“I Can’t Breathe”

“Liberty is the soul’s right to breathe, and when it cannot take a long breath, laws are girdled too tight.”

Henry Ward Beecher

File this one under “arm chair quarter backing”, or “water cooler conversation”. I was not on the grand jury for the Eric Garner decision. I am not a lawyer, a police officer, a district attorney, a forensic specialist, or a psychic. While this hasn’t prevented others from giving categorical or almost clairvoyant opinions on the motivations of those involved, the machinations of the grand jury proceedings, or the remediation procedures of law enforcement; I will try to limit my commentary to “Well, this is what it seems like to me.” Heck, I didn’t even stay in a Holiday Inn last night!

Let’s stipulate a few things right off the bat. Cops have a difficult job, and while it’s probably more dangerous to be a garbage collector or a roofer, the reality is that the police can be in peril of their lives on a daily basis. Let’s stipulate as well that it is generally a bad idea to resist arrest. As a society we have made the decision that in a confrontation between police and law breakers we would prefer the police to have the upper hand, including the use of deadly force in extreme situations, and that’s probably a good decision. Let’s further stipulate that Mr. Garner was probably carrying a little more weight than was healthy for him, and that his size created an imposing and difficult physical management task for the officers, as well as a health risk for both himself and the officers that might not exist with a smaller perpetrator. Let’s admit also that Mr. Garner was a black man, and that the police officers were for the most part white, except for the supervising officer who was black, and that there is no evidence one way or another to suggest racist motivations, nor is it possible to prove their absence.

Any one of these facts can inspire a line of debate that becomes myopic, and dismissive of all the other facts of the case. Yes, Garner was technically resisting arrest, and that has caused a few to declare that he got what was coming to him; but what if that 90 year old pastor feeding the homeless in Florida had similarly resisted his arrest? Would anyone have felt it justified to take him down with a choke hold? Oh for sure, there are other considerations when the perpetrator is 6′ 4″ and nearly 400 lbs., but the condensed version is that a man was being arrested for selling loose cigarettes on the street thereby depriving New York State of tax revenue, he unwisely chose not to cooperate with the arrest, police deemed it necessary to force him to the ground, and this takedown resulted in his death. We can point the finger at Mr. Garner, he clearly made some bad decisions and permitted his fear and frustration to make a bad situation worse. We can blame the police officers who certainly seemed to use more force than was needed for the situation. I’m not exactly sure why selling loose cigarettes warranted the presence of five police officers, and later in the video at least ten; mention was made in the video of a fight that Mr. Garner had helped to break up, so possibly that is why so many officers were present. Be that as it may, I can tell you, having taught physical management techniques, five people, certainly five fit men should be able to easily and safely take down even a large man without the use of dangerous holds. From the video though, it appeared that one officer was doing most of the “heavy lifting”, and that the hold was intended as much to punish the perpetrator for his belligerence as to control him (IMHO, remember!). The takedown was awkward and the subsequent pushing of his face into the pavement was certainly not required with that level of police presence, unless of course you feel that some level of gratuitous violence is acceptable or advantageous when dealing with a resistant perp.

Since the Rodney King incident I have always thought it odd how police handle this type of situation. It’s hard to believe that rolling around on the ground with guns strapped to your belt, or hitting the perp with batons are the best ideas we can come up with. There’s always a degree of violence involved with physically forcing an individual to be compliant, but there are techniques used by mental health professionals intended to de-escalate the crisis, while still protecting all involved, that might have applications in law enforcement situations. We can get bears out of trees in the suburbs without hurting the bear or the suburbanites; it would seem as though we could create equipment and techniques more effective than scuffling and choke holds. Imagine if we dealt with the bear this way!

It is unfortunate that every time a black man ends up on the wrong side of a law enforcement crisis that charges of racism are the default position of leaders such as Al Sharpton and Mayor DiBlasio. It becomes like the boy who cried wolf; you’re wrong so often that no one will pay any attention when you are right. You can get involved in an argument so subjective that it can never be settled, and in so doing you obscure possible points of agreement precluding the cooperation needed to move toward solutions. It’s hard to base policy on paranoia. If the response to Eric Gardner, or even Michael Brown was wrong, then it was wrong regardless of what color they were. If they had been white, would the grand jury decisions have been deemed just because no racism was involved? If racism can be documented objectively in a case, then that needs to be addressed; but something can be messed up apart from racism, and making that the only issue is putting all your eggs in one very tentative basket.

And that brings us by an admittedly circuitous route to the point I had hoped to make, and that is the apparent absurdity of a father of six dying for selling a cigarette. Yes, he was far from innocent (as are most of us), and he had an extensive history with the law… but “lawbreakers” of his level are anything but uncommon in the inner city, or in the rest of the country for that matter. So rather than dismissing Garner’s fate as we might a notorious criminal or even a thug like Michael Brown, we might well question how a man died in a sequence of events that began with a small transgression. A transgression that would not even be a transgression except for a state that feels entitled to levy regressive taxes that have their greatest effect on our poorest citizens. As long as blacks and latinos make up a disproportionate percentage of our lower economic strata, they will make up a disproportionate percentage of law enforcement situations, because that is where a disproportionate percentage of crime happens. Even if racism were not a factor at all, minorities would still bear the burden of this reality. The weight of laws and regulation is one that weighs more heavily on the poor man. The price of compliance for those who can afford lawyers, accountants, licensed contractors etc. is a nuisance, but not life altering. A poor man faces that price with constant decisions of conscience. Should his kids not have that puppy because he can’t afford the shots and license? How can he drive if he can’t afford the registration? Is it ok to dodge taxes if you need the money to pay your rent? Can I do that small improvement without getting the city involved? Is it ok to sell a little weed so I can afford christmas? How about some loose cigarettes? The answers to these questions are probably the same for the poor man as for his wealthier neighbor, they’re just more difficult decisions for him to make.

IMHO: There is no question that our history of racism has played a role in the difficulties we face in our cities. That being said, the greatest damage done was by people long dead. We can’t bring them back to life to face justice, nor can children and grandchildren be punished for the sins of the fathers. Inasmuch as racism persists, it must be dealt with, it is more inexcusable than ever; it would be best if all races would have finally learned that ugly lesson. The bigger problem we face is with the vestiges of racism. Like as many medieval cures, the remedies we have put forth for these ailments have often caused as much damage as the disease itself.

The situations with Michael Brown and Eric Garner are tragic, but except for the fatal outcomes, they are part of the daily landscape of the cities and poorer areas of the country. The progressive vision of the welfare state has been shortsighted, and failed to recognize that man does not live by bread alone. We have a culture that does little to change any of this, and a government that believes the solution lies in more taxes, more laws, and more police. Given the constant barrage of a combination of poverty, idleness, and disregard for the law, these events become commonplace, and no police force being perfect, bad things will eventually happen. Police aren’t primarily responsible for this. It’s hard to bring order to chaos; hard to serve the public when your government has made them your enemy.

We are a nation of laws; and robberies, rapes, and murder cannot be ignored. But maybe selling loose cigarettes could get by with a warning? I mean, you could call it prosecutorial discretion, I hear that’s cool in law enforcement now. Certainly we should be trying to lighten the burden of government, especially on those already burdened by their station in life. These hardly dare to hope for a better life; they see no way out. Government offers no answers. The degeneration of culture threatens to seal their fate. The burden of the cities is crushing them. They are perhaps not blameless in their plight, but are we so heartless that we can just ignore their waning plea, “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe…”?