Panel votes to suspend Ms. Lawson-Muhammad
Sprout has conducted herself in a calm, professional manner throughout this discussion. Commendable, even. Yet behold the agitated reactions. If sprout’s goal had been to de-escalate the dialogue, she would have been well advised to try a different approach.
I take it that’s the distinction she’s making.
I'm going to quote in full the last paragraph of Sheena Collum's statement. I agree with it 100%.
On a personal note, I ask members of our community to look within themselves and be a part of the healing process and identify constructive ways to move forward together. With every challenge that comes before us, we have a choice of whether to incite division or seek out opportunities to better understand each other and grow stronger. As we set examples for our youth, I hope it is the latter. Our standards must remain high, and accountability can take various forms, whether it be punitive or restorative – the question is which better serves our purposes. The South Orange community, along with our sister town of Maplewood, is known for having hard but much needed conversations about race, intentional integration, implicit bias, community policing, social justice, privilege — and the list continues. These conversations are not easy — and sometimes uncomfortable — but are absolutely necessary. The Village has not been without fault, and while this unfortunate incident has made its way into the court of public opinion, both public and private meetings occur regularly with members of our community who have the courage to share their experiences and work with us to improve public safety operations. These agendas and concerns are often guided by a desire to bring about constructive change for the betterment of all our residents and guests. For that, I am grateful.
I, along with my colleagues on the Board of Trustees, remain committed to partnering and working collaboratively with the community as we move forward.
https://www.tapinto.net/towns/soma/articles/south-orange-village-president-issues-statement-a
DaveSchmidt said:
Sprout has conducted herself in a calm, professional manner throughout this discussion. Commendable, even. Yet behold the agitated reactions. If sprout’s goal had been to de-escalate the dialogue, she would have been well advised to try a different approach.
I take it that’s the distinction she’s making.
Thanks for noticing -- but I think that parallel is lost in the (understandable) emotional commitment to honor officers who don't lose their cool when so many of us probably would.
So for me to say that the officer can and should do better... it seems an unreasonable and insurmountable task. But the reality is that it isn't hard to use de-escalation techniques. It can become natural and automatic with a bit of practice.
And I must confess, to avoid escalation, I resisted the temptation to ask agitated posters:
"Ma'am, do you want me to call you a wambulance?"
sprout said:And I must confess, to avoid escalation, I resisted the temptation to ask agitated posters:
"Ma'am, do you want me to call you a wambulance?"
We think alike.
sprout said:
I guess we run with different crowds.
Maybe you do. After countless conversations on this topic with those steadfastly supporting SLM and others vehemently opposed to her actions that day, I can’t recall anyone— not one single person, including a few whose hyperbolic rantings against PD in SOMA could be said to border on the irrational— who believes that the officer could have done more to deescalate the situation. No one, except you here in this thread. I confess I’m somewhat confounded by this.
That aside, and also setting aside one’s individual views on the situation that morning, the issue of import with the report is on page 29, IMO. I’ve long moved past thinking the event needs to be rehashed again and again and have focused squarely on the BOE and their actions (or lack thereof) subsequently, not least with regard to their communication and representation.
DaveSchmidt said:
The School Ethics Commission website lists eight members, with one vacancy. (It's dated 2017, but the only term that would have expired is Robert Bender's, and he remains the chairman.)
All are men. None of the seven whose photos I found online appear to be black.
Discuss.
(Hi Dave!)
I almost bit when this was first posted, but.... The last five pages show why I didn't.
But I will say now, Dave's question does address the elephant in the room: race.
The commission showed itself to be ignorant of and/or insensitive to, the racial component of the traffic stop interaction. Much of the discussion here, and in the community at the time of the event has been similar.
I feel this even more strongly since the release of the NJ.com Force Report this past fall, which found our towns to have some of the highest rates of use of force, and racial disparities in the use of force, in the entire state. I attended a meeting with community members and a panel including the reporters and among other things, learned that the "news" was not news to many in our community. Many have had upsetting police encounters, some are seeking redress for excessive force, some are afraid to, many fear the police. This is important local context (in addition to general fears black people may have about the police).
Both town police departments responded with, among other things, promises to increase training, on de-escalation among other things.
I will avoid re-hashing the whole incident, but will suggest that while the officer conducted the stop admirably overall, he did escalate, (invoking stereotypes of out of control, "crazy" black people) when he asked if she needed an ambulance--her angry response was cited in the commission's report.
It also seems to me, that while her statements at the end of the encounter (mentioning Sheena Collum, calling the chief a "skin-head") were unacceptable, those comments have led many to interpret the whole encounter in light of them--essentially running the tape backwards.
If run forwards, there is much more complexity to the interaction and to my eye and ear, Ms L-M was indeed fearful and not devious or ill intentioned.
She is not blameless. The officer was not perfect. And we still have a long way to go in becoming an effectively integrated community.
Yes! Please make this a sanctimonious lecture on police procedure and racism, and not SLM’s arrogant entitlement and Baker’s cronyism despite it being laid bare for all to see!
This is going to make for great television.
If de-escalation is the goal, let's head it off at the pass. I think we aught'a start a "GoF.M." to raise $$$$$$$ to buy boxes of Hershey's Kisses to put in the cop cars.
"Good morning, mam. May I present you with a small token of my appreciation before we commence our business?"
jfburch said:
I feel this even more strongly since the release of the NJ.com Force Report this past fall, which found our towns to have some of the highest rates of use of force, and racial disparities in the use of force, in the entire state. I attended a meeting with community members and a panel including the reporters and among other things, learned that the "news" was not news to many in our community. Many have had upsetting police encounters, some are seeking redress for excessive force, some are afraid to, many fear the police. This is important local context (in addition to general fears black people may have about the police).
Both town police departments responded with, among other things, promises to increase training, on de-escalation among other things.
Have you looked at the raw data from the "force report" which showed a total of SEVEN uses of "force" last year and the reasons for the "force"? There are some that tried to overhype the issue with percentages instead of sharing the actual data and now someone is running for Trustee with this as his primary platform.
Subject having a manic episode, attempted to light apartment on fire Failed to comply,
Attempted motor vehicle theft in progress Aggravated assault on Officers, Resisting arrest,
Fight in progress, hundreds of youths in downtown area Resisting arrest
Disturbance, intoxicated subject, threw bucket of urine on Officer Aggravated assault on Officer, Throwing bodily fluids
Erratic driver, DWI, combative Aggravated assault on Officers, Resisting arrest
Disturbance outside a bar, fight in progress Disorderly conduct, Obstructing
One of the takeaways from the meeting with the panel was that not all uses of force (let alone other problematic encounters) are reported, and that there are no standards for reporting. So we don't know.
One notable example is that the 4th of July incident in Maplewood generated NO reports of force used.
We need to get past arguments, and data, and rules, and definitions, and, like, talk to each other about it.
The subject is SLM’s arrogant rejection of the ethics committee’s judgment against her. In this reaction she’s demonstrated complete consistency with the arrogant entitlement she displayed in opposition to this officer who performed his duties exceptionally well.
And people who try to make this issue about police procedure and racism are just enablers of public corruption in this case.
jburch - You're referring to Maplewood. South Orange isn't perfect, but if you haven't done so I urge you to take a look at the Use of Force Presentation. SO isn't the town that had to fire its Police Chief and a Captain.
How about de-escalation in just four words...." I'm sorry for speeding"...but I guess saying sorry is not in the vocabulary of most individuals today. They drive fast, they drive angry, they're ready to cuss and fight for simple things like someone in front of them not moving at the green light in a nano second at 50 MPH...
I am sure if she had apologized instead of insulting people, she might have just gotten a warning. But people feel powerful when they have some level of authority, just like some bad cops do. But deescalating can start with an apology when you KNOW you have done something wrong.
jfburch said:
I will avoid re-hashing the whole incident, but will suggest that while the officer conducted the stop admirably overall, he did escalate, (invoking stereotypes of out of control, "crazy" black people) when he asked if she needed an ambulance--her angry response was cited in the commission's report.
Oh geez. That is such a reach.
I guess if something (like the S L-M traffic stop) doesn't fit in one's preconceived notions of a racist narrative, one will make it fit.
jfburch said:
We need to get past arguments, and data, and rules, and definitions, and, like, talk to each other about it.
Sure. The Force Report shows the types of horrible things the Police must deal with every day. (how many of us have a bucket of urine thrown at us at work?)
Most Police encounters “go bad” when the suspect runs away or resists. Ms Muhammad could have and still can use her position and this incident to help educate people on how to respect the Police, but she instead has chosen to cry “woe is me” and make it about herself.
cramer said:
sprout - I am not aware of anyone, other than you, who thought Officer Horst could have done more. Given the widespread dissemination of the video, and given the high profile of SLM, that says something for the conduct of Officer Horst.
add me to sprout. I haven't seen the video since just after the incident, but at the time I remember the officer made a comment on the order of -- "do I need to call you an ambulance?" And my reaction was that is seemed sarcastic, and I think it escalated, not de-escalated an incident with a person who was clearly already very upset. He certainly stayed calm and professional throughout, but count me as someone who interpreted his question as a dig that took the incident to another level.
ml1 - I respect your opinion, as I do Dave Schmidt's and sprout's. I didn't have the same reaction, and certainly didn't see it as being sarcastic. At least we agree that Officer Horst remained calm and professional thoughout the incident.
ml1 said:
add me to sprout. I haven't seen the video since just after the incident, but at the time I remember the officer made a comment on the order of -- "do I need to call you an ambulance?" And my reaction was that is seemed sarcastic, and I think it escalated, not de-escalated an incident with a person who was clearly already very upset. He certainly stayed calm and professional throughout, but count me as someone who interpreted his question as a dig that took the incident to another level.
I think it would be a "dig" if said to someone you knew, and who you knew was just very upset and not actually ill. The officer didn't know anything about the individual whom he had stopped for speeding, and it's reasonable to suppose that "call an ambulance" is one of the tools in his toolbox when confronted with the reaction he was seeing.
nohero said:
I think it would be a "dig" if said to someone you knew, and who you knew was just very upset and not actually ill. The officer didn't know anything about the individual whom he had stopped for speeding, and it's reasonable to suppose that "call an ambulance" is one of the tools in his toolbox when confronted with the reaction he was seeing.
I suspect that is correct, particularly since the officer knew that a dash cam was recording the stop. It certainly wasn't being sarcastic.
jfburch said:
(Hi Dave!)
I almost bit when this was first posted, but.... The last five pages show why I didn't.
But I will say now, Dave's question does address the elephant in the room: race.
(Morning, j!)
Shoo, pachyderm. Go away. I don’t believe in you anymore.
There, that should do it.
I wasn’t going to press too hard on my specific observation because I haven’t confirmed the makeup of the School Ethics Commission. Later, I read Lawson-Muhammad’s statement, which said: “The commission members were completely ill suited to judge my fear and the real intentions of my words. They lacked corroborating evidence, expertise and, most especially, personal experience.” She appears to be on the same track. If she stays on it, it will be interesting to see her challenge Fields and any allies he has on the school board to dismiss the possibility of bias, implicit or otherwise, in the commission’s recommendation.
ctrzaska said:
I confess I’m somewhat confounded by this.
(Morning, c!)
I confess to scratching my head a little, too. But credit to sprout: She got even a lunk like me to understand. (Memory as sharp as a tack; cognition like a Post-it note.)
I can see the ambulance question, possibly being interpreted as a dig. In my view the cop was just covering all bases and it's standard operating procedure to ask that question to someone who seems possibly at risk of hyperventilating or something. But, I can see how it can be seen as a dig.
However, even if it was a dig, so what? Is the dig the takeaway from a 10-minute traffic stop in which otherwise the cop acted 100% professionally? Cops aren't customer service reps or concierges or waiters, they're not there to coddle. If a person who was pulled over can't handle being asked if they would like an ambulance, they should go live in a bubble.
nohero said:
ml1 said:I think it would be a "dig" if said to someone you knew, and who you knew was just very upset and not actually ill. The officer didn't know anything about the individual whom he had stopped for speeding, and it's reasonable to suppose that "call an ambulance" is one of the tools in his toolbox when confronted with the reaction he was seeing.
add me to sprout. I haven't seen the video since just after the incident, but at the time I remember the officer made a comment on the order of -- "do I need to call you an ambulance?" And my reaction was that is seemed sarcastic, and I think it escalated, not de-escalated an incident with a person who was clearly already very upset. He certainly stayed calm and professional throughout, but count me as someone who interpreted his question as a dig that took the incident to another level.
If it's a tool from the toolbox, it is one that indicates the officer wasn't really listening to her.
She was expressing that she needed to get her kids to school, and her daughter was going to be late for the PARCC test. The officer's suggestion of calling an ambulance would have the opposite effect of what she was expressing she wanted -- as it would result in greater delay.
So asking if she wanted an ambulance was the opposite of de-escalation -- it indicated he was not listening to her.
Jaytee said: How about de-escalation in just four words...." I'm sorry for speeding"...but I guess saying sorry is not in the vocabulary of most individuals today.
SLM's first sentence included an introduction, which she followed by saying "I'm sorry I was speeding". The officer then agreed and said "You were doing 37 in a 25". SLM then responds "I'm very sorry".
I am sure if she had apologized instead of insulting people, she might have just gotten a warning.
She may have had the same expectation. But it didn't happen. Then she started crying, which didn't result in just-getting-a-warning either.
sprout said:
If it's a tool from the toolbox, it is one that indicates the officer wasn't really listening to her.
She was expressing that she needed to get her kids to school, and her daughter was going to be late for the PARCC test. The officer's suggestion of calling an ambulance would have the opposite effect of what she was expressing she wanted -- as it would result in greater delay.
So asking if she wanted an ambulance was the opposite of de-escalation -- it indicated he was not listening to her.
That was my interpretation. Because I don't believe for one second any reasonable person really thought an EMT was needed. And IIRC, that was in fact the point where the interaction escalated.
DaveSchmidt said:I confess to scratching my head a little, too. But credit to sprout: She got even a lunk like me to understand. (Memory as sharp as a tack; cognition like a Post-it note.)
I think sprout made a valid point. A person of color would have interpreted the question differently and, it may have contributed to escalating SLM irrational behavior. Not blaming the officer, maybe he didn't know how a certain question could trigger a person of color or anyone.
Besides that question, the officer kept his cool during the whole altercation.
No way am I excusing SLM behavior. Personally, I'm surprised she's still on the board. Calling the Police Chief a skinhead, and using her authority to talk her way out of a ticket, is reasoning for her to go and it sure doesn't help her case.
SLM is lucky. Her outcome would have been different had she been in another city/state and the wrong kind of officer who looked for anything to use force. Can I say her name? Sandra Bland.
Smedley said:
I can see the ambulance question, possibly being interpreted as a dig. In my view the cop was just covering all bases and it's standard operating procedure to ask that question to someone who seems possibly at risk of hyperventilating or something. But, I can see how it can be seen as a dig.
However, even if it was a dig, so what? Is the dig the takeaway from a 10-minute traffic stop in which otherwise the cop acted 100% professionally? Cops aren't customer service reps or concierges or waiters, they're not there to coddle. If a person who was pulled over can't handle being asked if they would like an ambulance, they should go live in a bubble.
My daughter suffers from nose bleeds and got a nose bleed at Maplewoodstock a few years back. I was asked by an officer about 5 times if an ambulance was needed. I responded every time that my daughter suffers from nose bleeds and it will stop. So I think it is standard operating procedure.
Rentals
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
sprout - I am not aware of anyone, other than you, who thought Officer Horst could have done more. Given the widespread dissemination of the video, and given the high profile of SLM, that says something for the conduct of Officer Horst.