Police killings result from an institution that promotes violence. These killings are justified by media and shielded from scrutiny. From contributor Zach Jones.
The title is "MNPD Escalates Situations to Violence with Shoot-First Mentality" but the main subject of the article is the interaction between Officer Baker and Ms. Holbert, in which Officer Baker did NOT shoot first.
"He ran the tags on the vehicle Holbert was driving and found that the owner of the vehicle, Demond Buchanan, had warrants out for his arrest." With this information alone it makes sense to me that the car would be searched and that Ms. Holbert would certainly not be allowed to drive the vehicle away. I want the police officers of my city searching for people who have warrants out. I disagree with the framing that Officer Baker inappropriately escalated the situation. If anything, I think he showed restraint by using his taser first. I do not think this case is a good example for your argument.
I don't know if Zach will choose to reply. I want to respond to your arguments and explain why I think this is an example of MNPD's shoot-first mentality, which I see synonymously with Officer Baker's inability or unwillingness to de-escalate the tense situation he was a part of with Nika Holbert.
I do not know why Nika Holbert was not immediately let go by Officer Baker. Demond Buchanan was not in the car. With that information alone I do not understand the grounds for detaining Holbert. Buchanan's warrants were Baker's justification for pulling over Nika Holbert, as best I can tell. The decision to detain her immediately escalated the situation. This is not an argument against the police searching for those who have warrants. It is an argument against detaining those of us who don't have warrants.
If you agree, anything beyond this point is an inappropriate escalation of the situation. Even if you don't agree, the next choice by Baker—to search Holbert—makes little sense based on the fact that, again, she is not Buchanan. If you consider this a reasonable search (ie that Baker had probable cause, which can be discretionary for MNPD (an officer claiming to smell marijuana, for example, can be considered probable cause)), Baker's decision to handcuff Holbert without clearly explaining why is a clear example of his escalating the situation. It also introduced physical violence into an otherwise (relatively) calm situation in which Holbert has been compliant with the officer's requests.
Finally, Baker decided to chase, then tase Holbert for not allowing herself to be handcuffed. With a basic understanding of each person's power in the situation, it makes no sense for Baker to do either of these things. Where is Holbert going to go? He is a police officer. This was a choice by Baker that sharply escalated the interaction. Holbert was clearly scared at the prospect of being handcuffed without knowing why, likely fearing for her safety, possibly her life, considering the frequency of police violence against black people and racial profiling within MNPD (https://drivingwhileblacknashville.wordpress.com/the-report-6/). To clarify your statement that he "showed restraint by using his taser first," there was, at this point, no reasonable threat facing Officer Baker.
Finally, I do not know who shot first. I don't know that you do, either. I understand that was the statement of MNPD and that statement was reported by news. The MNPD released a video of the altercation. I'm happy to send it to you individually if you can't find it on youtube, but I do not feel comfortable posting it here. It is not clear from this video who shot first. Regardless, the way that Officer Baker escalated this situation is a direct application of his training, MNPD's shoot-first mentality. Again, a mistaken traffic stop resulted in Holbert's death. Baker benefited from a tremendous power imbalance in this situation and, rather than try to de-escalate the situation, Baker reached for his cuffs, then his taser, then his weapon.
Baker's treatment of Nika Holbert is a direct example of MNPD's shoot-first mentality because this mentality defines MNPD's relationship to violence. Being empowered to use violence by the state influences how quickly an officer goes to his handcuffs or his taser, just as it influences how quickly he goes to his handgun. A shoot-first mentality empowers officers to use violence and trains officers that violence, when used, will be justified and protected in nearly any situation. The only counterexamples are the rare instances in which there is accountability for a police officer for inappropriately using violence, like a trial or, rarer, a verdict. This is one reason to pay attention to trials of police officers going on right now across the country.
De-escalating a situation takes tremendous bravery, skill, and empathy. It is more than saying "We got off on the wrong foot." It might involve not pulling a gun even when faced with a gun. I think of de-escalation when I think of public safety. I believe this event is a matter of individuals' civil rights against the state, which has tremendous advantages perpetrating violence against people, especially via law enforcement. This is especially true for people who are not white, who are poor, who might have limited legal recourse or reasons to fear for their lives as a mistaken traffic stop, which they might perceive as unfair, leads to a search, to handcuffs, and to a taser. Thanks for reading and engaging in this conversation.
The title is "MNPD Escalates Situations to Violence with Shoot-First Mentality" but the main subject of the article is the interaction between Officer Baker and Ms. Holbert, in which Officer Baker did NOT shoot first.
"He ran the tags on the vehicle Holbert was driving and found that the owner of the vehicle, Demond Buchanan, had warrants out for his arrest." With this information alone it makes sense to me that the car would be searched and that Ms. Holbert would certainly not be allowed to drive the vehicle away. I want the police officers of my city searching for people who have warrants out. I disagree with the framing that Officer Baker inappropriately escalated the situation. If anything, I think he showed restraint by using his taser first. I do not think this case is a good example for your argument.
Hi Scott—
I don't know if Zach will choose to reply. I want to respond to your arguments and explain why I think this is an example of MNPD's shoot-first mentality, which I see synonymously with Officer Baker's inability or unwillingness to de-escalate the tense situation he was a part of with Nika Holbert.
I do not know why Nika Holbert was not immediately let go by Officer Baker. Demond Buchanan was not in the car. With that information alone I do not understand the grounds for detaining Holbert. Buchanan's warrants were Baker's justification for pulling over Nika Holbert, as best I can tell. The decision to detain her immediately escalated the situation. This is not an argument against the police searching for those who have warrants. It is an argument against detaining those of us who don't have warrants.
If you agree, anything beyond this point is an inappropriate escalation of the situation. Even if you don't agree, the next choice by Baker—to search Holbert—makes little sense based on the fact that, again, she is not Buchanan. If you consider this a reasonable search (ie that Baker had probable cause, which can be discretionary for MNPD (an officer claiming to smell marijuana, for example, can be considered probable cause)), Baker's decision to handcuff Holbert without clearly explaining why is a clear example of his escalating the situation. It also introduced physical violence into an otherwise (relatively) calm situation in which Holbert has been compliant with the officer's requests.
Finally, Baker decided to chase, then tase Holbert for not allowing herself to be handcuffed. With a basic understanding of each person's power in the situation, it makes no sense for Baker to do either of these things. Where is Holbert going to go? He is a police officer. This was a choice by Baker that sharply escalated the interaction. Holbert was clearly scared at the prospect of being handcuffed without knowing why, likely fearing for her safety, possibly her life, considering the frequency of police violence against black people and racial profiling within MNPD (https://drivingwhileblacknashville.wordpress.com/the-report-6/). To clarify your statement that he "showed restraint by using his taser first," there was, at this point, no reasonable threat facing Officer Baker.
Finally, I do not know who shot first. I don't know that you do, either. I understand that was the statement of MNPD and that statement was reported by news. The MNPD released a video of the altercation. I'm happy to send it to you individually if you can't find it on youtube, but I do not feel comfortable posting it here. It is not clear from this video who shot first. Regardless, the way that Officer Baker escalated this situation is a direct application of his training, MNPD's shoot-first mentality. Again, a mistaken traffic stop resulted in Holbert's death. Baker benefited from a tremendous power imbalance in this situation and, rather than try to de-escalate the situation, Baker reached for his cuffs, then his taser, then his weapon.
Baker's treatment of Nika Holbert is a direct example of MNPD's shoot-first mentality because this mentality defines MNPD's relationship to violence. Being empowered to use violence by the state influences how quickly an officer goes to his handcuffs or his taser, just as it influences how quickly he goes to his handgun. A shoot-first mentality empowers officers to use violence and trains officers that violence, when used, will be justified and protected in nearly any situation. The only counterexamples are the rare instances in which there is accountability for a police officer for inappropriately using violence, like a trial or, rarer, a verdict. This is one reason to pay attention to trials of police officers going on right now across the country.
De-escalating a situation takes tremendous bravery, skill, and empathy. It is more than saying "We got off on the wrong foot." It might involve not pulling a gun even when faced with a gun. I think of de-escalation when I think of public safety. I believe this event is a matter of individuals' civil rights against the state, which has tremendous advantages perpetrating violence against people, especially via law enforcement. This is especially true for people who are not white, who are poor, who might have limited legal recourse or reasons to fear for their lives as a mistaken traffic stop, which they might perceive as unfair, leads to a search, to handcuffs, and to a taser. Thanks for reading and engaging in this conversation.