Article: Response-Ability and Andy Lopez
by Christopher Bowers
The mission of Racial Justice Allies of Sonoma County has been to create a space in which white people can explore their social position, work to be better allies to people of color and develop a sense of responsibility for the manifestations of racism.
Responsibility. Response-ability. It begs the question: What kind of response should white people have to the heart-breaking assassination of 13 year-old Andy Lopez?
There is of course no one answer to that question. However, my hope is that the response would create some solidarity with a community of color that has a long history of police harassment and brutality. In mentioning race I may be accused of “playing the race card.” However, in not considering race and the history of race in this community as a significant causal factor to this tragedy, I would being playing a different race card—the white supremacy race card. By not mentioning race, we blind ourselves to a deep and painful reality and in doing so, prevent ourselves from being response-able. Further, in looking at racial implications, as white people we have the opportunity to learn about ourselves and the culture we live in and thus become more capable of acting in solidarity with people of color.
Currently, there are many questions specific to the police shooting of Andy Lopez. Many are asking if the deputy acted out of fear or aggression, why young Andy had such a realistic looking toy gun, why he didn’t put down his gun, etc. These questions may or may not be answered. However, looking at the shooting in the context of U.S. history, and even just Sonoma County history, reveals a pattern that sheds some difficult clarity on the situation at hand. The important questions are questions about a manifestation of a larger disease. The ability to respond effectively requires asking questions about the underlying disease. Some local examples, that are but a few of countless national examples, can help us do this.
Sujey Lopez is not the first mother to be grieving the death her teenage son at the hands of Sonoma County deputies. In March of 2007 Jermiah Chass, a 16 year-old African–American boy with mental health struggles was shot dead by deputies despite being cornered and alone in a mini-van with a knife. Other men of color have also been killed by local law enforcement. A month after Jermiah Chass, Richard DeSantis, and unarmed man with mental health struggles was shot dead in his drive way by SRPD. In 1997 Kuanchung Kao was shot dead by Rohnert Park Police who believed that because he had a broom handle and was Asian that he was experienced in martial arts. And yes, white people too have been killed by local law enforcement. However, a second example illustrates a disturbing discrepancy.
Just two weeks ago a startling incident took place in the upper-class Sonoma County neighborhood of Fountain Grove. A white man named James Carl Provost fired four bullets out his window at his wife and a locksmith. An 11-hour stand off proceeded and eventually he was arrested. Not only was he not shot dead (despite having a REAL gun), he was not even charged with attempted murder. I do not mean to imply that James Provost should have been killed. However, did not his social position as a white, wealthy man possibly save his life? He was given roughly 11 hours to drop his gun. Andy Lopez was given roughly 11 seconds.
The obvious implication is that if you are white you are simply less likely to be killed by law enforcement. There is quantitative and qualitative support for this. Researcher Arlene Eisen in solidarity with the Malcolm X Grassroots Committee created a 2012 report on extrajudicial killings in the black community. In her report Operation Ghetto Storm, she highlights the fact that every 28 hours someone inside the United States, employed or protected by the U.S. government kills a Black child, woman or man. We can also look to the Stolen Lives Project which publishes annual lists and pictures of US Citizens killed by law enforcement. Overwhelmingly these faces are black and brown. The Stolen Lives project is a project of the October 22nd Coalition. October 22nd is the National Day of Protest Against Police Brutality. It is also the day Andy Lopez was killed.
One question being asked is why was Andy was walking around with such a realistic gun? This question implies that Andy was somehow at fault, not so different from a rape victim being asked why she wore such a short skirt. The same system that creates rape culture creates gun culture. And sadly, the same system that killed Andy Lopez blatantly encouraged his interest in guns. In August of 2011 the Sonoma County SWAT team held an event that amounted to a gun show for kids. This took place in South Park, a low-income neighborhood of mostly Latino, Native-American, and African-American families (Press Democrat article). Children of all ages had the chance to pick up and play with unloaded firearms, including assault rifles. One would think in a country in which the right to bear arms is held more sacred than the right to food, health care or education, that Andy would be rewarded for his interest in firearms. While it is not known if Andy himself was there, it doesn’t matter because Andy lived in a culture in which the police encouraged people like him to be interested in firearms, an interest he paid for with his life.
So what does this say about us as white people and our ability to respond? I propose that white privilege makes us white folks unsafe. In viewing communities of color as potential danger (and thus increasing police presence, bias sentencing laws, and inaccurate stereotypes) we scapegoat violence onto those communities. After all, it is usually white men who are the triggermen in school shootings and other mass shootings. As well, most violence committed by Latino or African-American males is committed against someone of their own race. Our white privilege insulates us from response-ability, thus compromising our own humanity. When we do not effectively respond to situations like this we allow these situations to continue. No response is itself a response. If we do not take response-ability for creating a community that is safe from racialized police violence then we perpetuate that violence. If we see ourselves as compassionate and just people but do not act to address the disease, not just the symptoms (that is to say the system and not just the individuals in it), then our humanity and our community are compromised.
What to do? In 2000 the United States Commission on Civil Rights admonished Sonoma County to create an office, independent of the D.A.’s office, to investigate police abuse. This did not happen. It is not a surprise to some that the system again failed to hold itself accountable. Individuals have taken action. Local activists have set up a Police Accountability Helpline (542-7224). As well, Cook Middle School students and other of Andy’s peers are actively organizing a response. We can support these events by attending, spreading the word and talking to those students and asking what they need from us. We can be looking inward at how even our previous responses to police violence have allowed the system to continue. We can do this by questioning the very systems that protect us but harm others—the sheriff, the police, the mental health system, the firearms industry.
Christopher Bowers is a social worker and writer. In 2009 he was the co-founder of Racial Justice Allies of Sonoma County and in 2010 he started Campus Allies for Racial Responsibility at Sonoma State University. He also teaches classes at the East Bay Meditation Center on being mindful and white. He also runs a social blog at www.whitepriv.blogspot.com
Re: Article: Response-Ability and Andy Lopez
Beautifully written and well thought-out, touching very important issues around color blindness and the patterns involved. Thank you!
Quote:
by Christopher Bowers
The mission of Racial Justice Allies of Sonoma County has been to create a space in which white people can explore their social position, work to be better allies to people of color and develop a sense of responsibility for the manifestations of racism.
Responsibility. Response-ability. It begs the question: What kind of response should white people have to the heart-breaking assassination of 13 year-old Andy Lopez?
There is of course no one answer to that question. However, my hope is that the response would create some solidarity with a community of color that has a long history of police harassment and brutality. In mentioning race ...
Re: Article: Response-Ability and Andy Lopez
What happened to Andy Lopez was tragic and avoidable. But I have to take issue with your article as it is furtive in nature.
Everyone involved is a victim here, Andy is dead, the Sheriff is on suicide watch, and the family grieves. While I love the cultural diversity we all enjoy in Sonoma County I do not believe in collective guilt. I believe in personal responsibility and accountability.
Your use of inflammatory language does not help your thesis. "Assassinated" (please look it up.) You mention white guilt in a collective manner. If you have guilt you did something to earn it. If not, you are self loathing. Dad bought Andy a replica AK-47. (personal responsibility)
Andy did not go to the Junior High continuation school we all pay for.(personal responsibility) After the Sandy Hook mass shootings, the Colorado mass shootings, and Fort Hood mass shootings handing Andy a replica AK-47 put Andy on Darwins list. It is 2013 not 1965. He may have been heading to school with a real weapon. The Sheriff did the right thing. We all live and we all die, sometimes our actions move up the timeline. (personal responsibility) No one is a special snowflake. not you, not me, not Andy. Collective guilt and "Responce - Ability" dilute (personal responsibility)
Smith
Re: Article: Response-Ability and Andy Lopez
This article does more to explain people like Eric Gelhaus than any other I've read.
I will not vote for a D. A. or a Sheriff who cover for or attempt to justify the murder of unarmed children.
How America’s Wars Came Home With the Troops
Up Close, Personal, and Bloody
By Ann Jones
TomDispatch.com
April 19, 2014
After an argument about a leave denied, Specialist Ivan Lopez pulled out a .45-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun and began a shooting spree at Fort Hood, America’s biggest stateside base, that left three soldiers dead and 16 wounded. When he did so, he also pulled America’s fading wars out of the closet. This time, a Fort Hood mass killing, the second in four and a half years, was committed by a man who was neither a religious nor a political “extremist.” He seems to have been merely one of America’s injured and troubled veterans who now number in the hundreds of thousands.
Some 2.6 million men and women have been dispatched, often repeatedly, to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and according to a recent survey of veterans of those wars conducted by the Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation, nearly one-third say that their mental health is worse than it was before they left, and nearly half say the same of their physical condition. Almost half say they give way to sudden outbursts of anger. Only 12% of the surveyed veterans claim they are now “better” mentally or physically than they were before they went to war.
The media coverage that followed Lopez’s rampage was, of course, 24/7 and there was much discussion of PTSD, the all-purpose (if little understood) label now used to explain just about anything unpleasant that happens to or is caused by current or former military men and women. Amid the barrage of coverage, however, something was missing: evidence that has been in plain sight for years of how the violence of America’s distant wars comes back to haunt the “homeland” as the troops return. In that context, Lopez’s killings, while on a scale not often matched, are one more marker on a bloody trail of death that leads from Iraq and Afghanistan into the American heartland, to bases and backyards nationwide. It’s a story with a body count that should not be ignored.
War Comes Home
During the last 12 years, many veterans who had grown “worse” while at war could be found on and around bases here at home, waiting to be deployed again, and sometimes doing serious damage to themselves and others. The organization Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) has campaigned for years for a soldier’s “right to heal” between deployments. Next month it will release its own report on a common practice at Fort Hood of sending damaged and heavily medicated soldiers back to combat zones against both doctors’ orders and official base regulations. Such soldiers can’t be expected to survive in great shape.
Immediately after the Lopez rampage, President Obama spoke of those soldiers who have served multiple tours in the wars and “need to feel safe” on their home base. But what the president called “that sense of safety… broken once again” at Fort Hood has, in fact, already been shattered again and again on bases and in towns across post-9/11 America — ever since misused, misled, and mistreated soldiers began bringing war home with them.
Since 2002, soldiers and veterans have been committing murder individually and in groups, killing wives, girlfriends, children, fellow soldiers, friends, acquaintances, complete strangers, and — in appalling numbers – themselves. Most of these killings haven’t been on a mass scale, but they add up, even if no one is doing the math. To date, they have never been fully counted.
The first veterans of the war in Afghanistan returned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in 2002. In quick succession, four of them murdered their wives, after which three of the killers took their own lives. When a New York Times reporter asked a Special Forces officer to comment on these events, he replied: “S.F.’s don’t like to talk about emotional stuff. We are Type A people who just blow things like that off, like yesterday’s news.”
Indeed, much of the media and much of the country has done just that. While individual murders committed by “our nation’s heroes” on the “home front” have been reported by media close to the scene, most such killings never make the national news, and many become invisible even locally when reported only as routine murders with no mention of the apparently insignificant fact that the killer was a veteran. Only when these crimes cluster around a military base do diligent local reporters seem to put the pieces of the bigger picture together.
By 2005, Fort Bragg had already counted its tenth such “domestic violence” fatality, while on the West coast, the Seattle Weekly had tallied the death toll among active-duty troops and veterans in western Washington state at seven homicides and three suicides. “Five wives, a girlfriend, and one child were slain; four other children lost one or both parents to death or imprisonment. Three servicemen committed suicide — two of them after killing their wife or girlfriend. Four soldiers were sent to prison. One awaited trial.”
In January 2008, the New York Times tried for the first time to tally a nationwide count of such crimes. It found “121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war.” It listed headlines drawn from smaller local newspapers: Lakewood, Washington, “Family Blames Iraq After Son Kills Wife”; Pierre, South Dakota, “Soldier Charged With Murder Testifies About Postwar Stress”; Colorado Springs, Colorado, “Iraq War Vets Suspected in Two Slayings, Crime Ring.”
The Times found that about a third of the murder victims were wives, girlfriends, children, or other relatives of the killer, but significantly, a quarter of the victims were fellow soldiers. The rest were acquaintances or strangers. At that time, three quarters of the homicidal soldiers were still in the military. The number of killings then represented a nearly 90% increase in homicides committed by active duty personnel and veterans in the six years since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Yet after tracing this “cross-country trail of death and heartbreak,” the Times noted that its research had probably uncovered only “the minimum number of such cases.” One month later, it found “more than 150 cases of fatal domestic violence or [fatal] child abuse in the United States involving service members and new veterans.”
More cases were already on the way. After the Fourth Brigade Combat team of Fort Carson, Colorado, returned from Iraq later in 2008, nine of its members were charged with homicide, while “charges of domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault” at the base rose sharply. Three of the murder victims were wives or girlfriends; four were fellow soldiers (all men); and two were strangers, chosen at random.
Back at Fort Bragg and the nearby Marine base at Camp Lejeune, military men murdered four military women in a nine-month span between December 2007 and September 2008. By that time, retired Army Colonel Ann Wright had identified at least 15 highly suspicious deaths of women soldiers in the war zones that had been officially termed “non-combat related” or “suicide.” She raised a question that has never been answered: “Is there an Army cover-up of rape and murder of women soldiers?” The murders that took place near (but not on) Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune, all investigated and prosecuted by civilian authorities, raised another question: Were some soldiers bringing home not only the generic violence of war, but also specific crimes they had rehearsed abroad?
Stuck in Combat Mode
While this sort of post-combat-zone combat at home has rarely made it into the national news, the killings haven’t stopped. They have, in fact, continued, month by month, year after year, generally reported only by local media. Many of the murders suggest that the killers still felt as if they were on some kind of private mission in “enemy territory,” and that they themselves were men who had, in distant combat zones, gotten the hang of killing — and the habit. For example, Benjamin Colton Barnes, a 24-year-old Army veteran, went to a party in Seattle in 2012 and got into a gunfight that left four people wounded. He then fled to Mount Rainier National Park where he shot and killed a park ranger (the mother of two small children) and fired on others before escaping into snow-covered mountains where he drowned in a stream.
Barnes, an Iraq veteran, had reportedly experienced a rough transition to stateside life, having been discharged from the Army in 2009 for misconduct after being arrested for drunk driving and carrying a weapon. (He also threatened his wife with a knife.) He was one of more than 20,000 troubled Army and Marine veterans the military discarded between 2008 and 2012 with “other-than-honorable” discharges and no benefits, health care, or help.
Faced with the expensive prospect of providing long-term care for these most fragile of veterans, the military chose instead to dump them. Barnes was booted out of Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Tacoma, Washington, which by 2010 had surpassed Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, and Fort Carson in violence and suicide to become the military’s “most troubled” home base.
Some homicidal soldiers work together, perhaps recreating at home that famous fraternal feeling of the military “band of brothers.” In 2012, in Laredo, Texas, federal agents posing as leaders of a Mexican drug cartel arrested Lieutenant Kevin Corley and Sergeant Samuel Walker — both from Fort Carson’s notorious Fourth Brigade Combat team — and two other soldiers in their private hit squad who had offered their services to kill members of rival cartels. “Wet work,” soldiers call it, and they’re trained to do it so well that real Mexican drug cartels have indeed been hiring ambitious vets from Fort Bliss, Texas, and probably other bases in the borderlands, to take out selected Mexican and American targets at $5,000 a pop.
Such soldiers seem never to get out of combat mode. Boston psychiatrist Jonathan Shay, well known for his work with troubled veterans of the Vietnam War, points out that the skills drilled into the combat soldier — cunning, deceit, strength, quickness, stealth, a repertoire of killing techniques, and the suppression of compassion and guilt — equip him perfectly for a life of crime. “I’ll put it as bluntly as I can,” Shay writes in Odysseus in America: Combat Trauma and the Trials of Homecoming, “Combat service per se smooths the way into criminal careers afterward in civilian life.” During the last decade, when the Pentagon relaxed standards to fill the ranks, some enterprising members of at least 53 different American gangs jumpstarted their criminal careers by enlisting, training, and serving in war zones to perfect their specialized skill sets.
Some veterans have gone on to become domestic terrorists, like Desert Storm veteran Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people in the Oklahoma federal building in 1995, or mass murderers like Wade Michael Page, the Army veteran and uber-racist who killed six worshippers at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, in August 2012. Page had first been introduced to the ideology of white supremacy at age 20, three years after he joined the Army, when he fell in with a neo-Nazi hate group at Fort Bragg. That was in 1995, the year three paratroopers from Fort Bragg murdered two black local residents, a man and a woman, to earn their neo-Nazi spider-web tattoos.
An unknown number of such killers just walk away, like Army Private (and former West Point cadet) Isaac Aguigui, who was finally convicted last month in a Georgia criminal court of murdering his pregnant wife, Sergeant Deirdre Wetzker Aguigui, an Army linguist, three years ago. Although Deirdre Aguigui’s handcuffed body had revealed multiple blows and signs of struggle, the military medical examiner failed to “detect an anatomic cause of death” — a failure convenient for both the Army, which didn’t have to investigate further, and Isaac Aguigui, who collected a half-million dollars in military death benefits and life insurance to finance a war of his own.
In 2012, Georgia authorities charged Aguigui and three combat veterans from Fort Stewart with the execution-style murders of former Private Michael Roark, 19, and his girlfriend Tiffany York, 17. The trial in a civilian criminal court revealed that Aguigui (who was never deployed) had assembled his own private militia of troubled combat vets called FEAR (Forever Enduring, Always Ready), and was plotting to take over Fort Stewart by seizing the munitions control point. Among his other plans for his force were killing unnamed officials with car bombs, blowing up a fountain in Savannah, poisoning the apple crop in Aguigui’s home state of Washington, and joining other unspecified private militia groups around the country in a plot to assassinate President Obama and take control of the United States government. Last year, the Georgia court convicted Aguigui in the case of the FEAR executions and sentenced him to life. Only then did a civilian medical examiner determine that he had first murdered his wife.
The Rule of Law
The routine drills of basic training and the catastrophic events of war damage many soldiers in ways that appear darkly ironic when they return home to traumatize or kill their partners, their children, their fellow soldiers, or random strangers in a town or on a base. But again to get the stories we must rely upon scrupulous local journalists. The Austin American-Statesman, for example, reports that, since 2003, in the area around Fort Hood in central Texas, nearly 10% of those involved in shooting incidents with the police were military veterans or active-duty service members. In four separate confrontations since last December, the police shot and killed two recently returned veterans and wounded a third, while one police officer was killed. A fourth veteran survived a shootout unscathed.
Such tragic encounters prompted state and city officials in Texas to develop a special Veterans Tactical Response Program to train police in handling troubled military types. Some of the standard techniques Texas police use to intimidate and overcome suspects — shouting, throwing “flashbangs” (grenades), or even firing warning shots — backfire when the suspect is a veteran in crisis, armed, and highly trained in reflexive fire. The average civilian lawman is no match for an angry combat grunt from, as the president put it at Fort Hood, “the greatest Army that the world has ever known.” On the other hand, a brain-injured vet who needs time to respond to orders or reply to questions may get manhandled, flattened, tasered, bludgeoned, or worse by overly aggressive police officers before he has time to say a word.
Here’s another ironic twist. For the past decade, military recruiters have made a big selling point of the “veterans preference” policy in the hiring practices of civilian police departments. The prospect of a lifetime career in law enforcement after a single tour of military duty tempts many wavering teenagers to sign on the line. But the vets who are finally discharged from service and don the uniform of a civilian police department are no longer the boys who went away.
In Texas today, 37% of the police in Austin, the state capitol, are ex-military, and in smaller cities and towns in the vicinity of Fort Hood, that figure rises above the 50% mark. Everybody knows that veterans need jobs, and in theory they might be very good at handling troubled soldiers in crisis, but they come to the job already trained for and very good at war. When they meet the next Ivan Lopez, they make a potentially combustible combo.
Most of America’s military men and women don’t want to be “stigmatized” by association with the violent soldiers mentioned here. Neither do the ex-military personnel who now, as members of civilian police forces, do periodic battle with violent vets in Texas and across the country. The new Washington Post-Kaiser survey reveals that most veterans are proud of their military service, if not altogether happy with their homecoming. Almost half of them think that American civilians, like the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan, don’t genuinely “respect” them, and more than half feel disconnected from American life. They believe they have better moral and ethical values than their fellow citizens, a virtue trumpeted by the Pentagon and presidents alike. Sixty percent say they are more patriotic than civilians. Seventy percent say that civilians fail absolutely to understand them. And almost 90% of veterans say that in a heartbeat they would re-up to fight again.
Americans on the “home front” were never mobilized by their leaders and they have generally not come to grips with the wars fought in their name. Here, however, is another irony: neither, it turns out, have most of America’s military men and women. Like their civilian counterparts, many of whom are all too ready to deploy those soldiers again to intervene in countries they can’t even find on a map, a significant number of veterans evidently have yet to unpack and examine the wars they brought home in their baggage — and in too many grim cases, they, their loved ones, their fellow soldiers, and sometimes random strangers are paying the price.
Reprinted with permission from TomDispatch.com.
The Best of Ann Jones
Re: Article: Response-Ability and Andy Lopez
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
"the Sheriff is on suicide watch". Do you mean Deputy Gelhaus?
"Dad bought Andy a replica AK-47. (personal responsibility)". The Press Democrat reported that the boy was returning the Airsoft BB-gun to a friend.
"Andy did not go to the Junior High continuation school we all pay for.(personal responsibility)". What is your point?
"After the Sandy Hook mass shootings, the Colorado mass shootings, and Fort Hood mass shootings handing Andy a replica AK-47 put Andy on Darwins list." How did those separate and unrelated shootings across the nation mark Lopez for death?
"He may have been heading to school with a real weapon". But he wasn't, was he.
No he wasn't but Gelhaus didn't know that! Had Andy actually carried a real weapon and sprayed his
school mates YOU and all the other bleeding hearts would be bellowing a different tune.
