It wasn’t until recently that it became easy to find a number to go with 
the gruesome reality that black people—and black men in particular—live 
with every day: the ever-present threat of police violence.
Police officers fatally shot nearly 1,000 people last year, according to 
The Washington Post’s ongoing count. Halfway through 2016, police have shot 
and killed 506 more. “Unarmed black men are seven times more likely than 
whites to die by police gunfire,” the Post wrote last year.
And though it seems overly clinical to talk about hundreds of civilian 
deaths as a number; there’s power in knowing that number. The Washington 
Post’s impressive tracking work represents the professionalization of an 
effort that first bubbled up on individual blogs and among smaller advocacy 
groups.  
Of course, this is just one count. The Guardian’s tally is 561 deaths, 
including 526 shootings. And that discrepancy suggests that as important as 
these efforts have been, in the absence of a comprehensive federal effort 
to track such shootings, the full scope of the problem remains unknown.
Still, attempts to track police shootings are meaningful. Coupled with 
video footage of police violence against black people—grainy, raw, and 
deeply disturbing in ways that are foreign to many white people but all too 
familiar to people of color—new technology is forcing Americans to confront 
life-and-death realities of inequality in the United States.
And as technology helps drive a national conversation about race and police 
violence, much of that conversation is taking place in digital forums: in 
tweets and in Facebook posts, and in self-published essays. “It’s the 
incessant threat of daily life,” the journalist Justin Ellis wrote in an 
essay in 2014, “the feeling that at any given moment, in any day at any 
time, everything I have could get snatched away as I’m going through the 
motions of being me.”
“‘Monitoring’ sounds passive, but it’s not.”Black Lives Matter has 
organized its movement largely on social media, which is also where videos 
of police shootings are published and shared. The larger question is what 
happens now? Heightened awareness of a drumbeat of killings—including two 
this week—leaves many people feeling angry, exhausted, and powerless. 
Counting the number of dead and watching videos of them die doesn’t prevent 
it from happening again. In one in five fatal shootings, the names of the 
police officer responsible is never disclosed. Even when they are, many 
officers face no consequences.
Yet there may be reason for hope. Ethan Zuckerman, the director of the MIT 
Center for Civic Media and a scholar who has done much thinking and writing 
about online activism, has written about the importance of monitoring what 
he calls the equitability of activism in both the digital and physical 
realms.
“‘Monitoring’ sounds passive, but it’s not—it’s a model for channeling 
mistrust to hold institutions responsible, whether they’re the institutions 
we’ve come to mistrust or the new ones we’re building today,” he wrote in a 
blog post last year. “When the Black Panthers were founded in Oakland, CA 
in the late 1960s, they were an organization focused on combatting police 
brutality. They would follow police patrol cars and when officers got out 
to make an arrest, the Panthers—armed, openly carrying weapons they were 
licensed to own—would observe the arrest from a distance, making it clear 
to officers that they would intervene if they felt the person arresting was 
being harassed or abused, a practice they called ‘Policing the Police.’”
This kind of monitorial citizenship, he says, benefits hugely from 
technology—whether it involves building a dedicated website for counting 
fatal shootings by police, forming an organization to videotape crime, or 
leveraging digital networks to share footage of a deadly police 
confrontation. As Zuckerman puts it in his blog post, “it allows many 
people working together to monitor situations that would be hard for any 
one individual to see.”
“The one stance that’s not acceptable as far as I’m concerned,” he added, 
“is that of disengagement, of deciding that you’re powerless and remaining 
that way.”
This story originally appeared on The Atlantic.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"humanrights movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to