Payback

Full page headline in the New York Times, July 9, 2016:

Five Officers Killed As Payback, Chief Says

I know what “payback” means. So do you. Despite the fact that it's not in any of the eight slang dictionaries I consulted, or in several standard dictionaries (including my copy of the OED), the word is in common usage. The few references that do include it define it in a neutral manner as referring to interest on an investment, but the more common use, especially by the non-economists among us, is revenge for a perceived wrong.

In this particular case the “payback” resulted in the shooting deaths of five Dallas police officers and the wounding of seven others. The police were guarding a “Black Lives Matter” rally, and they were targeted because they were white. The killer, who died during the incident, stated that his goal was to kill police, especially white ones. He viewed his act as retaliation for the deaths of blacks by police – which was the reason for the rally in the first place.

There is no possible excuse for an unjustified killing, whether by the police or by a civilian, and they should all be thoroughly investigated with appropriate action taken against the guilty. But the investigation and legal proceedings should precede the punishment. “Vigilante justice” is an oxymoron. It has become common for accusations and insinuations to be aired and spread, and used as justification for additional acts before all the facts are known. Some individuals have a pattern of inciting protest and manipulating hatred because it serves political ends, and truth is not the primary issue. Accusation and conviction have been melded, and they often take precedence over the rule of law.

But “accusation” and “guilt” are not synonyms, notwithstanding the indignation of the protesters. The trials in Baltimore suggest that what appears to be intentional may not be so; and what appear be a result of bias may have other explanations. Fear is not a justification for an “itchy trigger finger,” but police anxiety probably is involved, with the United States Department of Justice reporting that “The offending [homicide] rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites.” (Wikipedia citing DOJ statistics.) Moreover, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 2013 (the last year for which they published those figures online), 2,491 “Black or African American” individuals died as the result of homicides. At least (and that term is used because the race and ethnicity of the killers in some instances wasn't known) 2,245 of the killers were “Black or African American.” I suspect that the numbers this year are not much different. Black lives mattered then, but I don't recall any protests or payback then, or since, when there was no involvement of police. Additionally, there were 3,164 homicide victims who were “White” or “Other race,” as well as 68 for whom race was not listed. Similarly, the response was so muted that I was unaware of it. Their lives didn't matter.

With or without justification, when police are dealing with blacks they are more likely to “shoot first and ask questions afterward.” It's wrong, but it may play a part. As may the use of public media and the misleading of the public about the nature of the events. According to the Washington Times:

more white people died at the hands of law enforcement than those of any other race in the last two years, even as the Justice Department, social-justice groups and media coverage focus on black victims of police force.

And, from the Washington Post,

The black population in America ranged from 11.6 percent to 13 percent between 1980 and 2013. Compared to the percentage in the population, the percentage of black offenders who killed police officers appears to be disproportionately high.

That hardly justifies either additional killings by the police or the use of retaliatory attacks by civilians, but it highlights the existence of a situation that has been misrepresented in order to provoke an atmosphere that justifies “payback” in the minds of too many of those exposed to it. The media say little to add perspective to the situation; they benefit from controversy and conflict. And the use of social media to air one side of a story, with the implication that it is the complete record, is misleading and, at least on the part of the provocateurs, an unforgivable distortion, reflecting a political agenda. That they have recruited large numbers of others, often those who consider themselves liberals, is evidence of the success of their effort.

The indignation on the part of the vast majority of participants is genuine and justified, however, even if it is inconsistent with the full story. It is as genuine as that of Muslims who have been convinced of a conspiracy against them – convinced by their radicalized and prejudiced leaders. And the actions of those who selectively assassinate white police are comparable to those of the angry and believing jihadists who have been taught since childhood that one becomes a martyr by killing Jews – any Jews of any age, awake or asleep, if he dies in the effort.

A problem exists. Neither mob confrontation nor lone wolf action is the solution. Better training of police officers and a return to the rule of law by those who believe injustices have been done are a starting point.

But to solve a problem you must understand the problem. Denial doesn't work, nor does misrepresentation of the full picture. They just make the problem worse.

[This essay was written hurriedly, and some of the sources were not listed. They can be found, however, using Google or another search tool.]