Presidential Debate

Hillary Talks Police Brutality at Debate, Connects Reform to Black-on-Black Violence

Deploys bromides on police training and techniques, but not accountability or transparency.

|

CHINE NOUVELLE/SIPA/Newscom

Asked at last night's presidential debate what she would do to "heal" the racial divide in the country (this may be as close as the nominees get to being asked about police reform at the debates), Hillary Clinton gave an answer that ended up connecting police brutality to black-on-black violence.

"Race remains a significant challenge in our country," Clinton began. "Unfortunately, race still determines too much, often determines where people live, determines what kind of education in their public schools they can get, and, yes, it determines how they're treated in the criminal justice system," pointing to "tragic examples in both Tulsa and Charlotte."

"We have to restore trust between communities and the police," Clinton insisted. "We have to work to make sure that our police are using the best training, the best techniques, that they're well prepared to use force only when necessary."

Clinton did not explain whether she believed the "best training" and the "best techniques" would be propagated at the federal or local level, nor what those things entailed. More importantly, she did not explain how the unspecified "we" would ensure cops only used force when necessary. Such a proposition is nigh impossible without significant reforms to the collective bargaining that permits police unions to extract contract provisions that protect bad cops from accountability.

While the largest police union in the country, the Fraternal Order of Police, endorsed Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton did not even respond to their questionnaire, she gave no indication she is willing to stand up to police unions that Black Lives Matter activists and others have identified as a contributor to a climate where police violence is pervasive. Trump in comments last week, meanwhile, suggested the Tulsa cop who killed Terence Crutcher had "choked" and that such problematic cops did not belong on the force.

Clinton did refer to her criminal justice platform, which mentions bringing "communities and law enforcement" together to set "national guidelines" for use of force, but not what those are, whether they would be voluntary or imposed as requirements for certain federal funding, nor how such guideline would overcome resistance from police unions and union contract provisions and state laws that protect cops who use excessive force. Her platform also mentions "state-of-the-art law enforcement training at every level on issues like use of force, de-escalation, community policing and problem solving, alternatives to incarceration, crisis intervention, and officer safety and wellness." Clinton's criminal justice platform neither incorporates all of the planks of Black Lives Matter's Campaign Zero, a practical set of policies aimed at reducing police violence, nor mentions any mechanisms for instituting accountability for individual police officers to actually abide by any kind of training or guidelines.

After referring to her platform, Clinton turned to praising cops. "But we also have to recognize, in addition to the challenges that we face with policing, there are so many good, brave police officers who equally want reform," Clinton said, ignoring the plethora of anti-reform comments made by police unions, which represent police officers. "So we have to bring communities together in order to begin working on that was a mutual goal," Clinton continued. "And we've got to get guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death of young African-American men, more than the next nine causes put together."

Pointing to black-on-black violence in response to concerns about police violence is old and tired rhetoric usually deployed by police apologists who are not interested in reform. It presents a false equivalence between private violence, whose perpetrators law enforcement tries to bring to justice, and state violence, with generally goes unpunished, and will continue to do so until the privileges granted to cops by state and federal law and union contracts are rolled back. So far, none of these privileges have been addressed by either of the major party candidates nor by most down-ballot major party candidates either.

NEXT: Clemson U. Says Harambe Jokes Are Allowed. It Should Tell Its RAs That.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Every single time we think that the scum in the JournoList can’t sink any lower than they already have, we find out that NBC gave Team Hildog all the questions a week in advance. Absolutely disgusting.

    1. Not to worry, they emailed it to her, so the Russians gave them to Trump a day later.

      1. Ah, Wizard’s Cup rules.

    2. I was just about to ask about your evidence for that claim, but then I looked at the name and realized what a waste of pixels that would be.

      1. is there a list of these names?

        1. Well, start with DD up there, and whoever Tulpa is this week. And always ignore Hugh.

          1. There are the communist, law and order libertarians, socialist, and master troll Robbie Soave.

            I kid Rob, I kid because I love.

  2. She’d shut her stupid yap if one of you commenters would man the fuck up and put your dick in her mouth.

    (I’m trying to craft posts that will be used as exemplars of typical Republican sentiment on left-wing outrage sites)

    1. Yeah. I think you’ve pretty much nailed it.

    2. dicks out for Hillary

  3. Two old white people tut-tutting black on black violence? I can see that without watching that horrible debate.

  4. Hillary talked a lot about “implicit bias” which I’m familiar with from the class I was forced to attend, being an employee of a large corporation.

    The best response would’ve been to force her to admit that she is implicitly biased against black people too. Make her wallow in her whiteness.

    1. Strange that white people who willingly “admit” to racism are still able to get into a spittle-flecked rage against other white people they consider racists.

      Possible reasons:

      “Hey, at least I admit it, unlike Mr ‘mentioning-Harambe-isn’t-racist’ over there. I hate people who are in denial.”

      “I have only a mild case of the racism like all white people, but those white people over there are *really* evil.”

      Or, if they take truth serum:

      “My ‘confession’ was simply a rhetorical device, I don’t actually think I’m a racist – I think I’m a superior type of white person commissioned by God to point out the racism of my opponents.”

      1. I do wonder what line Hillary would take.

        Lester Holt: “So, are you saying then that you too are implicitly biased against black people?”
        Hillary: “Well Lester I think all white people are, which is why I work hard to stay aware of my bias and overcome it.”

        That might be a best-case answer, and yet she is still forced to call all white people racist (which is the *whole point* of implicit bias talk).

        1. It sounds like SJWs who reject the doctrine of original sin are willing to let it in by the backdoor where whitey is concerned.

    2. “The best response would’ve been to force her to admit that she is implicitly biased against black people too.”

      She technically did. She said implicit bias was something EVERYBODY, not just cops, struggled with.

      Two ways to read that:
      -Hillary admitted she has racist biases.
      -Or Hillary Clinton is not human and therefore not a part of “everybody”.

  5. God, Ed is so in the bag for Hillary, this whole site is. Look this critical article didn’t explicitly praise Trump’s greatness (as he’s the only true libertarian on the ballot) nor did he call her Hitlery.

    1. It’s Shitlery, which you would know if you read the real news at Breitbart or Townhall.

      1. As a sincere aside, I read the comment section on Brietbart and am now firmly in favor of a SMOD vote.

  6. Did this post just get disappeared and then reappeared?

    1. Now with 20% MOAR CUCK-FAG /sarc

  7. She’s still far better than Trump on all these issues. I like how she kept it very generic. Vote for her (or Gary if it doesn’t matter) and then downballot libertarians/principled conservatives. Oh there aren’t any? Well who’s fault is that?

    Jill Stein plausibly denies responsibility.

  8. When a cop kills a black man, his first crime is cultural appropriation. /sarc

    1. That’s pretty funny, in a horrible way.

  9. “the best training, the best techniques”

    Trump, is that you?

    1. “You’re gonna love our new techniques, believe me. They will knock you out. I mean, metaphorically.”

  10. race still determines too much, often determines where people live

    Maybe “determine” means something different to me. But this doesn’t seem right.

    1. Hillary still thinks it’s 1940-something before Jim Crow laws were repealed.

      1. How about 1942 – Jim Crow laws for blacks, internment for Japanese-Americans!

        1. (Republicans are soooooo racist)

    2. Maybe “determine” means something different to me. But this doesn’t seem right.

      *golf clap*

    3. Yeah I can’t wait to ask my neighbor from Honduras how he managed to move in to our “white” community (Sykesville, MD ftr). I know that he worked really hard in construction and owns his own company, but how did the title company allow the settlement to go through even though he is Latino?

  11. Bringing up black on black violence to a libertarian critic of police violence doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It does make sense to raise the issue around certain leftists who view police violence as a symptom of institutional racism. The entire national discussion over the use of lethal force has been hijacked by those on the front lines of the culture war. The blue team wants to paint police violence as a symptom of white supremacy, and the right is defending their boys in blue from the most damning of accusations. Every single defect with american policing is taking a back seat to accusations of racism.

    Our police officers aren’t particularly racist. They are unprofessional and unaccountable. Poor policing will have a disparate impact on those people who they encounter the most- black people. Basically the police can be found where the criminals and their victims live. Some of these people die.

    While the culture warriors are fighting over whether or not the police are racists, we’ll see no meaningful reforms. As the left gains ground, the police will throw them a few bones in the form of “sensitivity training,” or the hiring of more black supervisors. Perhaps they will add another level bureaucracy meant to investigate racist cops. What the departments won’t do is demand professionalism out of their officers. Black people will keep dying disproportionately only justifying the left’s belief that racism in police departments is deeply entrenched.

    1. There’s a golden rule: News media is entertainment first, news second.

      There’s been some discussion as to why some ‘close’ cases are pumped up with with narrative when other disturbingly obvious cases are ignored etc., and a lot of it becomes clear when you internalize how much of the news is built around an entertainment narrative.

      The news was reality tv before ‘reality tv’ became a thing.

      The simple, telegenic story is that white cops are racist and targeting young black men on America’s streets. Getting into the weeds and looking at it as a general accountability problem, a large portion of which begins with the Public sector unions, and now things don’t play so well on a 2 minutes television segment.

      You can’t have police reform until you reform the role of the union in modern policing. It will never happen.

      1. And then the people who know how to play up the telegenic narrative get the attention. No one wants to hear some libertarians discussing the deep problems with our laws and law enforcement system. Much easier just to make it about race and nothign else.

  12. RE: Hillary Talks Police Brutality at Debate, Connects Reform to Black-on-Black Violence
    Deploys bromides on police training and techniques, but not accountability or transparency.

    Of course Heil Hitlary doesn’t want accountability or transparency for police agencies.
    How else is she going to get the secret police vote?

  13. Definitely agree that lack of accountability is the #1 problem with police violence, and that unions are nothing but roadblocks, but…

    Isn’t it unfair to counter the hag’s remark about some individual cops wanting reform by pointing to statements from their unions? It’s a closed shop, no? Like saying all Americans want a higher minimum wage because (Future Pres) Hillary* advocates it.

    *based on that shitshow last night

  14. A black man was president for 8 years. A black man and a black woman was the AG. And yet, here we are.

    There’s nothing Clinton can or will do to improve this situation. She’s not the rock star Obama is, and half of her own base is voting for her reluctantly. Most Americans can discern the irony of a Wall Street benefactor (white as white can be) waxing poetics about race.

    This is way beyond people acting against police violence. BLM members and sympathizers have assassinated half a dozen officers or more. The malcontents are resorting to violence first and asking questions later. Crime is rising in big cities.

    I suspect this is a reason why Trump with his “Be safe, vigilant” mantra is still hanging around. At a certain point, the Ron Paul “we created them first” argument just won’t fly. People won’t stand vagrants burning down their communities and seeing the sheepish media try to legitimize them by citing their grievances. Most Americans know that there is no epidemic of police violence in this country. They recognize cops act irresponsible and the system won’t always hold them responsible.

    Statistically, I have a higher chance of getting shot by a random criminal / mass shooter than a cop. And cops probably shoot a thousand people a year. Is there an epidemic of gun violence in this country? I’m always a bit disappointed how Reason sometimes cherry picks odds and perspective.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.