In my last blog entry, I explained how some of the opponents of MCE are claiming that a “whereas” clause in a LULAC resolution quoted in a letter is being taken out of context. The best defense against inability to understand normal grammatical usage of words for these people is that they are deliberately taking it out of context.
Now I’m going to explain another “whereas” clause in the same letter that has drawn heat. Specifically, I have been excoriated for supposedly accusing police officers of being racists since I quoted the resolution language supporting SB 202 in the letter (which expressed the sentiments of the “Same Page Coalition”). Anyway, here’s the contentious paragraph:
And whereas, training in the science and ethics of eyewitness identification procedures can help alleviate wrongful convictions, most of which victimize Latinos, African Americans and other minority groups;
If somebody has actually taken the time to understand the controversy over eyewitness identification procedures they would not consider this a criticism of law enforcement as “racist.” All they’d have to do is attend one of my educational seminars that I’ve done for CALI and the NAACP state conference. What they’d understand is that it doesn’t matter whether or not a police detective is racist or non-racist; it’s the witnesses who are unreliable, especially when it comes to cross-racial identification.
The overwhelming majority of mis-identifications that sent people to prison who were later cleared of wrong-doing by DNA evidence (showing somebody else to be the perpetrator) were African American or Hispanic. A significant number of these identifications were done by witnesses on a cross-racial basis, i.e., Caucasians identifying African Americans. That is a simple fact, just as it is a simple fact that in 50% of the first 179 of 239 DNA exonerations a bad eyewitness identification was the only reason that a person was wrongfully convicted.
It is likely that these convictions could have been avoided if people were properly trained according to the procedures advocated by the National Institute for Justice and the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.
So, how does that clause of the LULAC resolution, which is entirely accurate, somehow justify my supposedly accusing all peace officers of being racists? The only way to rationalize that question is, well, guilty conscience on the part of the persons making the accusations? Ya’ think?