Police Accountability and Qualified Immunity

The family of Stephon Clark, a 22-year-old unarmed black man who was shot by Sacramento police, has filed a lawsuit in federal court, denouncing his death as yet one more police-perpetrated murder. The officers were responding to complaints about a car prowler when they fired 20 shots in fewer than five seconds at Clark. Eight bullets struck him, primarily in the back, raising tremendous doubt about the officers’ claims that he was a threat.

The autopsy indicates that Clark lived for three to ten minutes after being shot, which brings up additional concerns about the six minutes it took for him to receive medical treatment. While the case is a horrific but not surprising example of police shooting first and asking questions later— or more accurately, creating narratives later, it is far from guaranteed that the family will receive any kind of recompense from the officers who killed him.

Police have what is known as qualified immunity, which means it is very difficult to win lawsuits against them. The idea of qualified immunity makes a certain sense, as it intended to ensure that police do not have to worry about frivolous lawsuits, but in the last several decades the Supreme Court has expanded its protections so dramatically it is, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor has said, a license to kill and an “absolute shield for law enforcement officers.”

Just this week the Supreme Court ruled on another qualified immunity case, reversing a lower court’s denial of immunity in a case in which an officer shot a woman four times who was not posing a threat to anyone in her yard. Despite her unthreatening behavior toward the officers and her roommate, Sharon Chadwick, who was there, and the account from another officer on site who said he was still trying to use verbal commands to get Hughes to drop the knife, the Court relied on its usual logic to say that no lawsuit could continue. At least in this case Hughes survived, but that Officer Kisela acted rashly in shooting her seems quite clear.

The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983 is a judicial remedy to individuals who suffer deprivations of their constitutional rights. An exception is qualified immunity, which shields state and local law officers from personal financial liability if they acted in an objectively reasonable manner and did not violate clearly established federal law. In an odd piece of what seems little more than literary wrangling, the Court has determined that officers can act unconstitutionally but not violate established constitutional rights, as it is on plaintiff’s to show those “clearly established” rights through, guess what? Previous court decisions. If the Court is unwilling to ever rule that constitutional rights are violated in these excessive force cases, then no one can ever document those decisions to build a case. The Court has not ruled in favor of the plaintiff in more than a decade, despite hearing more than 18 cases related to qualified immunity. More than one-third of the cases resulted in summary reversals, meaning the Court did not even hold a briefing or conduct oral arguments.

The Supreme Court has used qualified immunity to deny damages to an eighth-grade girl who was strip-searched by school officials who thought she had a rogue ibuprofen pill. It denied damages to a man who was held in a maximum-security prison for 16 days and on supervised release for 14 months, without cause for arrest or intent to use him as a material witness. In another case qualified immunity protected officers who engaged in a clearly unconstitutional no-knock home raid. In all these cases, the court stressed that, while the Constitution had indeed been violated, the government officer could not be held liable.

Ending police abuse is going to take continued vigilance and a multi-faceted approach. But one important way to hold police accountable is for citizens to be able to bring and win civil suits. Today, the playing field for doing so is so deeply tilted toward protecting police that there is no semblance of accountability in the legal realm. Congress can and should remove the “clearly established” interpretation of qualified immunity, at a minimum. Police officers cannot continue to be given free rein to harass, assault, wound and kill simply because others before them have gotten away with it.

Laura Finley, Ph.D., teaches in the Barry University Department of Sociology & Criminology and is syndicated by PeaceVoice.

Shame on you, Katy Perry!

I am appalled that pop singer Katy Perry planted an unwanted kiss on an American Idol contestant during her judging duties for the show.

Although the contestant, Benjamin Glaze says he does not consider it to be sexual harassment, by definition it decidedly is. Glaze was even asked if he would have consented if Perry would have sought his permission for the kiss and he said no. Yet radio hosts are giggling about it like nonconsensual kissing is funny. In particular, they are having a good chuckle at Glaze’s comment that he “didn’t like it.” But “It’s Katy Perry!” I keep hearing, as though the fact that she’s a cute celebrity makes any difference.

This all reeks of the double standard that harms both men and women. In this case, the lack of consent for an intimate moment is being trivialized because it was a male on the receiving end. It is also supposedly funny, just like so many popular culture references to men “wanting” to be raped by “hot” women. Neither is good for men, who often struggle to report abuse and assault for fear of stigma. Nor is it good for women to reinforce the notion that unwanted sexual behavior is OK if they do it, or if the person is famous enough.

Still worse is the way the show is glorifying the moment. American Idol promoted it heavily before the show aired, despite Glaze saying he was a bit uncomfortable. Lionel Richie even egged her on as she did it.

I appreciate Glaze’s right to react as he wishes, and he has said he is simply happy for the experience of being on American Idol. Having been grabbed and kissed without my permission, I can say it made me feel dirty and disgusted, angry and sad but the show, its fans, and the trolls on radio, TV and social media who think that makes it all OK are all simply wrong.

It is very definitely not OK. To engage in or condone such a repulsive ratings ploy is no better than to say it was OK for Harvey Weinstein to kiss Cara Delevingne without her consent.

Laura Finley, Ph.D., teaches in the Barry University Department of Sociology & Criminology and is syndicated by PeaceVoice.

Being Too Much!

Some people are just too much, as the story goes or too “extra,” in the parlance of today’s youth. That is, they are more than the status quo can take. They challenge the norms, they are unapologetic, and instead of rejecting it, as is often expected, they remain fiercely committed to their difference. Instead of embracing this attitude, we ridicule and we reject people who are too much.

However, isn’t it precisely those over-the-top people, those creative innovators, those “unruly” people, who are most needed in our world today?

Instead, we minimize, dismiss and marginalize those who don’t fit nicely into our binary definitions of whatever the issue may be. Not skinny? You’re too fat. Too thin? You’re anorexic. Too optimistic? You’re naïve. Too somber? You must be clinically depressed. Ask for what you want? Too pushy. Don’t ask? Not assertive enough.

While this binary-thinking problem afflicts the United States as a whole, it is perhaps most acutely on display when we talk about gender. Women who embrace their sexuality are too slutty. Women who refuse to succumb to prescribed notions for post-40s dress are too old. Women who lead are bossy. During the 2016 presidential campaign— and through all of her previous campaigns— Hillary Clinton was repeatedly described as “shrill” whenever she got animated about a topic. Yet, male candidates often talk loudly (and, as Donald Trump demonstrated during the debates) and over female candidates, this pejorative is not used to describe them.

And, before I am accused of some radical man-hating agenda, I completely acknowledge that women are part of the problem. Writing in Forbes in April 2012, Jenna Goudreau noted how women also find others who are too much to be intimidating. Women who happen to be attractive and also have a successful career and personal life are often persona non grata with other women. Popular culture contributes to this notion that if women with children happen to be successful in any realm outside of motherhood, they are instantly less likeable unless they are that rare breed of super-palatable celebrity moms, like Reese Witherspoon and Jessica Alba. The message is clear: Tone it down, don’t push too much, don’t achieve too much…don’t be too much.

The problem goes beyond a simple narrowness of identity. Rather, this view that anyone who is more than me is to be disregarded or reviled limits much needed social change. As Anne Helen Peterson wrote in her book Too fat, too slutty, too loud, these unruly people are the ones who help chip away at antiquated notions of femininity and masculinity. They challenge stereotypes and shatter glass ceilings. It is not people who play it safe who will be our leaders but those who take risks and persevere through pushbacks.

So, what if instead of making fun of the unruly people who are too-this or too-that, we asked what it is about our culture that bothers us so much about someone who smashes the either/or categorizations? What if we taught our kids that not only are people different from one another in terms of looks, interests and abilities but that success looks differently for everyone? In fact, what if we encouraged— no, really, not just in half-hearted, “be all you can be” mantras— all people to go for it? To pursue with passion what excites them? To wear what pleases them? To use their bodies as they desire?

That’s the kind of world I’m up for.

Laura Finley, Ph.D., teaches in the Barry University Department of Sociology

& Criminology and is syndicated by PeaceVoice.

Losing Lebron: Reflections for peacemakers and educators

As a huge fan of the Miami Heat, my heart was broken twice this summer: First, when the team was overwhelmed by the San Antonio Spurs to lose the 2014 NBA finals, and again when Lebron James announced he is leaving the team to return to his home, Cleveland, to play for the Cavaliers. Despite these disappointments, though, I believe that losing Lebron has much to teach us about dignity in the face of adversity, leadership and forgiveness— all important themes for peacemakers and peace educators.

First, throughout his years in Miami, and in particular during the 2014 NBA finals, Lebron James was the model of nonviolent response during incredibly tough moments. When Indiana Pacer Lance Stephenson tormented James physically and mentally, even at one point blowing in his ear in an attempt to get a rise, James responded by devoting himself to his game, playing harder but not retaliating physically. This is the type of resistance used by famous peacemakers like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.— it is not ignoring the affronts so much as channeling them into even greater commitment to the goal.

Second, Lebron James has modeled leadership on and off of the court. In addition to his obvious prowess with the basketball, he has helped catalyze renewed interest in using sports as a platform to challenge injustice. When African-American teenager Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, James and other Heat players led the way in protesting racial stereotyping and racial profiling by donning hooded sweatshirts while posing for team photos. No athlete was more outspoken in criticizing Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s racism and demanding action by the NBA. Further, James has been an important financial supporter of Boys and Girls Clubs and has contributed more than a million dollars worth of computers and athletic gear to disadvantaged youth through his Lebron James Family Foundation.

Third, Lebron James is demonstrating the importance of forgiveness in his return to Cleveland. When he left in 2010 to play for the Heat, Clevelanders reacted poorly, burning his jerseys in effigy. Cavs owner Dan Gilbert wrote a scathing letter in which he called Lebron “selfish,” “heartless,” and “callous” and referred to the decision as a “cowardly betrayal.” Gilbert guaranteed that his team would win an NBA title before the Heat, which of course did not happen. This letter even stayed on the team’s website for the last four years, only to be removed days before James’ decision to return to the Cavs. Despite this nastiness, however, Lebron James has been nothing but gracious and forgiving as he has explained his decision to return home. In his essay for Sports Illustrated, he commented only on the importance of family and roots, modeling the sort of forgiveness peace educators seek to inculcate.

In sum, I will miss seeing Lebron James in a Heat jersey as much as every other fan of the team. But I admire him for his values, his leadership and the gifts he shared with Miami. And, in another important reminder for peacemakers, I am viewing this change not as abandonment but rather as a chance to rebuild, to grow in a different direction, and to highlight that one individual is not a team.

Laura Finley, Ph.D., teaches in the Barry University Department of Sociology & Criminology and is syndicated by PeaceVoice.