Tonight, on this provocative, incendiary and investigatory episode of Light ‘Em Up.
We return to the scene of the crime! Your response was overwhelmingly favorable regarding our first episode with our special guest, the high-ranking police administrator, so we invited him back to the witness stand for another episode.
With you in mind, we deliver another exclusive, in-depth, behind the scenes, “truth tellin’” session with the Assistant Chief of a small, rural police department in the “Magnolia State”.
To be clear, he's speaking on the promise of his anonymity, identified only by his title. The municipality that he serves has approximately 8,500 people with not a lot of “pass through” traffic in the jurisdiction. It is staffed by approximately 30 accredited officers.
Throughout his dedicated career in law enforcement, he’s always thought critically about racial disparities, especially stemming from his own personal experiences as early back as being a patrolman and from the training he was given.
He researched and authored a rigorous in-depth white paper study entitled: “Seeing Color in Police Discretion”.
His study interrogates the question ultimately of “what kind of a society do we want to live in”? It examines unconscious bias and how it may impact officer discretion and decision making. This analysis forces officers to self-reflect on why they are reacting in the style and manner that they do. This ultimately aides police to sit with and realize the consequences of their actions.
We roll up our sleeves and dig deep on:
♦ Conscious and unconscious bias and we examine how this is more so a human problem and not necessarily solely a law enforcement problem.
♦ How police officers and administrators react to claims like selective enforcement and racial profiling, and he corrects and refocuses our thinking on the fact that racial profiling is pursued under the 14th amendment, not the 4th amendment.
♦His in-depth analysis of several landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases that directly impact upon law enforcement and how it is constitutionally bound to carry out its duties on a daily basis with a focus on:
Whren v US — which held that “Any stop as long as it is based on a valid law or justification is a legal stop even if the reason(s) given for the stop is not the true motivation”. Thus, paving the way for “pretextual stops”.
♦ Terry v Ohio, Delaware v Prouse & Graham v Connor et al.,
♦ The contentious topic of “qualified immunity.”
In 1967, the Supreme Court recognized qualified immunity as a defense to §1983 claims. In 1982, the Supreme Court adopted the current test for the doctrine. Qualified immunity is generally available if the law a government official violated isn't “clearly established.”
From time to time, it is imperative that you pinch yourself —reminding you that this is a high-ranking law enforcement administrator sharing these hard hitting, impacting truths that the majority of officers would stay silent on. He is a man of integrity, and it shows.
Because we think the world of you, our listeners, and you’ve helped us grow to date to 104 countries globally, we’ve included additional in-depth analysis and an expansion of the specific methodology used in the rigorous white paper study for you. You can use this link to access this exclusive, bonus content.
Note well: Email me at prizzo@rpgconsultingltd.com in order to receive a copy of the white paper statistical study. In your request, we ask that you share with us one fact from this specific episode.
Follow our sponsors Newsly & Feedspot here:
All this y mucho, mucho más on this edition of Light ‘Em Up.