Two hung juries in the span of a month in cases where white cops shot and killed unarmed black men have activists seething and is pushing others over the edge — towards the abyss of considering violent retribution against men and women in blue.
The killings in both cases were caught on video so clearly there can be no doubt or wiggle room, nonetheless white jurors — proving that virulent racial animus towards blacks is still very much alive and well in this country — would not hold white cops accountable for their despicable acts of violence against blacks. This practice of allowing whites to kill blacks at will as long as it’s under the veil of authority has been going on in America for hundreds of years, and many are now saying that it’s past time for it to stop … by any means necessary.
If there was an effective way to stop such killings I’m positive that someone would have put forth the solution by now. However, as long as it’s only “the other guy” that is suffering, there seemingly is no urgency to develop policies that put an end to the murderous behaviors.
On November 12, in the trial of Ray Tensing, an ex-University of Cincinnati cop, the jury failed to reach a verdict after 25 hours of deliberation in the killing of Sam DuBose, a black male who was pulled over for a broken taillight. And on December 5, a mistrial was declared in the case of Michael Slager, a North Charleston cop who was caught on video firing eight times into the back of a fleeing black man, Walter Scott. Scott too was pulled over for a broken taillight.
These two cases, coupled with the acquittals of the cops in the Freddie Gray case in Baltimore, leads some blacks to posit that the criminal justice system in America is broken when it comes to protecting the lives of blacks, and the only method of achieving accountability is via retributive acts — in other words, to start firing back.
With the country making a sharp turn to the right those coming into political power are once again bandying about the battle cry of “law and order,” which street cops might interpret to mean, “Start cracking down on young black males.” The only problem is, some young black males might start “cracking” back.
With the rise of new civil rights organizations such as Black Lives Matter, young blacks are less inclined to merely continue to suffer in silence and some have told me they are getting ready to fire back indiscriminately at police officers, or at least thinking about it strongly.
“We don’t have any choice,” one angry but very focused young black make told me. “If the courts can’t enforce sanctions, if murderous cops continually get off, if there is no accountability, then our lives aren’t worth very much. They’ll gun us down with impunity. We don’t have any choice but to fight back, even if that means we become urban terrorists. A life for a life, blood for blood.”
This kind of thinking chills me to the bone, and while I abhor violence as much as Nelson Mandela and the members of the African National Congress did, at some point the thinking has to be, “How do we preserve black lives?” What does a race of people (whose members are being gunned down at will) do when the law can’t — or won’t — protect its members? If anyone has peaceful solutions I certainly wish they would come forth with them since it’s a matter of life and death — at least for black folks.
From Cool Cleveland correspondent Mansfield B. Frazier mansfieldfATgmail.com. Frazier’s From Behind The Wall: Commentary on Crime, Punishment, Race and the Underclass by a Prison Inmate is available in hardback. Snag your copy and have it signed by the author at http://NeighborhoodSolutionsInc.com
One Response to “MANSFIELD: Blood for Blood”
Robert Rink
I am reflecting on your article, not only in the spirit of non-violence as evidenced in the life of Nelson Mandela, but also in the lives of other non-violent leaders like Martin Luther King, Ghandi and Jesus. In the meantime, I’ll look forward to reading your thoughtful commentaries.