Leading from the bottom

 

“The trouble with most of us is that we’d rather be ruined by praise than saved by criticism.” ~ Norman Vincent Peale

The forced resignation of the police chief in San Francisco caused a bit of a stir in law enforcement circles recently. Chief Suhr follows a string of such actions, including the high-profile Superintendent in Chicago, and Chiefs in Baltimore and Ferguson. Chief Suhr and the others had long and distinguished careers by many accounts, and it is not my intention to disparage or throw stones at these men personally. However, it seems painfully obvious that doing business according to the status quo that has existed for decades is no longer working—for cops or the community.

In these contentious times, we need communication and leadership above all else. Policing in a democracy means change will always come as the public’s attitudes change over time. That’s reality. Law enforcement must always be flexible to adapt to those shifts, and leadership is supposed to drive change in a positive way. For instance, the 1966 Miranda ruling radically changed the rules for questioning suspects. No doubt, the chorus of doomsday predictors back then asserted that cops would never get another confession or make another case. Wrong. We worked smarter, adapted and got better at our jobs. We were fast and loose with stop and frisk, touting ever-increasing arrest and ticket numbers, but now we have to refocus on quality not quantity. Changes in pursuit policies and a host of other issues hasn’t ended law enforcement as we know it.

Our current reality is the proliferation of videos in our technology age that can celebrate outstanding police work, but also unfortunately exposes bad police behavior for the entire world to see. It’s not that those minorities of officers weren’t always there in our ranks, it’s just now harder to hide or ignore. That’s where we are today. So, law enforcement leaders have two choices: Rise to the occasion and drive positive change or lash out at anyone remotely questioning procedures and reinforce the status quo. Sadly, too many in leadership positions have chosen the latter.

The law enforcement leaders railing against any suggestion of change are not helping to bridge this divide with the community. I’ve seen these public servants say things like, “cops are afraid to do their jobs”, “cops are in a fetal position”, “cops are going to start sitting under trees”, or really incendiary things like “the mayor has blood on his hands”. Even the FBI Director has inferred that crime is rising because cops feel under attack. I have to shake my head. Some of these same leaders are the ones who sold the myth of statistical utopia, which pitted street officers against the communities they serve to begin with. Yes, these are difficult and stressful times, but fanning the flames and giving excuses to reactionaries who resist any change is not the answer. Lashing out against anyone who questions policing is not the answer. That’s not leadership.

Leadership requires honest self-examination and assessment for growth. Leadership requires that we reach across divides and listen to the communities we serve. Leadership urges the best officers to continue to do their best in spite of the noise around them, by reaffirming support for good work. We can’t partner with citizens if we continue to only look for blame externally rejecting any suggestion of self-critique or improvement. Criminals do kill more black citizens than police ever will. Yes. But that doesn’t excuse any cop from crossing the line. Law enforcement leaders need to re-evaluate and address our own shortcomings, not just whine about exposure of what we’d rather not have the public know. It is a shame that some in high-profile positions take such small-minded and defeatist attitudes. Their public statements pander to the worst behaviors, rather than the highest ideals of our profession. It’s lazy and wrong.

Forget leading from behind, that’s leading from the bottom.

We all want to be seen

A few days ago, I was chatting with a few law enforcement friends about the need for a positive message when debating sensitive subjects and it occurred to me that the larger debate on law enforcement and the community was certainly one of those areas fraught with emotion on both sides. I think that is important for everyone to remember this as these debates rage. Policing is under intense scrutiny and both sides have dug into deep trenches because, quite frankly, the stakes are huge—we’re literally talking about life and death issues all around. I realized that is precisely why a more positive and open-minded dialogue is so very necessary.

Since Ferguson, law enforcement has entered a defensive crouch. Videos continue to surface of alleged officer misconduct, exposing some egregious behavior that cops would rather not have displayed for the world to see. Some tapes have the opposite effect, showing the public the shocking realities of undeniably unprovoked attacks on officers just doing their jobs. What I love the most about this current climate is that increasingly, we are seeing outstanding videos of really excellent officers doing what they do every day: serve their communities with compassion and generosity.

The importance of celebrating those officers cannot be overstated. Somewhere during my career, law enforcement shifted into statistics mode. Numbers ruled and tallies of tickets and arrests became the only standard of measure for an officer’s worth. If the numbers weren’t high enough, the officer was branded a slacker and disciplined. The glaring problem with that approach is that it erodes both public confidence and the officer’s morale. Where a cop might have issued a warning on a traffic stop, he now feels the need to write numerous tickets to boost his numbers and stay on the good side of management. Good community work and problem solving doesn’t fit into that model. It takes time and results are often not quantifiable—at least on a stat sheet or pie chart. Citizens become potential statistics for the officer’s eval and officers become reduced to numbers in the statistical game of politics.

Now that we are struggling with perceptions about law enforcement, suddenly the merits of compassion in service are viewed favorably, rather than dismissed as “soft” like they were too often in days past. This is a good thing. We are human. I would argue our emotion and humanity are the traits that make the best cops. When we see the humanity in the citizens we serve and respond with compassion, we show the strength of humanity that is character. Let’s stop attacking and start seeing each other. No one person is all good or bad. Not cops, not citizens. In all of the noise and fighting, why not use this truth as a starting point for seeing one another? We might be surprised at how that one gesture opens a door for change.

Be safe.

National, military-like standards would help policing

We see the videos popping up more and more, capturing the worst of the police profession. It makes good cops angry and more disturbingly, casts a shadow over the profession, making even the average person wonder about all cops. It’s frustrating, I know. But, instead of getting angry at the person who posted the video, we should be angry at the individual tarnishing our badge, and the system that allows those unworthy personnel to stay too long, by resigning and moving to another jurisdiction. They should not keep their certification. We need higher standards and a commitment to uphold those standards nationwide.

I’m going to say something completely challenging the popular narrative in our culture today. We don’t need less militarization of policing, we need more. Yes, I said more.

Dear, citizen, I hear you yelling, “WTH?” But, before you fly off the handle and your head explodes, please listen. Not bigger, badder guns or armored vehicles. We need more military-like training and streamlined standards. I’ll explain. When you join the Marines, you go to basic training at Parris Island, SC or San Diego, CA. Everybody goes there for training. The same training. There is a standard curriculum and standard requirements in order for you to EARN the right to call yourself a marine. That’s right. EARN the title. In the process you learn what character it takes to be a marine. What’s best about this is that once a marine is forged into the proper mold, now any duty assignment he goes to, his superiors know that he has at least met the minimum criteria for becoming a marine. More importantly, his fellow marines can rest assured of his training in the event they have to cover each others asses in a firefight.

That’s what we need in law enforcement. Standards and continuity. We say we have them, and their are various criminal justice standards organizations, but the truth is they are a patchwork of differing requirements state to state. Training for law enforcement should be standardized nationally. A cop in a small town in Iowa should get the same training as a cop in LA, and held to the same standard of achievement. That way, a cop in a small town in Virginia, who moves to Tampa is truly making a lateral move and can be readily assimilated. As a nation and profession, we have to come to the realization that too often we have been derelict in our duty to ensure only the best wear a badge. An officer’s standing and responsibility in the society requires a higher level of character and physical fitness. Once selected, it is then our duty to ensure rigorous, continued, training, even though that costs money. It’s imperative that we make this change.

Police recruits should EARN the right to hold the title of Police Officer. Exhibit the character required to wear a badge. Too often, we have relinquished law enforcement training to our community colleges and accepted less stringent standards on a daily basis. I’ve heard way too many stories from new officers that half the time instructors didn’t show up or their FTO didn’t do anything but dog a certain intersection for traffic tickets, and consequently they are on the street and don’t know how to handle some basic call. More disturbing is the tendency today in law enforcement to hire experienced officers, without really vetting them. We need look no further than a few current cases in the news. The Tamir Rice shooting and the Floyd Dent excessive force case both feature examples of officers who left their agencies under questionable circumstances and are now in the news again. Raising the standards of law enforcement and making a commitment to one another that those standards will be universal could prevent these and many more cases like them. I mean, how is it that the Tulsa Sheriff can openly say that he has the power to “waive criteria”? And in the past month, NYPD and Philadelphia have openly acknowledged they haven’t been requiring their officers to undergo continuing training in critical areas like defensive tactics. If the first and fourth largest agencies in this country are neglecting training, what does logic say is happening elsewhere? That’s a big problem.

Folks, we have to take a hard look at our professional standards. Raising the bar will benefit every good cop on the streets today. This, in turn, will benefit our communities, and make our cities safer. Most importantly, national standards will begin to restore the public’s faith in law enforcement. If you’re a cop today, you don’t have to be perfect. We know you are human. But as a profession, policing must start striving for a national level of excellence. The time is now.

~Be safe.

Admitting the problem is the first step

At my retirement ceremony, given the opportunity to say a few words, I decided to end on this challenge: To my peers, I said don’t fall into the numbers trap, remember these are people you are serving, not numbers. I turned to the department staff and added: Please don’t forget the officers who work for you are people, not numbers.

A friend of mine asked recently what systemic changes could address the very contentious issues of policing and race in our country today. For me, it has to be reconnecting with people. To be sure, there are dangerous criminals and police officers must be ready to defend themselves, but most people are not. This affects even our interactions with average citizens and victims. We are taught to maintain this “safety distance”, and too often that morphs into a superiority buffer. The compassion I talked about last time dissolves in that defined space.

Early in my career, a homeless man was beaten and robbed. He was upset and desperate to have someone listen to him. In his emotional state, he grabbed my arm, begging me to hear him. My sergeant immediately shoved the man and chastised me for allowing him to touch me. I know he was thinking of safety, but I honestly, to this day, I do not think the man wanted to harm me.

As a new supervisor handling my first citizen complaint, I realized after speaking to the officer and citizen, the officer was wrong. The citizen, a calm, rational woman, wanted the officer to apologize. I asked him to do it. The woman was very satisfied and the complaint was resolved. Soon after, I was shocked when a colleague of mine told me I handled it wrong, saying flatly, “We don’t apologize.”

I’ve thought about this attitude a great deal with the recent scrutiny of law enforcement misconduct. I wonder, what are we so afraid of? Why can’t I do something as humane as giving a victim a hug if the situation warrants? Why is it wrong to simply acknowledge our shortcomings, fix the issues, and apologize, if applicable? I mean, if you and I are friends and I do something to hurt you or make you angry, the only way for us to really get past the harm is for me to acknowledge my actions and apologize. Right? Otherwise, I cannot regain my goodwill with you. It’s a very basic human dynamic. And law enforcement is all about human dynamics.

We are starting to see a change. In the video age, more officer misconduct is exposed, leading to more accountability. It’s a painful, positive step. I take no pleasure in seeing officers charged with felony crimes, but we cannot have a double standard. Most officers have integrity. Human mistakes can be fixed, but the profession loses credibility by ignoring or attempting to excuse those who do not. There are simply too many shocking videos to ignore the problem. Too many of these individuals have checkered histories or been allowed to move from agency to agency. Law enforcement has to own it and take credible steps to fix it.

Good cops should not be sorry to see the bad go. They only make your job harder and you and your peers less safe. Only when the entire police profession is willing to tackle systemic issues, be honest with the public at all times, and purge those who violate the trust of the badge will police be able to begin the process of repairing its crucial relationship with the citizens of our country. As retired NYPD Chief Phillip Banks said last week, “Cops hate two things: The way things are and change.” This change in thinking has to come, and it has to happen sooner than later. We can bridge this credibility gap. Fixing law enforcement’s house does not mean giving in to criminals. Accepting one’s flaws makes you stronger, not weaker. The first step to healing is always admitting the problem.

~Be safe.

Numbers and Compassion Don’t Mix

This week, I read two good perspectives on empathy and policing by retired Chief David Couper and current D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier. Both rightly argued that empathy is something we are often lacking in modern policing—the ability to see things from another’s point of view. Chief Lanier points directly to policies of measuring performance by numbers as the reason for the empathy gap. From a street cop’s perspective, I couldn’t agree more.

When we all started going down the Compstat road, and police administrators started openly advocating treating our profession like a business counting widgets, things slowly began to unravel. Don’t get me wrong, Compstat has its place in identifying crime locations and determining where to put cops to fight that crime, but measuring those cops’ worth based on numbers is a path that soon puts the cops at odds with the entire community. The numbers-only system removes objectivity and most discretion, the two key ingredients in policing with compassion.

A friend of mine worked in a housing project known for notoriously high crime. After a series of shootings and other crimes, he was told to step up patrols in the area. The officer, knowing his zone, took the message to mean, stop the violent crime. He identified the key players, made a few good cases and removed the perpetrators from the neighborhood. At the end of the month, there were no shootings on his watch and crime was half what it had been! He should have gotten a citation for outstanding work, right? No. He was chastised for his lack of tickets and drop in arrests. (He had focused on the main criminals, and ignored minor crime). By policing with more discretion, he garnered greater trust and was able to get valuable information about crime from citizens. But, on the books, he looked like a slacker. Crazy, huh? The truth often is.

Another friend of mine was confronted with a dilemma on a traffic stop years ago. The driver of the car had a terrible driving record and his license was suspended so many times that he was considered a Habitual Traffic Offender, a felony at the time in FL. In this instance, the easiest—and many would say right—thing to do was for her to simply arrest the man and tow his car. But. There was an older woman in the passenger seat. The man bowed his head, telling the officer that his mother’s legs hurt so bad due to a medical condition that he risked going to pick her up to spare her the pain of walking home. My friend, after confirming the man had no other criminal background or warrants beyond the traffic fines, made a decision. She asked the woman if she had a valid license. She did. The officer then looked at the man and said, “I would do anything for my mom. I’m supposed to arrest you, but I’m not. Let your mother drive from here. Take care of your license. If I see you driving in another setting, I will arrest you. Fair?” The man was so grateful, he started to cry.

So, what’s the moral of the story? Technically, should my friend have taken the guy in? Yes. Did it really hurt anything for my friend to let him go? No. Do that guy and his mom now have a different perspective on the police? I’d say yes. In contrast, the officer with no compassion, simply “cuffs and stuffs”, indifferent to a personal story. When citizens become numbers, they cease to be people. Compassion is eliminated. Then, it’s a short jump to mistreatment or worse. For me, empathy and compassion are the two greatest traits of a good cop. In policing, we are too often told that those words equal weakness. That is fundamentally wrong. In fact, police are at their very best when they temper enforcement with compassion. Police leadership has to be bold enough to value empathy in the form of unconventional problem solving that cannot normally be measured like a pile of beans. It will take a little more work, but a community that sees its police as compassionate and just will support its police in times of crisis. Officers on the street are safer when community support is high.

Be safe.

Where are all the witnesses now?

Where are all the witnesses now? Two police officers were standing in front of the Ferguson PD, doing their job, maintaining order during the latest community protest. Out of nowhere, shots rang out from the vicinity of the crowd, striking two officers. One was shot just below his right eye, the bullet lodging behind his right ear. The second was shot in the right shoulder, exiting his back on the right side. By sheer luck or God’s grace they were not killed. Make no mistake that murder was the shooter’s intent. Give credit to the professionalism of the remaining officers that not a shot was fired in return.

But here we are, more than twenty-four hours later and I want to know two things: Where are all the witnesses? Do not tell me nobody saw anything. I’ve heard that tired BS for twenty-five years. Every cop in this country is sick of that excuse. Cops work crime scenes 24/7 where crowds of hundreds all profess ignorance. Except, it seems, when a cop does the shooting. Then, everyone saw it. In my former department, the “community” enabled the murderer of two of our cops to hide among them for nearly a week. Someone in Ferguson–probably more than a few–know who shot those police officers. Where are they? Why aren’t you clamoring for your sixty seconds of fame from the media?

Secondly, community leaders, even you, Mr. Attorney General, where is your responsible leadership? What is necessary right now is a call to identify this shooter and show that you care about true justice. This moment and every moment of violence requires it of good people, if they truly wish to co-exist under the same rule of law. Mr. Holder is getting a lot of press for saying, “This was not someone trying to bring healing to Ferguson. This was a damn punk, a punk who was trying to sow discord.” That’s a great speech line, but what the country needs you to say, sir, is that somebody in Ferguson better give this coward up. Right now. To the protest leaders nationwide, what is required to show your good faith is that every time a trouble maker shoots in a crowd, or hurls rocks, bottles or Molotov cocktails at police officers, then melting back into the “peaceful” crowd, you must push them back out into the open. Identify them as those who are harming your community from inside. They are just as much a part of your problem as any government or law enforcement policy. Those who commit violence in any community should be the enemy of all who want to live in peace.

The City of Ferguson and its police department have been forced to look inwardly to recognize systemic problems. Beyond Ferguson, the conversation has grown nationwide. Law enforcement is undergoing a period of soul searching and adjustment that is needed, and perhaps long overdue. Ferguson has forced out numerous leaders in the name of accountability and the beginnings of reform. For some, nothing will matter, as evidenced by two officers senselessly shot. In the wake of such a violent attack, law enforcement is closing its defensive ranks, and the baby steps of trust between cops and the community in Ferguson have vanished again. What’s been largely missing in this ongoing debate is the hard truth that both sides have to give something. Police cannot turn a blind eye to racist or unlawful behavior in their ranks, but neither can the community. Please, everyone think about this: The bad will always steal the spotlight from the many good. It’s true on both sides. Ferguson terminated its worst offending cops and city officials as a start. Now, it’s your turn, citizens of Ferguson. Turn in this punk who has destroyed the good you’ve tried to do.

When you harbor them in your midst, you lose the credibility. #alllivesmatter

Hands Up But Don’t Lie

The DOJ reports on Ferguson are in. My policy is to read the full accounts prior to commenting, and in this case, I’m very glad I did. The two reports issued by the DOJ offer very different and conflicting images of the August events in Ferguson. As usual, you will never get a clear understanding unless you read BOTH reports in their entirety with an open mind, rather than skimming to find supporting evidence of your own preconceived notions. I watched social media for the past couple days, not surprised that my policing friends view the exoneration of Officer Wilson as proof of policing integrity and media bashing, while my community activist friends seized upon the DOJ’s scathing report on the systemic abuses within Ferguson’s criminal justice system as proof that we don’t need to know whether Michael Brown’s hands were up or he was attacking Officer Wilson because the community is fed up. As a country, we need to read both reports because the truth will never be found inside our own little boxes.

I’m going to start with the DOJ report on Officer Wilson, because I think even now, most press coverage is not fully examining and informing the public of the entire picture. Reports have consistently vilified the officer and the entire law enforcement response with bold, front-page headlines and sensationalism, printing any charge of police brutality as fact. Even now, when the DOJ’s own report largely corroborates Wilson’s testimony by forensic evidence, completely discrediting witnesses that LIED, the best we can get from most of the press is a mumbled mention of witnesses “misstatements”. Why isn’t this a front page headline? Witness lies caused outrage and led to rioting and looting! It seems to me that fair reporting demands at least equal front page coverage.

Most of the uproar and outrage of this incident revolves around a few key assertions:

  1. Michael Brown was stopped by an arrogant officer who told him to get on the sidewalk and became enraged when his “order” wasn’t followed, and consequently, he shot Brown.

Cops know that situations like this do not occur in a vacuum. We hear the description of the incident and understand instinctively that officers’ radio and computer communications are constantly spitting out audio and computerized messages regarding crimes and an alert cop uses them proactively. That’s good policing. The DOJ report confirms this:

“The dispatch recordings and Wilson’s radio transmissions establish that Wilson was aware of the theft and had a description of the suspects as he encountered Brown and Witness 101 [Dorian Johnson]. As Wilson drove toward Brown and Witness 101, he told the two men to walk on the sidewalk. According to Wilson’s statement to prosecutors and investigators, he suspected that Brown and Witness 101 were involved in the incident at Ferguson Market based on the descriptions he heard on the radio and the cigarillos in Brown’s hands. Wilson then called for backup, stating, “Put me on Canfield with two and send me another car.”

  1. Mr. Brown never attacked the officer, only defending himself when the officer grabbed his neck through the open SUV window.

Dorian Johnson, Brown’s companion and fellow robbery suspect that day, made these allegations to various media outlets immediately following the shooting. Additionally, other community “witnesses” came forward to issue similar stories. Again, the DOJ report and physical evidence disproves this:

“Wilson and other witnesses stated that Brown then reached into the SUV through the open driver’s window and punched and grabbed Wilson. This is corroborated by bruising on Wilson’s jaw and scratches on his neck, the presence of Brown’s DNA on Wilson’s collar, shirt, and pants, and Wilson’s DNA on Brown’s palm. While there are other individuals who stated that Wilson reached out of the SUV and grabbed Brown by the neck, prosecutors could not credit their accounts because they were inconsistent with physical and forensic evidence, as detailed throughout this report…Brown then grabbed the weapon and struggled with Wilson to gain control of it. Wilson fired, striking Brown in the hand. Autopsy results and bullet trajectory, skin from Brown’s palm on the outside of the SUV door as well as Brown’s DNA on the inside of the driver’s door corroborate Wilson’s account that during the struggle, Brown used his right hand to grab and attempt to control Wilson’s gun.”

  1. Brown’s hands were up in a surrender posture when shot by Officer Wilson. Here’s the DOJ:

“Witnesses who say so cannot be relied upon in a prosecution because they have given accounts that are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence or are significantly inconsistent with their own prior statements made throughout the investigation. Certain other witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it, despite what they initially reported either to federal or local law enforcement or to the media.”image

  1. The police willfully let Mr. Brown’s body lay in the street for hours, proving that they had no concern for the loss of his [black] life.

Major crime scenes, especially police involved shootings, require detailed and thorough investigations, which take many hours in order to properly catalogue evidence. This does not change based upon the race of the victim. Add the reality of a small police department that relies upon a larger county agency for investigative support, it will take longer for the investigating detectives and crime scene techs to arrive. In Ferguson, the gathering crowd, no doubt fueled by the incendiary, false accusations, became violent. Now the police had to stop investigating in order to defend themselves.. Here’s part of DOJ’s lengthy explanation:

“During that time frame, between about 12:45 p.m. and 1:17 p.m., SLCPD reported gunfire in the area, putting both civilians and officers in danger. As a result, canine officers and additional patrol officers responded to assist with crowd control. SLCPD expanded the perimeter of the crime scene to move the crowd away from Brown’s body in an effort to preserve the crime scene for processing.”

“In this case, crime scene detectives had to stop processing the scene as a result of two more reports of what sounded like automatic weapons gunfire in the area at 1:55 p.m. and 2:11 p.m., as well as some individuals in the crowd encroaching on the crime scene and chanting, “Kill the Police,” as documented by cell phone video. At each of those times, having exhausted their existing resources, SLCPD personnel called emergency codes for additional patrol officers from throughout St. Louis County in increments of twenty-five. Livery drivers sent to transport Brown’s body upon completion of processing arrived at 2:20 p.m. Their customary practice is to wait on scene until the body is ready for transport. However, an SLCPD sergeant briefly stopped them from getting out of their vehicle until the gunfire abated and it was safe for them to do so.”

  1. Authorities released video evidence from the convenience store robbery in order to improperly indict Brown. In fact, protestors and media outlets asserted that the robbery had nothing whatsoever to do with the shooting.

Folks, the robbery had everything to do with the shooting. The robbery set the rest of the events of that day in motion in ways clearly explained above.

Here’s the problem. These false assertions took off and turned into a narrative that still persists today. Those who wish to believe fabricated storyline have openly stated that they are not swayed by physical evidence, including three separate autopsies, and a six month DOJ investigation proving otherwise, even after they themselves demanded this thorough federal review. It’s unfortunate that many in the media and purported leaders of the Black community, confronted with evidence, now say that the facts don’t matter. Systemic bias and oppression is somehow an excuse to lie about what they saw. Make no mistake, those lies directly led to rioting. What’s worse? Nobody is saying one word about charging anyone with a crime. Last time I checked it was a crime to falsify criminal reports, commit perjury, and incite riots. In Mr. Johnson’s case, his involvement in a felony that ultimately led to his friend’s death should earn him a felony murder charge. Where is the media’s outrage that the actions by these individuals resulted in rioting that destroyed the livelihoods of innocent residents in Ferguson and other cities? Where is the community’s outrage?

Last week I talked about integrity in law enforcement. This week I’d like to issue the same challenge to community leaders and the media. Have the courage to stand up for what is right, even if it doesn’t support the “message”. Stop throwing gasoline on problems and try working on real solutions. Black lives matter. Police lives matter. ALL lives matter. But that’s not the point here. How does dangerously embellishing one incident and destroying one officer’s life help further the cause of equality? Hands up, don’t shoot implies that the police are hunting black citizens and shooting them in the street with no provocation. That is not factual. That’s not to say that there are no rogue cops that need to be identified and charged with crimes, if applicable. They do. But, I don’t believe a rallying cry based on a lie helps make things better for community relations. It’s no different than if a cop frames a suspect because he believes the end justifies the means. It doesn’t.

Next week I’ll examine the other DOJ report on the systemic problems in Ferguson with an equally critical eye. Here’s the link to the official DOJ report on the Brown shooting. I hope you will take the time to read with an open mind and heart.

DOJ report on the Michael Brown Shooting