过的人口的34%,占被送进成人监狱的人数的58%。(参见Joseph Healley,2012,245页)
有关书目/文章: Michelle Alexander, 2012. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration In the Age of Colorblindness. New York: The New Press.
Jim Salter and David A. Lieb, November 25, 2014. "Officer Cleared in Shooting: Grand Jury won't Indict Ferguson policeman in Teen's Death". Associate Press.
Joseph Healey, 2012. Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Class: The Sociology of Group Conflicts and Change. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
将它放在里根的War on Drugs的历史框架里,使人更容易理解今天的New Jim Crow 现象。
因为忙,没有跟踪布朗被射杀事件,只是大致了解此案引起全美各地的抗议浪潮 (只是wxc的某些网民们由于受中华文化里的等级制度的传统影响而形成等级观念,来到西方又盲目崇洋--具体其实是盲目崇拜追捧白人文化,两者相加的结果,就是赤裸裸的崇白贬黑的种族歧视了)。
刚刚上网查了一下(Shooting of Michael Brown)感觉这个案子令人疑窦丛生,尤其是主办此案的检察官Robert P. McCulloch在此案件里的作为(或“不作为”),是此案引起众怒激起全美各地抗议游行的一个关键点。这已经不是第一次McCulloch偏袒射杀手无寸铁的黑人“疑犯” 的警察的经历了,之前是在2000年,那个案子被记者Michael Sorkin揭露出来过,不知为何这位有办案不公劣迹的检察官没有按照要求被换下,尽管少数族群团体NAACP提交了有七万人签名的请愿书请求换人。 而且这个麦库洛克检察官出身于警员家族,按理来说,不宜出面处理这个审判警员执法过度的案子,而应该避嫌,让其他人来作的。
另外,纽约市警察的Stop-and-frisk (拦截路人搜查,以查出武器或别的什么危险物品为理由,可是真正查到的非法武器只占0.2%)也是种族歧视的做法,被拦截搜查的绝大部分是黑人和西语裔。这个算是系统的歧视行为了(About 684,000 people were stopped in 2011. The vast majority of these people were African-American or Latino. Some judges have found that these stops are not based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Guns are found in less than 0.2 percent of stops)。
因为有这样的律法系统上的不公平和歧视,那么警员对于非裔和西裔在态度上持有的敌意也就不足为奇。Charles M. Blow 在纽约时报上的评论“佛格森事件之后的愤怒”里写道:The reaction to the failure of the grand jury to indict in the shooting of an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, by a white police officer, Darren Wilson, touched something deep and ancient and anguished in the black community.
Yes, on one level, the reaction was about the particulars of this case.
It was about whether Wilson’s use of force was appropriate or excessive that summer day when he fired a shot through Brown’s head and ended his life.
It was about whether police officers’ attitudes towards the people they serve are tainted. Why was Wilson’s description of Brown in his testimony so laced with dehumanizing rhetoric, the superhuman predator and subhuman evil, “Hulk Hogan” and the “demon”?
椰籽 发表评论于
回复 'nightrider' 的评论 :
To answer your question, Wilson certainly has the right to self defense. What could be problematic is: did he need to shoot an unarmed youth as a policeman? Your assertion "Wilson had the right, even as a civilian to shoot to kill the assailant in self defense. ",---- is subjected to interpretation. Who (the shooter) will be stupid enough to say something that is not justified for the shooting?
For your second question, "Where does your assertion of police brutality come from? "----May I also ask you where does your assertion of police innocence come from?
For me, I agree with this statement: "Unarmed people are killed by those who are purportedly there to protect and serve them and the 'just us' system looks the other way, that is the murder of basic human rights." (quote from Leonard Pitts Jr. in 'Black on Black argument' false" (Dec 2 2014).----and this is the police brutality to me.
I know we have basic difference of assumptions about what is fair when weighing a life with armed police vs. unarmed civilian. That is why I say we may agree to disagree. Thanks for your further inquiry.
椰籽 发表评论于
回复 'nightrider' 的评论 :
Logically, yes, I agree with your prediction.
nightrider 发表评论于
回复 '椰籽' 的评论 :
Thank you for your response, albeit partial. You like your scholarly way. Perhaps you are a professor in social science. I hope intellectual honesty and logical deductive capacity also go with the profession or even hobby.
1) You have not responded to the logical conclusion on legalizing drugs I draw from your blog. Do you disagree?
2) I am not sure I understand your response regarding the Ferguson case. There are two parts to my comment. I made a statement and asked a question. One can not disagree with a question, so I suppose you do not agree with my statement that Wilson have the right for self defense. May I ask why? Perhaps, do you not want to answer my question "where does your assertion of ..."?
椰籽 发表评论于
回复 'nightrider' 的评论 :
I think the best way to look at the issue of Ferguson between your opinion and mine is "we may agree to disagree."
Regarding the Ferguson case itself, if it is true that Brown assaulted Wilson first while the latter was in the car, Wilson had the right, even as a civilian to shoot to kill the assailant in self defense. Where does your assertion of police brutality come from?
nightrider 发表评论于
From your article we have to conclude ending war on drugs and legalizing drugs would remove a large factor for mass incarceration of blacks and dramatically lower the rate of violent crimes.