Conversations on stop-and-frisk and the manner in which police interact with communities of color must remain fluid among Philadelphians.
“It never happened before and it won’t happen again,” said a Philadelphian referring to last Friday’s stop-and-frisk town hall that was attended by the Mayor and the Police Commissioner and where emotions ran high to point of, at times, chaos.
Another Philadelphian told me that though the event moved the anti-stop-and-frisk movement to the next level – in terms of putting the controversial policing practice back in the local news cycle and therefore on the minds of more than a million residents – it was, due to it being shut down prematurely as a result of unruliness, a missed opportunity.
I agree with the latter opinion but have found that the former is shared by a majority of those whom I inquired of, which is to say that I spoke to many Philadelphians about the event and though they all had a different perspective on the outcome, the widely held belief was that local government, particularly Mayor Jim Kenney – who in February requested of me to arrange a private meeting with members of the activists community, including those affiliated with #BlackLivesMatter chapters – and Police Commissioner Richard Ross would be unwilling to subject themselves again to a public forum like last Friday’s, which from one viewpoint was inflammatory, disrespectful and disruptive, and from the other was contentious as a result of trauma, anxiety and resistance that had been festering without proper acknowledgment from its catalyst.
The problem, however, with the opinion that the April 29th first-of-a-kind town hall – organized by Techbook Online and P.O.W.E.R – will be a one-off is that it denies the seriousness and urgency of the subject matter for which townspeople last week gathered and implies that the trauma of many will, again, go without proper acknowledgement, thus healing for them will remain out of reach.
The issue of stop-and-frisk – and more largely, policing in black and brown communities – was, is, and will be for some a topic that elicits their strongest reactions, which could be perceived by spectators as either rage or pain. The reason for strong reactions when discussing policing is because, historically, it’s had unintended and unfortunate consequences and it hasn’t always been applied fairly.
One needn’t look far in the past to see an example of unbalanced policing. The first half of 2015 in Philadelphia provides a clear picture of racial disparities as it relates to those stopped by police on the street. The proximity in frequency between racial groups stopped in this city isn’t even close, and a higher level of victimization in black and brown neighborhoods can’t be the simple, singular explanation, though it also can’t be fully dismissed as a factor.
In Mr. Jim Kenney, many Philadelphians saw relief from what they perceived as over-policing. Those townspeople, now of the opinion that a campaign promise was broken, feel betrayed, despite the tangible things Mr. Kenney has done to ensure pedestrian stops are done constitutionally, which includes implementing progressive discipline at the Philadelphia Police Department, which is said to be among the strongest in the nation.
That alone isn’t enough to satisfy some, and there are those who would argue that it shouldn’t be, because stop-and-frisk, moreover, how police sometimes interact with communities of color, is a matter of culture not consequences. In other words, punishing officers after they’ve violated someone’s constitutional rights isn’t the same as setting a tone and creating a culture wherein violating someone’s constitutional rights is seen as a non-option.
There’s also the issue that the police department confirmed that lowering the number of stops per year – there was roughly 200,000 in 2015 – isn’t a priority of reforms, though many critics of stop-and-frisk would contend that the frequency of stops are just as troubling as the absence of reasonable suspicion during a sizable percentage of them. Mayor Kenney defines stop-and-frisk as a pedestrian stop without reasonable suspicion, whereas, others I’ve interviewed define it as the random, arbitrary and frequent stopping of a particular type of person usually in a rough and degrading manner and often without explanation.
The somewhat differing definitions, along with the growing distrust and dissatisfaction of government nationally, are just a couple of reasons why the conversation of stop-and-frisk in particular, and in general the manner in which police interacts with communities of color, has to remain fluid between citizens and officials.
Moving forward, there should be meetings within communities on this issue absent of politicians, a people’s forum to, for example, mobilize to get on the ballot a question regarding raising the standards of pedestrian stops from reasonable suspicion to probable cause. Additionally, there should be meetings among lawmakers and officials absent of the public and the media, to, for example, put together an articulate plan on how they will change the culture of policing and work to mitigate how an officer’s racial bias impacts his/her job.
However, the two parties must, at some point soon, meet again. And in that meeting, it must be acknowledged that, in fact, we’re not two competing parties but rather one city, one Philadelphia, and that government services must and will reflect that value.
Thanks for reading. Until next time, I’m Flood the Drummer® & I’m Drumming for JUSTICE!™