Marc Lamont Hill doubled down on his theory about supposed white supremacy shaping police encounters with black people. During a segment on Wednesday's CNN Tonight, Hill disputed the Supreme Court's decades-old "objectively reasonable" standard on the use of police force, and emphasized that "everyday citizens have biases....oftentimes, we are shaped by white supremacy. We are shaped by fear of black bodies. So, just because a jury of people have (sic) the same irrational white supremacist fear of black people doesn't mean that it's okay to shoot them. It may be legal, but it's not okay." [video below]
The leftist commentator sparred with former police officer/professor David Klinger over the controversy. When Klinger cited the case of a "white officer in Kansas City who killed a white guy who was in the process of pummeling him," Hill contended that "the 'reasonable' fear of black people is itself an artifact of white supremacy....it's black people who are afraid of black people; it's white people who are afraid of black people. And I'm saying both of those things are artifacts of white supremacy, and they're a problem."
Host Don Lemon brought on Klinger and Hill for their take on Quentin Tarantino's appearance on Chris Hayes's MSNBC program earlier in the evening, where the movie director slammed those who decried his "murderers" smear of police. The liberal academic, who had criticized Tarantino the night before for not going "far enough" (as Lemon put it), commended the filmmaker, and added that "the bigger problem here is that police officers have operated with such impunity forever in America that when you critique them at all...it's made to believe that you are anti-police; when you're in fact, you're just anti-brutality."
Klinger criticized Tarantino for his "canard" about the First Amendment, and cited the Kansas City case:
DAVID KLINGER, FORMER POLICE OFFICER: ...[L]et me give you an example of a justifiable shooting of unarmed individual. A police officer is pinned down; an individual has him around on the throat; and he's punching him in the face, fracturing his eye socket and his cheekbone. Is the officer supposed to sit there — lie there and take it? Absolutely not. The standard for using deadly force against someone is not whether they have a gun or a knife or unarmed — it's, is there is a reasonable belief that their life is in imminent jeopardy or the life of another innocent?...
Hill injected the "white supremacy" issue into the discussion after Lemon played a second clip of Tarantino attacking his police critics:
QUENTN TARANTINO: They want to demonize me. They want to slander me, say — imply that I'm saying things that I didn't say. And then — and for what reason? Well, the reason is because they want me to shut up; and they want to make sure that no other people like me — prominent citizens — will stand up for that side.
LEMON: Marc, what do you — what do you make — what do you make of that?
HILL: I mean, I think there is a, kind of, bullying that happens when people have the courage; and sometimes, even audacity to stand up and challenge police brutality; and, in some neighborhoods, police terrorism. I think that's the key issue here. And I agree that there are moments, based on the law, where police have the option — and maybe even a duty — to protect themselves, even when the person is unarmed. For example, in the case that was painted, where someone is on the ground — you know, punching someone in the face, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera — that could be a circumstance. Obviously, in the case of Trayvon Martin, it's a little more complicated. But we absolutely can — police absolutely do have that option.
But I disagree with the idea that there is some objective, reasonable standard at which we can say, you can kill a person. And here's why it's problematic: because the notion of the reasonable man — the notion of the reasonable man standard is invoked by jurists; it's invoked by everyday citizens — and everyday citizens have biases. In other words, a jury may say, yes, in the same circumstance, I would have shot Trayvon Martin. Yes, in the same circumstance...I would have shot Michael Brown.
The problem is, oftentimes, we are shaped by white supremacy. We are shaped by fear of black bodies. So, just because a jury of people have (sic) the same irrational white supremacist fear of black people doesn't mean that it's okay to shoot them. It may be legal, but it's not okay.
The former police officer then jumped in to dispute his assertion. Lemon also pushed back a bit regarding Hill's theory:
KLINGER: Marc, the constitutional standard in Graham versus Connor says 'objectively reasonable.' And if you want to argue with the Supreme Court, that's fine. But that's the standard—
HILL: I am. That's what I'm doing—
KLINGER: Okay—
HILL: Yes. I'm disagreeing. I'm disagreeing with the law. I'm saying that the law is not engineered at its core to deal with this fundamental issue of white supremacy. That's what I'm saying. Yes, I agree—
KLINGER: How did white supremacy come in here? Because the situation I'm talking about was a white officer in Kansas City who killed a white guy who was in the process of pummeling him.
HILL: Right. But the issue that I'm talking about was Quentin Tarantino talking about the death of black bodies, and I'm saying that is the overarching issue. There are moments where police use excessive force against white people — absolutely. But I'm saying, as an example of where the law does not — where the law is inadequate — is the case where — where juries and police officers invoke a reasonable man standard to decide to kill a person — not because they wake up in the morning and say I'm going to kill a black person. I think they're reasonably afraid of black people. But the reasonable — the 'reasonable' fear of black people is itself an artifact of white supremacy....And sometimes, black people do it. Black people shoot white — black people, too.
DON LEMON: Marc, but you're not saying that all police officers are afraid of black people?
HILL: No. I'm not saying all — I'm not saying all police officers are afraid of black people. And I'm not saying all people are afraid of black people. I'm saying we see cases where this does become a fact. And it's black people who are afraid of black people, it's white people who are afraid of black people. And I'm saying both of those things are artifacts of white supremacy, and they're a problem.
LEMON: David — okay, David. I'll give you the last word.
KLINGER: The issue, however, is not just that someone doesn't like black people or is afraid of black people. The issue before a jury is, can the officer articulate a standard to say, I was in reasonable fear for my life — not measured against racism this, that, and everything — but measured against what the law says. And if you say, I was afraid of him because he stood there and said he was going to beat me; and so, I shot him; that's not objectively reasonable. If you're pinned on the ground and someone is pummeling you —black, white, Asian, male, female — it doesn't matter. Any reasonable person would look at that assault and say, that person was trying to kill a cop, and the officer was justified in shooting. That's all I'm trying to say, Marc.
