Bernie Sanders, Racial Justice and Policing


My sparring partner on Facebook (Neil Shock) and I have exchanged a little on the subject of the ‪#‎BlackLivesMatter‬ protests at a couple of Bernie Sanders’ political events.

Neil directed me to the views of Bernie, on policing and racial justice. I had two separate comments to make. I set ’em out:

“We have communities in this country who feel that the police are going to war on them. You do not correct that imbalance by going to war on the police.

Why is it that almost every American I meet has no concept of the notion of collective policing, as it was originally conceived, namely that policing takes place only with the consent of the community?

If you are one who feels that your community has or should withdraw its consent, then establish a process that re-establishes the notion of consent. Don’t whine. And don’t go to war.

Police are not authorities unto themselves, with whom we need to barter or go to war. They are public employees, who perform only with our consent. And therein lies the solution.

Every single law enforcement agency in this country is beholden to a civilian institution for its funding. And those institutions are run by elected officials.

Make it a condition of voting for a candidate that they will enforce a new social compact with police, who after all are no more and no less than public employees, a new social compact which states that, in return for funds, police must henceforth accept that their rules of engagement and operation are to be drafted and monitored by those elected officials, in conjunction with police and concerned citizens, but no longer by the police on their own.

It really is as simple as that. I call it ‘citizen design of policing’ []. You can call it whatever you like. And operate it in your locale however you like.

The one thing we do not need to do, when a simple approach like this presents itself, is to meet war with war.”


“Bernie Sanders, bless him, is basically a professorial type, gloriously out of water. Give him a chance to get used to this sort of attention, and his responses might improve.

His groupies, the ones doing all the tutting, are looking ahead to the conversation they think they are going to have, the one where they tell Bernie it’s time to grow up, because this is looking serious now.

A conversation in which I hope Bernie limits himself to two words, the first one beginning with f, and the second one ending with the same letter.

Now I used to be a tacky political operator. And if I was advising Bernie, I’d say, don’t mess about, invite BLM to draft your platform on structural racism. With a very specific program as to how to address it.

Make the pledge: you draft it; it ain’t crazy; I get elected; you’ll be given the remit to implement it. Now, put your money where your mouth is.

I personally have very little time for empty words. I believe in doing (cf. citizen design of policing:

The only thing is, I simply do not understand why I, a white, sort of progressive, reformed British Conservative, am the one advancing this concept. Where are the US progressives – white, black or polka dot?

I’ll tell you what I’ve discovered since being in this country. There are too many folks having too much fun saying no. And not enough doing the hard, difficult, unseen job of designing the yes.”

As a consequence of my post, a rather interesting discussion began to develop here.


Achievable Aspiration -v- Misplaced Envy


There was an article in yesterday’s NYTimes which isn’t strictly to do with policing, but it is to do with quality of life in poor neighborhoods, which is tangential. I’ve been thinking long and hard about that article for some twelve hours now. There is something about it which deeply disturbs me.

Why does anyone think they deserve what someone else has, rather than striving to improve their own lot?

I’m about ready to give up on labels. So, I’m not going to try to classify my politics in this post.

But people are not born equal. We have different gifts, different talents, different flaws. I believe in equality of opportunity. But aiming for equality of outcome is an unnatural ambition, which only leads to resentment.

And so it is that I keep reading this article, looking for efforts to improve systemic housing, educational and economic opportunities for those currently in disadvantage. And all I find are people who want to go live with the rich white folk.

Isn’t this just self-defeating?

I really would prefer we try to design policies and programs that are truly color-blind. That work to re-shape communities at risk. With public subsidy where necessary.

But I keep coming up against people who want nothing more than to identify and isolate black people as black people. Black people as much as white folk.

Maybe I suffer from still being an outsider. But, as that outsider, what I see are both black and white straining to maintain segregation.

If you aim for a society that deliberately treats black and white differently, even if the ambition is well-meaning, you merely create a new form of segregation.

The path to true integration lies in creating rules that apply and opportunities that are available equally to all parties.

Wanting what the other person has, leaving your disadvantaged community to go live with the rich people, may serve as a short-term fix. But it actually perpetuates segregation and disadvantage.

Why not instead join forces with your community, create political and economic muscle in numbers, and work for improvement?

Policing: Suppression, De-Escalation, Detention or Release? [Part II]


Reports of a man killing five children and three adults in a home in Houston, Texas once again highlight the other side of the coin in this whole discussion about citizen design of policing.

If citizens are going to be involved in designing the policing approach in their community (, then participant citizens are going to have to consider what sorts of rules of engagement to design for situations like this.

Do you contain or suppress? De-escalate or detain? Hold back, go in? Did police wait too long? Should they have tried to enter before the High Risk Operations Unit arrived?

If we, as citizens, are saying we no longer want police, who are simply public employees, to be making these sorts of decisions on their own. We, as citizens, want to be the ones to write the rules of engagement. Then we have to be prepared to step up to the plate, have the time to think these things through, and then have the courage to stand by our police, if they follow our rules.

Are we ready to do that?

‪#‎BlackLivesMatter‬ ‪#‎MichaelBrown‬ ‪#‎ChristianTaylor‬

Policing: Suppression, De-Escalation, Detention or Release? [Part I]


I hope there is no serious doubt that I personally am doing all that it is possible for one engaged citizen to do to try to improve the relationship between police and citizenry in my community and within the US generally by my advocacy for citizen design of policing [].

But, on this one year anniversary of the shooting of ‪#‎MichaelBrown‬, I find myself utterly perplexed by the incident making headlines this morning, in relation to which a video has been released (‪#‎ChristianTaylor‬).

If this incident, and frankly, so many others, were to be the subject of any process flowing from citizen design of policing, it is my opinion that citizen participants would find themselves facing a very difficult yet pertinent question:

Precisely what rules of engagement do we design for our law enforcers when they are faced with an apparent lawbreaker who allegedly refuses to desist, will not submit to detention and seeks to flee the scene?

Do we instruct our law enforcers to detain at all cost? Or do we design a rule that states that a potential lawbreaker be allowed to go free?

A few side issues. Is anyone seriously suggesting this incident represents profiling or racial bias?

Save for the question of detention -vs- release, is anyone suggesting that the arrival of two police officers equates to an inappropriate display of law enforcement presence?

I say again, this incident just leaves me baffled. Not least because, and not for the first time, the response portrayed in the media seems to bear no relation to facts or resolution, but rather, more to arch political motivation.

Sandra Bland


I sympathize with the Attorney General’s comments on the Sandra Bland case – to an extent. But I also feel that it is time to talk about the anti-societal attitude of all participants in confrontations where law and order is being enforced.

I agree totally with Loretta Lynch when she says the ultimate solution to engendering a situation where a community feels comfortable with the way it is being policed is for there to be input from the community on that policing approach. Hence, my advocacy for citizen design of policing.

Will that require a change in policing approach? Almost certainly. Will it focus on new training with de-escalation a priority? That depends on each community. For there can be no one-size-fits-all solution.

In my hometown of Carrboro, where we are already holding community forums between police, elected officials and citizens, in due course, I will certainly be wanting to discuss de-escalation rules of conduct. But, when I do so, I will emphasize that it is incumbent on all participants to de-escalate.

Just as it is unacceptable to have police act in a manner which makes the community feel uncomfortable, it is unacceptable for individual citizens to act in a way which makes police feel threatened.

At the end of the day, it is for the community to regulate the behavior of its police force, not individual citizens at the moment of law enforcement, whatever the citizen may think.

At that point, it is totally unfair to demand that a police officer make a distinction between someone losing their rag because they don’t like being stopped, and someone who may be about to pull a gun.

There is no doubt that certain police are abusing their authority. That must be controlled. By the community. In the meantime, police, for better or worse, act on behalf of the community.

It is for the community to set rules for, to monitor and to regulate the police. If you have a complaint about police behavior, under citizen design, you will be able to go to a forum, complain, and get the rules changed, if that is what is required.

But even under citizen design, once you have made a police officer aware you believe he is abusing his authority, your recourse will lie with citizen design – after the confrontation. Not during it. At that moment, whether you like it or not, the police officer, acting on behalf of the community, is the arbiter of the situation, not you.

Police Officers Getting Killed

Hayward Police Sergeant Scott Lunger_1437589153371_21895330_ver1.0_640_480

An article from CNN dated July 22, 2015 underlines the flip side of the story about certain police officers being accused of overreacting when faced with a ‘combative’ interaction with a citizen.

Let’s clear some space. Over time, a compact has evolved where society requests of certain of its citizens that they be the ones to enforce our laws and maintain the peace.

The principle has always been that the role of law enforcement occurs only with the consent of society, and that, therefore, society should ultimately control the law enforcement effort.

Has that compact gone astray? Yes. Citizens have forgotten their obligation to monitor law enforcement.

Are certain police officers stepping over the line? Yes. And that needs to be dealt with. By the community, acting together, not by individuals acting as vigilantes.

Yes, there are some police officers abusing their authority. That can and will be dealt with.

But the principle remains the same. Taken as a whole, law enforcement acts with the authority of the community.

When you behave combatively with law enforcement, you are not engaged in some noble crusade against tyranny. You are acting against the community. And more likely than not, you’re doing it for no more noble reason than you are pissed off for being pulled over.

We ask law enforcement to perform a dangerous task on our behalf. When you are on the frontline, it is not easy to tell the difference between a frustrated driver and a potential shooter. Stop making it more difficult for those we ask to protect us.

What we need here is for everyone to grow up. Police to remember they do not have special powers. Individual citizens to make it easier for police to do their job. And communities to step up and do the job of curbing police abuse.

WCHL – 2nd Carrboro Community Forum On Policing

photovisi-download(2) copy

Well. WCHL, Carrboro/Chapel Hill’s News, Talk and Tar Heels radio station, once again invited me to offer a ‘Commentary.’ This time, my reflections on the Carrboro, NC Community Forum on Policing held on June 29. The broadcast went out yesterday. If you missed it, you can hear my dulcet tones here.

Now, bless their eternal hearts. Their heading on the WCHL site is ‘Community policing in Carrboro – It’s a good concept.’ Oh dear. Which only serves to underline how difficult it is to understand a simple concept, sometimes precisely because it is simple.

I am not advocating for community policing. For policing by the community. Policing is a complex undertaking, which requires years of training and experience. No. I am advocating that, in order to be certain that the manner of the policing undertaken has the fullest support of the community, the policing approach itself is designed and monitored jointly by the police and the community they serve.

I am advocating citizen design of policing, not community policing. But. No matter. It will take time for the concept to take hold. If you want to know a tad more about what citizen design is, and why I think it will work, well, listen to the podcast. The text of which is below:

“The Second Carrboro Community Forum on Policing on June 29 was a success. A lot of very different views were expressed. People went away frustrated, anxious and despondent because there was next to no meeting of minds. But they were all determined to come back and continue the process. That was the success.

I was very encouraged that no less than six police officers attended, and almost all contributed. This is good.

It is my opinion that citizen design of policing will only be meaningful if it is an equal and respectful conversation between police, elected officials from their funding agency (the Board of Aldermen) and concerned citizens. And that conversation will only be meaningful if it includes an articulate police presence.

In the meantime, the Carrboro police, if Monday evening was an indication, are worried. And defensive. Not unlike many good police departments across the nation, they feel offended that the years of training and experience and good policing that they feel they can evidence is not immediately, honestly and fully acknowledged and supported.

I, for one, do openly acknowledge the extraordinary, complex and difficult job undertaken by police at the behest of our community. But that is the point, both in Carrboro, and across America, police are public employees undertaking their job at the behest of the community, and with its consent. We are entitled to revisit that behest and that consent.

But how on earth can civilians possibly know what is involved in proper policing? We don’t have to. The only requirement for citizens to discuss the policing approach in their community is how they want to be policed. Period.

But why should citizens design the policy for the police department when they seek no interest in doing so for transport departments or the fire service? Because planning officials don’t carry guns, tasers and handcuffs, that’s why.

What do police get out of this new process? Renewed respect from and the trust of all in the community.

So, to the next steps. Again, speaking personally, I do not want any more forums which are simply show ’n tell sessions with the Police Chief. I want us to start moving towards working agendas, where we all proactively begin the process of reviewing, designing and monitoring policing policy in Carrboro. To that end, I proposed a motion, which received qualified support. And I invited all police officers to vote. They are citizens, too. Never forget that. The motion:

“This meeting of concerned Carrboro citizens believes that, henceforth, policing policy in Carrboro should be designed by the elected officials of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, in conjunction with the Carrboro Police Department, and that such design should take place in an open and transparent manner, involving those concerned Carrboro citizens who wish to participate.”

I will be meeting further with Carrboro Aldermen. I will be advocating for more regular forums, and for agendas to specify policy areas to be discussed.

My friends, this process is going to take time to implement. People are wary. Naturally. But, we’re still talking. And that eventually will lead to the trust that will be required to give meaning to the concept of citizen design of policing.”

[And if you are wondering why the weird pics, well, today would have been the 114th birthday of Eiji Tsuburaya, one of the co-creators of the original Godzilla series. Thought I’d set everything in context … ]

2nd Carrboro, NC Community Forum On Policing – Personal Recap


The Second Carrboro, NC Community Forum on Policing was a success. There. That was the easy part. Now, for the messier part. It was a success because a lot of very different views were expressed. People went away frustrated, anxious and despondent because there was next to no meeting of minds. But they were all determined to come back and continue the process. That was the success.

Anyone who wanted a quick fix was thwarted by the complexity of the human condition. That’s life. And that is precisely why we need to undertake this process here in Carrboro. To build a model that improves the relationship between police and the community going forward. Both in Carrboro, and for America.

It is always difficult to concern oneself with designing a process that appears to deal with apocalypse, when the worst-case scenario isn’t knocking at the door. You plan for doom when the sun is shining. That is the nature of good planning. But it is a tad surreal. And so it was last evening.

This is also why it is terribly important for people to turn up and to stick with the process. And there were too many people who have been loud on this subject who were absent last night. Folks, change takes time and hard work. Not the occasional rant on Facebook.

Now to specifics. I’m not going to try to offer minutes of the evening. But rather, a very personal commentary upon the different points of view I heard expressed.

First, I was very encouraged that no less than six police officers attended, and almost all contributed. This is good.

It is my opinion, as expressed last evening, that, once all the initial posturing is over, and that posturing may take several more meetings to find satisfactory expression, once it is sated, on all sides, these forums, if, as I hope, they become the focus of the discussion on policing in Carrboro, then they will turn to meaningful review and design of policing policy.

That review and design will only be meaningful if it is an equal and respectful conversation between police, elected officials from their funding agency (the Board of Aldermen) and concerned citizens. And that conversation will only be meaningful if it includes an articulate police presence.

The Carrboro police, if last night was an indication, are worried. And defensive. Not unlike many good police departments across the nation, they feel offended that the years of training and experience and good policing that they feel they can evidence is not immediately, honestly and fully acknowledged and supported.

Police Chief Walter Horton at one point asked, rather plaintively, if there was anyone who could explain what his department had done so wrong as to warrant such close and critical examination. When it came my turn to speak, I answered: nothing. That isn’t the point.

The point is that we are all one bullet away from a Ferguson. That this process is not just about Carrboro. It is about building a model in a reasonably successful borough, where the relationship between police and policed is reasonably healthy. Such that the model can provide a precedent for those communities around the nation where there is tension between the police and the policed. While improving the relationship in Carrboro itself.

That, whatever the reason, the improving of that relationship is predicated on the view that, over the years, police and community have become separated. That the police have begun to feel that they are an authority unto themselves. And that, even if, for the most part, that works for now, it is not the model upon which policing was originally predicated.

Namely that the police undertake their mission on behalf of society only with the consent of the people. That in many parts of this country, that consent has been withdrawn, for good reason. That even in Carrboro, there are sections within the community who feel their consent tempered. That this requires an analysis and perhaps a reconstruction of the social compact between police and policed. And the first step is to re-iterate the subordination of police to the citizenry. A step which necessarily might grate with many police officers, who have acted without review for so long.

Do we say, tough, suck it up? No. That would be the response of an irresponsible and ungrateful community. We stick to our guns. But with magnanimity to accompany the firmness. And demonstrate understanding that it will take time for the police to learn to trust those civilians who would wish to exercise control over the police.

There were some last evening who wondered why there was this all-fired interest to have civilians become involved in designing police policy? How on earth could civilians possibly know what was involved in proper policing?

My input was this: as a community, we ask certain of our citizens to take on an onerous and dangerous task that I would not choose to undertake. To protect us. To enforce our laws. To maintain the order we demand. They have my respect for the job they do.

But it is a job. They are employees of a government department. Beholden to elected officials. Who are the servants of the public. Who are the bosses of all police officers. The police perform a service on behalf of the people they perform it upon. Those people are entitled to set the rules. And they need no specialized knowledge beyond knowing how they want to be policed. Period.

Why should citizens design the policy for the police department when they seek no interest in doing so for transport departments or the fire service, as one lady anxiously asked last evening? Because those folks do not have the right to put me in handcuffs or to shoot me. That’s why.

Do I want my police to be any less trained? No. Any less dedicated? No. Any the less interested in treating their career as a vocation, not just a wage? Heck no. But. At the end of the day. The police have each chosen to dedicate themselves to a profession which, ultimately, exists only if the public say so.

The public have become concerned. They are quite rightfully trying to find a way to overcome their concern. They are attempting to do so in conjunction with the police. But the police do not have a veto. Excellence in training and years of service will not of themselves serve as remedy, although they are a prerequisite for execution of the remedy. And Coffee Time With Constabulary is not the answer.

Chief Horton expressed concern that this new complex interactive approach to policing will require more personnel and resources. Yes it will. And those who demand the new policing approach are going to have to expect their taxes to rise. Period.

But it will require something much more. It will require a sea change in culture. Among police officers. And among those in the community who are currently expressing concern. For when this conversation has advanced. When there is truly a process where all can participate in designing and monitoring the police approach, then those who have expressed concern will need to step up and become active partners with the police in advocating for full respect for those the community have asked to enforce the law.

I raised this in conversation with two police officers after the meeting. It was nigh on impossible for every single speaker to express all their concerns in several minutes of input. Myself included.

All they likely heard from me was: blah, blah, police on a leash. I wanted to share with them my vision for several years down the road. When police officers, attending in civvies, would sit around a table with citizens and elected officials, and in a relaxed fashion, tweak this or that policy.

Where the police would no longer be required to defend their position. Where civilian members of a process demonstrably responsible for police policy design, performance and review would step up and take the flack for any consequences of police faithfully following policies designed by civilians in the main.

This I said was the pay-off for police of the renewed social compact between police and policed: the community would be comfortable with their police, and the police would be protected by their community.

Not sure those officers saw my vision. Not surprising. Again, this will take years of unraveling of current misconceptions to achieve.

Most probably, those officers did not see the vision as clearly as I do because of the experience of many in the audience last evening maintaining that the primary problem with policing, in Carrboro and elsewhere, is racism.

I do not denigrate their stance. I can not minimize their experience. For it is not mine. It is theirs. Maybe seminar after seminar on implicit bias will help. Maybe rigorous training will make things better. But I have a concern. It is mine. It may provoke an antipathetic reaction. So be it.

We engage police to police. Not to be agents of socio-economic change. I want us to reach a point where there are clear rules of engagement. With all citizens. On an equal basis. I hold the very firm view that, if there are clear rules, laid down by citizens, for interaction with citizens, if those rules are enforced, then ultimately, the color of the other participant becomes moot.

Does this mean that there are not police officers with an unacceptable attitude? No. But with civilians taking the prime role in designing and monitoring, it means that the behavior resulting from that attitude can be reviewed and disciplined. The focus is on the behavior not the attitude.

Does this preclude relying on a police officer’s discretion? No. Just as you can not legislate a person’s feelings or attitude, you can not design a rule for every last second of interaction. You have to rely on a police officer’s discretion ultimately.

When, asked a police officer of me last evening, when do/will the public allow discretion? When we trust you again, came my response. When will that be? When we know you better. Really? Really.

But there is a flip side to this. And it needs to be addressed. There were folks at the forum last evening with reams of data relating to race. I may have used a cuss word in front of a police officer when describing data after the meeting.

We can set up conversation. We can design rules. We can implement review and monitoring. We can increase resources for improved policing up the wazoo. But nothing we do with police can change socio-economic reality. And we can not, absolutely can not ask police officers to demonstrate differing policing approaches to similar situations simply because they perceive a different socio-economic group standing in front of them. Down that path lies chaos.

We can only ask our police officers to follow the rules we have written, without any special favor being shown to anyone. That is how you make policing color-blind.

We can have, and should have, lengthy discussions about income disparity. How whites are richer. And blacks are poorer. How rich whites can do things away from the gaze of police, because they have a large house in five acres of ground. How poorer folks have to undertake the same activity, in full sight of passing police officers, on the balcony of their small apartment, in a low income neighborhood. How this likely leads to a higher reported rate of crime in low income as opposed to high income neighborhoods. How this sucks. How this likely leads to a situation where police, targeting areas of perceived high rates of reported crime, may end up spending more time in areas of low income, which exacerbates the problem of high rates of reported crime and arrest in those low income neighborhoods.

Should there be a discussion about policing in low income neighborhoods? Yes. Should it lead to a change in police tactics? That is a matter for democratic decision, which democratic decision I will not pre-empt. But we can not currently expect our police to exercise that judgment. That’s not fair. And again, it is why we need this process. Civilians enact the policy. In conjunction with the police. So that the police can confirm the policy is enforceable. At which point, it is the community which takes the flack for enforcing the policy, not the police. Subject to that community having the proactive right to monitor and discipline police for misbehavior and breach of the agreed policy. And all community leaders will need to be prepared to support the police in enforcing a policy those community leaders have had a hand in effecting.

And that means those same community leaders, all of us, turning around and making quite clear that everyone in the community obeys the law, everyone in the community respects the manner of enforcement of the law, when the manner of that enforcement has been designed by the community.

No more screaming at police officers in parking lots. If you have a legitimate beef, and there is a legitimate community forum for policing design, calmly bring your beef to the forum. This process is not and can not be an excuse for people to break the law. And it can not be an agent for socio-economic change, or a shield for the inadequacies of socio-economic inequities. Those are matters for a different forum.

Phew. Yes. It was that kind of meeting last night!

We ended the evening with discussion of next steps. I wanted to make sure that we didn’t just disintegrate into never-ending chit-chat. I wanted there to be progress. That requires purpose. I proposed my motion to give context to that purpose. It was non-binding. We were running out of time. Folks were exhausted. But they listened. They heard. And there was a vote of sorts. And it didn’t fail:

“This meeting of concerned Carrboro citizens believes that, henceforth, policing policy in Carrboro should be designed by the elected officials of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, in conjunction with the Carrboro Police Department, and that such design should take place in an open and transparent manner, involving those concerned Carrboro citizens who wish to participate.”

Which is not to say it passed overwhelmingly. But that it made people think. We will revisit regularly. Meanwhile some people wanted to get more specific, and spoke of a civilian oversight board. I have a problem with that, on two counts.

We are at an early stage. I think we want a conversation to develop into a process, before we discuss specific structure. My motion stands. It had more support than detraction. I will keep it in front of people as an ambition. Let’s see where it goes.

Secondly, existing civilian oversight boards have a specific profile which is not what I think the current situation requires. I do not want a disciplinary board. Or an advisory board. Or a reactive board. I want police, elected officials and citizens to meet regularly, proactively to design what police can and will do. I think that is how you avoid bad interaction. Not by reviewing it afterwards.

Bottom line? It would have been wonderful if, at one meeting, all the various hundreds of individual interactions between police and citizens over the years could have found instant satisfaction in one expression of common interest in one motion. But that isn’t how complex human interaction works.

What we have at the moment is the apparent willingness of citizens (including the police) to sit down with each other, and talk, and explore. It will take time for the very different outlooks and experiences in that gathering to feel that they have fully expressed their concerns, feel that they have been understood, and then feel confident enough to reach out and see someone else’s point of view.

Only at that point will the gatherings evolve into meaningful conversation. And from there, into a stumbling, entwined, messy advance into some sort of coherent consensual process for designing and monitoring policing policy, that offers support to the police, and comfort to those policed.

People. This is going to take time. What it needs more than time is your active participation. I spoke with a couple of Aldermen after the forum. We will be meeting to discuss how to keep things moving along. I am especially concerned, as I mentioned at the forum itself, that these forums are held more regularly, and that they become the focal point for citizen review of policing in Carrboro, for open discussion between police, elected officials and citizens, and ultimately the primary platform for policing design and monitoring. I will be raising all this in those meetings. And I will be letting everyone know about those meetings, because I remain dedicated to keeping this process – all of it – open, transparent and accessible.

Second Carrboro, NC Community Forum On Policing


Yes, folks. After six months of waiting, it is finally here. The Second Carrboro, NC Community Forum on Policing, being hosted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and Chief of Police, Walter Horton, this coming Monday, at the Carrboro Town Hall, beginning at 7.00pm.

I will, at that forum, be proposing that Carrboro adopt the concept of ‘citizen design of policing.’ Ok. By the stages. What is citizen design of policing?

Very simple. It arises from the belief that, even if your own community is an oasis of calm, there are communities in this country where there is deep distrust between police and those they are policing. The notion is that the distrust might end if it is citizens who design policing methods, not police on their own.

How does this work. Again, very simple. People forget that police are employees of the agency funding them. You demand of the elected officials of that funding agency that they start to take the lead in designing policing policy, not leaving it to the police themselves. And you make the design process open and transparent and totally accessible to concerned citizens, so that aggrieved citizens have the opportunity, not merely to complain, but to design away those aspects of policing they do not like.

Will it work. Who knows? What I do know is that it won’t even get a chance if you don’t turn up.

Why Carrboro? Not because it is a hotbed of tension. Precisely because it is not – even if there are some difficulties. Better to implement and test the process in a small, friendly community, so that it can then be available for those larger communities more at risk.

But once again, we can’t design that template if you don’t turn up. As some of you may know, I have been trying to lay the groundwork these past several months, by advocating, blogging, explaining and meeting with Carrboro Aldermen and other concerned groups. I have now followed up with an e-mail dealing with the logistical nitty-gritty of next Monday. Tucked away in that e-mail, you will also find useful links to all that groundwork, explaining, advocacy, etc., for more background information:

“Dear Carrboro Board of Aldermen and Chief Horton,

I do not think I need to re-canvass here what is citizen design of policing, and why I think it is urgent that we move towards such a concept with our policing in Carrboro, not just for Carrboro, but as a part of our nation, where there is considerable tension between the police and community, even if that tension does not exist in our community. You can remind yourself of a summary of my thinking with this link:

I have discussed, both in meeting and on blogs, how I think this concept might look in its beginning stages:

The purpose of this e-mail is to get down to the nitty-gritty of the second Carrboro community forum on policing next Monday itself. And I think I am not alone in believing that the meeting next Monday should be the beginning of a process. Not a stand-alone event.

I am one person. Owed no particular favors. I have some thoughts. So do other people. But I would hope that the meeting is not too taken up merely with reporting by the Board and the Police Chief. I think folks want interactive involvement.

I would like to suggest the outlines of a working, citizen-oriented agenda. We have brief reports from the Police Chief and the Board on what they have been doing since the first Carrboro community forum on policing. You then invite groups which have been taking an interest to report, also briefly. I know that the local NAACP and Orange County Justice United have certainly been holding meetings. Perhaps get a sense of who else might want to report when those present confirm the agenda at the beginning of the meeting. After that, open the floor. And let those present drive the meeting.

I certainly will wish to have citizen design of policing on the agenda. I have a motion I wish to propose, and will be open to answering questions on the concept and how I see it working.

The final point is that I think it would be useful to have an item at the end of the agenda where the meeting determines what happens next. Once again, my sense is that people want an ongoing process. I think it would be useful if the meeting was given a chance to set a time period for what happens next, when another such meeting should be held, and so on. How we might want future meetings and process to be different. If there is anything specific we might want on the agenda, so that folks have a chance to prepare. And if there are any side issues people might want to be researching or undertaking.

I am happy either for you to propose something like this, or I can propose it from the floor at the start of the meeting.

The motion I will be proposing is s follows:

“This meeting of concerned Carrboro citizens believes that, henceforth, policing policy in Carrboro should be designed by the elected officials of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, in conjunction with the Carrboro Police Department, and that such design should take place in an open and transparent manner, involving those concerned Carrboro citizens who wish to participate.”

It may well be that some folks will want some idea of how I think citizen design might work in its first steps. I refer to that in the second link above. I also set out some thoughts about what I personally might want citizen design to address early on, in this link:

There is one last link which includes some thinking about citizen design, just to round out the information (!):

I look forward to the meeting next /monday, and the beginning of a process which I hope may serve as a successful template for other, more troubled communities in our nation.

All the best,

Eric Garner Revisited


I’m not going to address the circumstances described in this article of what happened during and after Eric Garner’s death. Just the rules of engagement leading up to the chokehold.

I have posted recently about policing approach in the UK. And something beginning to rear its head there is alluded to in this article. Namely that it may be time for citizens to instruct their police to be less aggressive in pursuit of minor crimes.

Of course, step one is to put citizens in charge of designing policing policy. That is much simpler than it sounds. It merely requires that officials elected to the agencies which fund law enforcement grow some big ones and start designing policy for their employees. And that they also allow concerned citizens to be a part of that designing.

Next, it requires that those elected officials and concerned citizens start thinking about all the ways to reduce law infringement and make law enforcement less confrontational, perhaps using the UK as a template.