Communication is the Key

Communication is the key

Communication is the key that unlocks the shackles of fear, guilt, hatred, and apathy in our communities.

Although at first, the subject and discussion of communication is quickly identified, categorized, and usually affirmed as understood when stated by an individual or an organization, it is in fact needed by two self-identifying parties such as a police department and a community group.

As a Civil Rights activist, I have often witnessed that when a community feels it has been treated unfairly in some way, an immediate knee-jerk reaction occurs in which communication, regardless of its previous state, will consist more of verbal missiles lobbed by various members of the community. Accusations are made and historical events are recited. Law enforcement generally becomes defensive, while under advice of their city and/or county legal advisors, and denial becomes its position.

The heated debate is, more often then not, reduced to nothing more than accusations that usually cannot be addressed in a forum, if at all, and denial of those accusations results in an involuntary denial of the reassurance previously sought by the community from local law enforcement.

At a recent Modesto National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) meeting, a police officer fielded an accusation of police profiling by saying, "My wife complains of the same thing every time she brings home another speeding ticket." This was said in a "Take my wife, please" humorous manner to make his point of denial to the accusation of prevalent profiling as palatable as he could.

"Is she white?" I asked.

"Yes," he replied, showing me right away that he had not put much thought into a response if the issue were to arise. Nothing more was mentioned for the remainder of the meeting although a few people traded glances as though speaking aloud, "Naturally" or "Typical".

Many of us present that evening would have absolutely loved a statement to the effect, "Yes. I am aware that in a few incidents profiling exists, but I assure you that we, as a department, are taking proactive steps to address them."

But there is no way the officer can say anything like that, especially at an NAACP meeting. He is only authorized to say what he has been instructed to say in response to general questions or statements regarding the conduct of all personnel within the police department.

This is the point at which communication between a community and its local law enforcement begins to break down. It breaks down on the side of the community because many feel that their concerns are invalidated and/or their experiences are dismissed out of hand as though their concerns are not important. This particularly angers parents who feel their children have been mistreated.

Communication breaks down on the side of law enforcement because officers may feel that the community’s concerns place them in a catch-22 type situation; If they admit to any flaws in procedure or problems with any officer, they may inadvertently open themselves up to possible legal problems, or the current forum may escalate to an undesirable state of affairs whether they answer or not.

Though what I have just described is in fact communication, it is strangled before it can benefit either side. An opportunity for growth is missed due to the inability of both sides to sufficiently empathize with the other. The "We’re all in this together" attitude must be addressed and considered before conversation can begin.

Venting, taking opportunities to let one side know how they other feels, may very well be important if not necessary. However, if that is all that occurs, great opportunities for understanding by both parties are missed by all.

To achieve successful communication, either to effectively change the community or to give fair warning against inappropriate actions against the community by local law enforcement, it is absolutely vital to be mindful of ecclesiastical philosophy; i.e. there is a time and place for everything.

Asking questions before meetings is beneficial to success. Questions such as: Who is the real audience? The police or the press? Are there others who may not be sure where you stand? What exactly would you want the police to do? Grant amnesty to a specific group? Practice affirmative action with their arrest and/or stopping procedures? Reduce or increase their presence in specified areas of the community? Usually, it comes down to either modifying procedures or starting or stopping activities. What activities would you like the police to start or stop? Stop daily harassment of homeless persons in a certain area? Start diversity training? Reach out more to the community? How? More importantly perhaps, how does local law enforcement feel about the things you want?

A couple of years ago, I witnessed a pre-teen Chicano child dressed in Converse tennis shoes, baggy pants and sporting a white t-shirt reaching his knees, stopped by police officers working with the Stanislaus County Gang Task Force Unit.

I immediately approached the officer and demanded, "Hey, wait, wait, wait, what’s your probable cause here?"

"He was riding his bicycle in the street," replied the officer, knowing who I was, and pausing for my response rather then ordering me to stand back or walk on, etc.

On this particular street in a desperate area of Modesto, there are no sidewalks, shoulders, or bike lanes. Further, by the child riding his bicycle in the street, moving with traffic, he was still well within his rights and not breaking any laws.

My first thought was to confront the officer, in front of witnesses, with the facts that he did not have probable cause to stop and roust the Chicano child. Instead, it occurred to me that, since the officer had paused, he was ready to listen (to whatever extent) to what I had to say. I had an opportunity to avoid a typical verbal scrimmage and effectively communicate with him as opposed to communicating against him.

I decided to forego my usual combative and often threatening response consisting of an insistence of releasing his subject because he did not, in fact, have probable cause, therefore leaving his circumstances open to criticism as an act of racial/cultural profiling. I let him off the hook and said, "When the neighbors that live around here see you do things like this, they think you’re profiling. They don’t know what your probable cause is."

He then turned and let his subject go, then turned back to me and gruffly asked, "Any more questions?"

I know the officer understood that his probable cause was non-existent and perhaps we were both a bit frustrated after not having expressed what we both wanted to, but I felt that we were all winners, even if by a little, tiny bit. I validated his actions with a reason for my concern. In turn, he listened to what I said, and released the child. Win-Win.

We do not have to accept a point of view, or even believe it, to acknowledge it. Once a side takes the first step to create discussion, real communication can follow, if both sides care enough to express their feelings to each other, no matter what those feelings are. There exists the opportunity for something beautiful and amazing to grow between all persons involved. The ramifications can be miraculous.

Robert Stanford
Airport Neighborhood Activist
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=%22robert+Stanford%22+modesto