|
Renfro: OK, talk to me about that area. Is it a high-crime area?
Encinia: That portion of FM 1098 is a high-crime, high-drug area. It’s—with my experience
in that area, I have, in similar situations, with what I’ve seen, I’ve come across drugs,
weapons, and noncompliant individuals.
Encinia then goes on to tell Renfro that he has made multiple arrests for “warrants, drugs, and
numerous weapons, almost [all] within that vicinity.”
Encinia’s official record, however, shows nothing of the sort. Between October 1, 2014, and
the Sandra Bland incident on July 10 of the following year, he stopped twenty-seven motorists
on that mile-long stretch of highway. Six of those were speeding tickets. Those were compulsory
stops: we can assume that any reasonably vigilant police officer, even in the pre–Kansas City
era, would have done the same. But most of the rest are just Encinia on fishing expeditions. In
March 2015 he cited a black male for “failure to drive in a single lane.” Five times he pulled
someone over for violating “FMVSS 571.108,” the section of federal vehicle-safety regulations
governing turn signals, license-plate lighting, and brake lights. The worst thing on the list are two
cases of drunk driving, but let’s keep in mind that this is a road that borders a college campus.
That’s it. FM 1098 is not “a high-crime, high-drug area.” You’d have to go three miles away
to Laurie Lane—a half-mile stretch of trailer homes—to find anything in the vicinity that even
remotely resembles a hot spot.
“Why are you stopping people in places where there’s no crime?” Weisburd says. “That
doesn’t make sense to me.”
Sherman is just as horrified. “At that hour of the day in that location, stopping [Sandra Bland]
for changing lanes is not justifiable,” he said. Even during the initial Kansas City gun experiment
—in a neighborhood a hundred times worse than Prairie View—Sherman said that the special
police officers made their stops solely at night. That’s the only time of day when the crime rate
was high enough to justify aggressive policing. Sandra Bland was pulled over in the middle of
the afternoon.
Brian Encinia may have deliberately exaggerated the dangers of that stretch of road to justify
his treatment of Sandra Bland. It seems just as likely, though, that it simply never occurred to
him to think about crime as something so tightly tied to place. Literary theorists and bridge
engineers and police chiefs struggle with coupling. Why would patrol officers be any different?
So it was that Brian Encinia ended up in a place he should never have been, stopping someone
who should never have been stopped, drawing conclusions that should never have been drawn.
The death of Sandra Bland is what happens when a society does not know how to talk to
strangers.
6.
This has been a book about a conundrum. We have no choice but to talk to strangers, especially
in our modern, borderless world. We aren’t living in villages anymore. Police officers have to
stop people they do not know. Intelligence officers have to deal with deception and uncertainty.
Young people want to go to parties explicitly to meet strangers: that’s part of the thrill of
romantic discovery. Yet at this most necessary of tasks we are inept. We think we can transform
the stranger, without cost or sacrifice, into the familiar and the known, and we can’t. What
should we do?
We could start by no longer penalizing one another for defaulting to truth. If you are a parent
whose child was abused by a stranger—even if you were in the room—that does not make you a
bad parent. And if you are a university president and you do not jump to the worst-case scenario
when given a murky report about one of your employees, that doesn’t make you a criminal. To
assume the best about another is the trait that has created modern society. Those occasions when
our trusting nature gets violated are tragic. But the alternative—to abandon trust as a defense
against predation and deception—is worse.
We should also accept the limits of our ability to decipher strangers. In the interrogation of
KSM, there were two sides. James Mitchell and his colleague Bruce Jessen were driven by the
desire to make KSM talk. On the other side, Charles Morgan worried about the cost of forcing
people to talk: what if in the act of coercing a prisoner to open up, you damaged his memories
and made what he had to say less reliable? Morgan’s more-modest expectations are a good
model for the rest of us. There is no perfect mechanism for the CIA to uncover spies in its midst,
or for investors to spot schemers and frauds, or for any of the rest of us to peer, clairvoyantly,
inside the minds of those we do not know. What is required of us is restraint and humility. We
can put up barriers on bridges to make it more difficult for that momentary impulse to become
permanent. We can instruct young people that the kind of reckless drinking that takes place at a
fraternity party makes the task of reading others all but impossible. There are clues to making
sense of a stranger. But attending to them requires care and attention.
I said at the beginning of this book that I was not willing to put the death of Sandra Bland
aside. I have now watched the videotape of her encounter with Brian Encinia more times than I
can count—and each time I do, I become angrier and angrier over the way the case was
“resolved.” It was turned into something much smaller than it really was: a bad police officer and
an aggrieved young black woman. That’s not what it was. What went wrong that day on FM
1098 in Prairie View, Texas, was a collective failure. Someone wrote a training manual that
foolishly encouraged Brian Encinia to suspect everyone, and he took it to heart. Somebody else
higher up in the chain of command at the Texas Highway Patrol misread the evidence and
thought it was a good idea to have him and his colleagues conduct Kansas City stops in a low-
crime neighborhood. Everyone in his world acted on the presumption that the motorists driving
up and down the streets of their corner of Texas could be identified and categorized on the basis
of the tone of their voice, fidgety movements, and fast-food wrappers. And behind every one of
those ideas are assumptions that too many of us share—and too few of us have ever bothered to
reconsider.
Renfro: OK. If Bland had been a white female, would the same thing have occurred?
It’s the end of the deposition. Encinia and his interrogator are still fruitlessly trying to figure
out what happened that day.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
