Why It's Difficult to Talk About the Killing of Police Officers

When Ismaayil Brinsley shot to death two New York City police officers, the public conversation immediately merged with the debate about police killings because Brinsley had been upset over Eric Garner’s death at the hands of the NYPD. The debate has dominated my thoughts, but I’ve found it difficult to say anything.

The most obvious thing one might express is sorrow over the deaths of Officers Wenjian Liu and Raphael Ramos and sympathy for their families, but there are two problems with this. The first is that it may sound hollow, like those who always said about Trayvon Martin, “It’s too bad when any life is lost, but drugs, riots, low pants, blah, blah, blah.” These people reduce the dead human being to a preface to what they really care about, which is blaming the victim, denigrating his defenders and defending the murderer. I wouldn’t want to do the same to Liu and Ramos because their lives are no mere preface to whatever narratives I have adopted as a supporter of the protesters.

The other problem is that any statement of sympathy for the NYPD, however obvious or morally just, inevitably plays into the hands of those who have been waiting for their chance to shut down the protest movement. They have had no qualms about using Liu’s and Ramos’s deaths to further attack the Black Lives Matter movement by blaming the protestors for encouraging Brinsley’s actions and by calling for a suspension of the protests. They know very well that once a protest movement dissolves, it rarely comes back anytime soon.

And, of course, one might fight back by saying that Brinsley didn’t represent the protestors: He was a violent man with a criminal record who was disturbed enough to also shoot his ex-girlfriend and leave her to die immediately prior to his ambush on the police. Even claims that recent protests somehow pushed him over the edge are so tenuous that video of protesters chanting “Kill a cop!” had to be faked. But when the debate has been framed as protesters-vs.-police, anything less than police worship can sound like sympathy for the murderer.

Which is exactly what the protests are against.

Even broad statements to the effect that All Lives Matter are no good because they strengthen the appearance that the two putative sides--the police and aggrieved communities--are equal, when they are anything but. Brinsley’s actions were illegal, the police acted to stop him, and police departments have policies for helping the families of fallen officers. By contrast, the system turned its back on Eric Garner’s family and let the killers walk. Teenager Mike Brown’s killer walked. Twelve-year-old Tamir Rice’s killers are on administrative leave. The police dismissed the shooting of Akai Gurley as an accident. John Crawford’s killers walked. News came out this week that Jordan Baker’s killer will walk. And this will continue until--if you care--you despair of it.

But how volubly am I willing to press these points when right now the families of two police officers are grieving their own loss amid a media swirl?

Thus, I’ve found it difficult to say anything about the Brinsley killings. The situation is a perfect example of how speech is imperfect and performative. You intend to say one thing but come across or are received differently. You say one thing, but your words have a different effect, even a contradictory one. Aware of that, the best I can do is offer this post analyzing the complications and hope such a contribution isn’t entirely without value.