Jumped In: What Gangs Taught Me about Violence, Drugs, Love, and Redemption (Leap, Jorja)
One. Napalm
Don’t go believin’ anything unless you see it. And even then, don’ be too sure. —Big T. I cannot say exactly when I saw my first dead body. Probably my earliest experience with one was when I was around eleven years old and my grandmother was diagnosed with brain cancer. My mother’s reaction was that I should go, as soon as possible, to a funeral, any funeral. There was a crazy kind of logic to this. Open caskets were de rigueur at Greek Orthodox funerals. My mother wanted to protect me from being surprised or upset when I eventually gazed upon the body of my soon-to-be-dead grandmother, who was terminally ill with brain cancer. She also decreed that I wear navy blue, because I was far too young for basic black. Consequently, my attendance at this first funeral was preceded by a shopping expedition. From then on, death and new outfits would be inextricably linked in my mind. And so, wearing a navy blue dress with white piping and matching jacket, I saw my first dead body. The body itself belonged to a distant and elderly relative and resembled nothing so much as a mannequin in a dress shop for “mature” women. I felt curiously detached. I had the same feeling eight months later when my grandmother actually died. Somehow the body remained abstract, unreal. Since then, I’ve been to many funerals and have seen a lot of bodies. These ceremonies involved godparents, aunts, uncles, and extended family. What I looked at seemed more some sort of cosmetic marvel—carefully made up, well dressed and artificial—a stand-in for the person who had died. I finally saw the real deal—bodies without benefit of a mortician’s makeover—when I was a young social worker at an LA County hospital emergency room. The bodies there had, for the most part, met some grim ending. Dead of a gunshot wound or decapitated in an auto accident. They were so freshly dead, they often appeared to be twitching (and in some cases were). These were the bodies of the barely departed, yet they still failed to register within me, emotionally. Even more extreme experiences awaited me beyond the ER. Several years later, serving as a UN volunteer in post-war Kosovo, I saw bodies in varying states of decomposition, twice at mass burial sites. Still I looked upon them with detachment, an example of “man’s inhumanity to man.” Until a summer night in August 2002. I do not remember all the details of this particular night. All I know is that some switch got flipped for me—all my cells turned over—and nothing was the same. It is after midnight, and I am standing inside the yellow police tape blocking off part of a neighborhood intersection in South Los Angeles. Small bungalows and ramshackle apartment buildings line both sides of the street, in an architectural style that can best be termed “urban depressed.” Each one comes equipped with burglar bars and dark screen doors, and behind the mesh it is possible to make out the faces of people peering out the windows tentatively. The more brazen among them—old women and young men—mill around in groups outside their houses or on the sidewalk or in the street, their expressions registering hostility or suspicion. Children play in the street, and even though it is summer and school is out, I keep wondering, What are those kids doing up? They should be in bed; they should be asleep, until I realize how idiotic this all sounds given the level of noise and confusion rising up from the street. I am struck by how strange it is that they are playing in the middle of all this, and I wonder if it’s nothing out of the ordinary, just another summer night, just another crime scene. A police helicopter flies noisily overhead. Four black-and-white patrol cars are parked at varying angles in the middle of the street, their headlights outlining three teenage boys lined up against a chain-link fence with their hands cuffed. The three adolescents appear so young, it looks like they haven’t even started shaving yet. There is another boy. He resembles the other three children in every way except one. He is lying in a pool of blood and his body is being photographed and probed by members of the Los Angeles Police Department. He is nameless, unknown, and he is dead. I cannot stop staring at the body as the blood slowly spreads on the pavement. It is impossible to turn away. My heart is beating and I am thinking, Whose baby is this? Whose brother? Whose grandson? He is frozen, forever, dead. I am trying not to cry. The three handcuffed youngsters deny having any idea who he may be. Whatever the question, they uniformly mumble, “I d’know.” The police officers show varying signs of sadness, resignation, anger, and detachment, establishing a makeshift command post and dolefully noting that the shooting is “gang related.” They are taking notes, making jokes, and gossiping. One woman wearing the LAPD uniform looks over at me and we exchange nods of recognition. I have a grudging respect for Sergeant Mitzi Grasso, a small, wiry force of nature. She has just finished a term as president of the Police Protective League—the officers union. She, for one, is not talking about gangs. Grasso is focused on a work-schedule issue and I hear her saying, “Look, the mayor is going to listen because he wants to be reelected.” Meanwhile, the dead boy’s body is being covered and prepared for transfer to the coroner’s office. Several conversations are going on at once, and no one is speaking in hushed or respectful tones. Talk ricochets between a discussion of which gang sets are currently warring and a debate over who might be selected as the next chief of police for the LAPD. I hear snippets of gang names—the Grape Street Crips, the Rollin 60s, Florencia, MS-13—coupled with speculation over how Bill Bratton, the current favorite to become chief, will get along with Mayor Jim Hahn, given how frequently Bratton, as New York City commissioner, once clashed with Rudy Giuliani. Police radios crackle. Even though everyone is tuned to the same frequency, the multiple radios set up an echo chamber—it’s almost like the police operator is channeling a rap singer—and the new locations of police activity reverberate through the night. “Two-A-Fifty-One: handle a 211 in progress at Seventh and Alvarado, Code 3. Suspects are three male Hispanics armed with a gun attacking a transient at the bus bench.” “Two-A-Ninety-One: handle an unknown-trouble 911 open line at the Hamburger Stand, Seventeenth and Vermont, Code 3.” It’s all static interrupted by voices interrupted by more static—until there is almost a rhythm to the cacophony of noise. The radio operator keeps announcing streets, intersections, locations, incidents. It is the city of Los Angeles as performance art, courtesy the LAPD. The police helicopter continues to circle overhead and I can hear its blades cutting the air. The co-pilot directs a spotlight down on the organized chaos, which will endure for approximately an hour and then be restored to normal, with no traces left of “the crime scene.” And inexplicably, over and over in my head, there is the antic voice of Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now, declaring, “I love the smell of napalm in the morning.” The noise and the people and the warmth of the night feel altogether unreal, as if I have stumbled upon the filming of some television cop show. Instead, it is 2002, and the city of Los Angeles is experiencing one of the bloodiest outbursts of gang violence on record. And I am standing in the middle of it. I am one of the few non-uniformed individuals here. I am one of the few white people inside the yellow tape. I am one of the few women here, and I am definitely the only woman not wearing a police uniform. I do not fit in, and I cannot stop staring at the body of the young boy. His skin is light, coffee colored and unmarked. It is the skin of a child—there are no blemishes, no signs of a beard. This boy—not yet a man—looks impossibly young, on the edge of adulthood. He has no tattoos, and his hair rings his face in soft curls, partially covered by a sweatshirt hood. I keep looking at his skin, almost wanting to reach out and touch its softness. I keep my head down until my tears drain out, then I look up past the boy’s body at a beautiful, silent man wearing a beige T-shirt, black jeans, and a menacing expression. His black skin shines in the streetlight and his eyes are olives, angry and impenetrable. Khalid Washington, the silent man, looks back at me, but we do not acknowledge each other. We are not speaking—yet. We will call each other in a few hours and meet in the late morning at a small barbecue restaurant in South Los Angeles and talk quietly about what happened, dissecting who might be involved, who might retaliate, and what he has done in the early-morning hours. This is later. Right now, I cannot acknowledge Khalid’s presence in front of the LAPD and I am frightened by the rage that I see in his eyes. He is recently released from prison and is working as a gang-intervention “street worker.” In the eyes of the LAPD he is just another knucklehead, just another gangbanger probably getting into trouble, connecting with his homies and trying to avoid arrest. He is an outsider here, muttering “Muthafuckas” under his breath as a uniformed officer approaches him and, ignoring me completely, asks, “Can I help you, sir? Did you know the deceased?” “No, I did not know the deceased,” Khalid enunciates with exaggerated formality. The officer stares at him and masks a demand as a question. “May I ask what you are doing here?” “I’m a street interventionist with the Unity Collaborative,” he announces tersely. “I got a call from Bo Taylor, who heard about the shooting. We were called in to try to help stop any more shooting or retaliation.” He produces a business card that the officer considers while grimacing. The officer’s eyes narrow. “Mind if I keep this?” he asks while pocketing the card. Khalid shrugs. The exchange is brief but speaks volumes. They hate each other. The current law-enforcement ethos equates joining a gang with losing one’s virginity. It’s a permanent state, and you can never go back, no matter what you may claim about your purity. Khalid may or may not still be gang affiliated. I would bet he is. But it really does not matter. The only thing of which I am certain is that he is going to leave the scene soon to connect with individuals who belong to conflicting sets and gangs. He will try to negotiate a cease-fire of some sort, after the shooting, to prevent retaliation and further bloodshed. The agreement will be fragile, informal, and with luck will hold for a few days, weeks, or months. There is no way of knowing if it will work or if the violence will continue. And in the end, Khalid will never get credit for any lives saved. I don’t know if I trust Khalid. While I have spent time alone with him, I have never felt completely safe. Some of it is sexual tension; some of it is the impact of listening to his seemingly endless supply of stories about shooting people, the force of his telling me, “I’ve felt the fuckin’ blood running through my hands.” I don’t know if he is lying, and I definitely don’t want to ask. Still, I recognize his strengths. He is tough, angry, and articulate. He is also a natural-born leader. Of course, if I utter those words in front of the LAPD, they will fill out a field interview card on me and I will undoubtedly join Khalid on the federal crime database or the CalGang list. So far I have been completely ignored by the cops. I don’t feel particularly afraid in this situation, because my badass rebellious streak has kicked in. Just in case that isn’t enough, there is one man nearby who would step in if any of these uniformed officers started to hassle me. He is wearing the lightweight, short-sleeved LAPD summer uniform and he is neat, pressed, and in complete control. He has one star on each lapel indicating that he is a commander—only one of seventeen—in the LAPD. He is standing quietly by, although everyone present is deferential and respectful toward him. No one knows we are seeing each other. “Dating” seems too idiotic a word to describe the texture of our relationship. No one knows that four hours earlier we left his home thirty miles northwest of Los Angeles and drove into the city together. Mark Leap is nowhere near me, though; he is engaged on the far-opposite side of the incident—talking to several other uniformed officers about what has happened. Instead, David Gascon, an assistant chief, has hovered around me, practically on top of me, all night. He is blissfully unaware that I have arrived with Mark Leap. Instead, because he knows I am “working on the gang problem,” he just assumes I have shown up after learning about the shooting. He probably even believes I have come to find him. With a kind of territoriality that I suspect is imprinted in the DNA of every sworn member of the LAPD, he takes for granted that I am there to stay with him, under his protection. He begins lecturing me on what has occurred at the crime scene. Khalid Washington looks on with disgust as Gascon asserts, “We’re never gonna know who did this. And it doesn’t matter. They’re gonna go on killing each other.” His voice is authoritative. I smile involuntarily. This is the same voice that officiated at the media event of 1994: the press conference during which Gascon had to admit that the LAPD had inadvertently “lost” murder suspect O. J. Simpson, adding that the football great was currently on the freeway in a white Ford Bronco driven by Al Cowlings. The intervening years have not been kind to Gascon. He has lost out in his bid to become the next chief of police. Gascon also possesses critics within the power structure of the LAPD and LA city government. Tonight he is an unwelcome reminder wearing a polo shirt, a symbol of the recent bad press that outgoing chief Bernard Parks and the LAPD have received. Gascon is well into his lecture on how the gang problem should be solved. While there is confusion all around, he holds forth as if there is no noise, no helicopter cutting at the air above him. It’s clear that he knows what he is talking about, but the trouble is he is slightly off in his logic. He is deriding the whole idea of gang interventionists—all within earshot of Khalid Washington. “Y’know, you got cops who think some of these interventionists are gonna help us. But they’re nothing but double agents—gangsters who know how to talk to the powers that be.” I am distinctly uncomfortable with this conversation. The gunshots I keep hearing do not appear to be the only threat to my safety in these early morning hours. Why am I here in the dark, on this anonymous street in South Los Angeles, in the middle of the night? I should be at home in my cottage in Rustic Canyon, sitting on my patio, finishing a glass of wine. Instead all my nerve endings are on red alert as I watch and listen and try to stay still when I hear the popping sound of gunshots. What am I doing here? I suppose I could be glib and say I am here because of my personal and professional commitment. I have a reputation to uphold, after all. I was this tough little UCLA professor who studied violence, writing and lecturing on the “gang problem.” The gang problem consists of stories and police reports and rumor. There are accounts of young women being subjected to brutal gang rapes. And descriptions of suspected snitches getting their tongues cut out because they have shared information with the police. And if that’s not enough, there’s always the media. For the past few days a video has been making the rounds on the Internet, offering up a drive-by shooting filmed in the kind of bloody detail that only Quentin Tarantino fans could love. The gang problem involves a world where tattoos are not merely decorative but threatening and sinister. I think of the adolescent who had let’s fuck tattooed on his eyelids, along with his friend, who had fuck you on his cheek. There is a multiple choice of personal motives for me. I am here because I am looking for a solution. Or to give kids hope. Or to help save lives. I am here for all of the above but I am also here for the strange sort of electricity that’s in the air. Along with all the danger and sadness, at every crime scene there is a pulsating high. This night, like other nights, I am feeling it again. And I find the excitement narcotic. Standing between Dave Gascon and Khalid Washington, I hear a low series of pops—more gunfire—and the cocktail of terror and excitement drives up the adrenaline of everyone inside the yellow tape. One of the cops calls out, “There’s a shooter!” and for a split second everyone freezes. I am a walking, talking, multiple-personality disorder of fear. I am scared that Khalid will discover I am on a first-name basis with some of the LAPD; I am frightened that this familiarity will incite his mistrust or, worse still, his anger. But I am also scared of the LAPD and how many of these Boy Scouts on steroids have demonized every adolescent in the vicinity; I am frightened someone may shoot at them or that they may shoot at the wrong person. I am afraid of the random, rampant danger in the air. And there is no doubt in my mind that in an instant, someone could drive by and shoot into the crowd—campaigning to be immortalized as a cop killer. More than anything, I am overwhelmed, knowing that at any moment, if something were to go wrong, someone could die—including me. And still there is the body of the young boy. Who was he? As if listening to my internal monologue, one elderly woman, probably a grandmother, observes, “Just a baby, just a baby,” shaking her head as she walks back to her white frame bungalow. It is another forty minutes before things settle down. After the body is taken away and Khalid Washington disappears into the night and the cops drive off to their next radio call and people go back to hiding behind their locked doors, I linger at the scene. And I cannot stop thinking, despite the noise and the chaos and the resignation of so many involved, about him. That nameless boy, his body the first to reach me after so many funerals, so much death. I am crying again. I keep thinking of H. Rap Brown’s folk wisdom, “Violence is as American as apple pie.” I keep thinking of the fifteen-year-old who told me he was “just trippin’, just trippin’” after he shot the four-year-old son of a rival gang member. I keep thinking of Father Greg Boyle and his motto, “Nothing stops a bullet like a job.” I am standing on the street, thinking of the body and becoming aware of the noise of the freeway traffic a few blocks away. Its steady and persistent hum tells me that life in Los Angeles goes on, oblivious, despite this dead boy, despite the violence, and despite the “gang problem.” I don’t realize it yet but it is one of those very few moments in my life when, as the saying goes, a door opens and the future begins. Because of this night, I feel alive and determined to understand.
Eight. Poor Black Woman
According to a panel of experts at a forum at University of California, Los Angeles, on Monday, America is just as vulnerable to attack as it was on 9/11, with street gangs funding terrorist groups and also draining resources from law enforcement agencies working to head off future attacks. —New York Times, May 23, 2007 Spending time with the homies and homegirls had brought a new dimension to my research. I was deeply involved in trying to figure out what interventions truly helped gang members. I was also invested in their lives. By early 2007 I had completed several evaluations and had been asked by noted civil rights activist and attorney Constance Rice to serve as one of a team of experts for the groundbreaking report she was writing on gangs in the city of Los Angeles. Connie keeps referring to me as a “gang anthropologist.” And I want to be in the field—living with homies, learning more, filling the gaps in my knowledge. Because of this, I am in Nickerson Gardens with Saint, whose real name is Ronald, or Ronny, Dawson. Ronny grew up here, in a three-bedroom unit with twenty-nine other people. “It was a lot of fun. My dad was gone and when I was four my mom got addicted to crack and my granny took custody of me. I don’t know what happened with my granny—nine out of her ten kids were addicts—but she raised all the grandkids. I loved school and had great grades. I played every sport—football, basketball, swimming—up to Jordan High.” Ronny brags that he never missed a day of school because “I got a welfare lunch every day.” The plastic tiles stamped “subsidized lunch” were all that stood between Ronny and starvation. “My granny was poor. She never had enough money. Most times that lunch was my only food.” Ronny tries to portray his childhood as one continuous house party. But there is always deprivation. His life embodies the national statistic showing that more than one-third of all African American children live below the poverty line. When I ask if being poor bothered him, Ronny thinks for a moment. “It wasn’t that I minded being poor; everyone was poor. I just hated being poorer than anyone else in the neighborhood.” But Ronny’s family created a ready defense. They were the Marine Corps of the projects. They took their liabilities—poverty and multiple children—and turned them into strengths, organizing their own neighborhood, the Hillbilly Bloods. But this also makes it impossible for Ronny to ever leave the gang. I catch on immediately. They’re not just his neighborhood—they’re his family. Literally. How is he going to leave that? This sounds all too familiar. I was raised in a neighborhood that was My Big Fat Greek Wedding cut with anxiety. Every action—real or contemplated—was subjected to the litmus test of “What would the Greek community say?” The infighting and rivalry and psychological retaliation prepared me—in the most perverse way—for life with the neighborhoods. This is in no way meant to minimize gang lethality—it just means that underneath, we all get jumped into something that we’re not sure we can ever leave. When I was young my family’s propaganda maintained that there was nothing better than being Greek. We went to church every Sunday, not only for religion, but also for the sense of community. Our social life was exclusive—we interacted with Greek American families. My suburban neighborhood tract in Torrance, California, featured Greek households on literally every block. On top of that, my father served on the board of the directors and my mother sang in the choir of the Greek Orthodox church conveniently located fifteen minutes away. We vacationed with Greek families—usually our cousins. My brothers and I even went to Greek church camp. No aspect of our life remained Greek-free. Our doctors, our dentists, our babysitters—everyone was Greek. And the whole rationale for this existence was the expectation that we—my brothers and I—would perpetuate this pattern into the next generation. It was a gang. We had colors and a language and loyalty. And control. It was all the same—whether you grow up in a neighborhood or in the Greek community. You would be secure and someone would have your back, but you would never know freedom or independence. You would never grow. Your wings were clipped in full view of the crowd. I felt controlled from the moment I could walk. Of course, one of my childhood responses was to obey. But the other response was to run. I knew that I could not stay. I was going to suffocate. I was going to die. I had to get out of the gang. I was good at escape. When I turned four years old, I was found on a street corner about a half mile from home, holding the hand of a friendly stranger, wearing a T-shirt that said i love my daddy. I ran away from home, I ran away from Sunday school, I ran away from Greek school and the six-fingered, sadistic Greek instructor. But I always came back—first because I had to, then because I wanted to. I grew up and out. But still, in unguarded moments, the cunning, indirect, and manipulative Greek girl would burst forth. I wanted my family and the Greek neighborhood. I wanted the warmth, the familiarity. I insisted on taking a family vacation with my brothers, their spouses, and their children, and I attempted to control everything, quietly, behind the scenes. You just can’t leave the gang. As if listening in on my thoughts, Ronny declares, “We are not just Bloods, this is my blood. They are my family.” Ronny’s family has also passed down a history of violence. He traces all of it to his father, who still checks in occasionally. “My daddy was never around all the time, he still isn’t.” In his family romance, Ronny’s father juggled two wives and three sons, never living with one family full-time. But Ronny maintains, “My daddy loved my mama till she started doing crack. Then they fought. It’s ’cuz she drove him crazy. He lost control and beat her. Then he left. He had his wife, my mama had crack, and I had my granny.” But his father’s violence was not strictly domestic. There had been trouble in Louisiana, where his father killed a man and did time in prison. Ronny relates this story with nonchalance, adding that his father’s other two sons—his half brothers—also murdered people during the Los Angeles gang wars of the mid-1980s. “What happened to your brothers?” I ask. “They’re both dead,” he says flatly. “I’m the only son my daddy has left.” “So you’re the third generation of violence,” I offer. “Yeah, the cycle has gotta be broken.” Ronny could truly go either way. He starts to talk about what went down two nights earlier, when the LAPD showed up at his auntie’s house to arrest his cousin, Little Joey, for murder. “What happened?” I ask. “Little Joey went to West LA to see his girlfriend. He was in Crips territory and they cornered him. He had to shoot his way out. The cops got him.” “Does he have a lawyer?” I am already looking up numbers in my cell phone. “Oh, he told them he did it.” “What?” “Why are you surprised? He did it. So he told the cops. But I am thinkin’ maybe he can get off on—whacha call it?—self-defense. He went there before to see that girl and some guys from the set told him, ‘Don’t come back or we gonna kill you.’ I think he could say he did it because they were gonna kill him.” “One little problem,” I snap. “He had a gun—that shows premeditation. And I’m sure he didn’t buy the gun at Sears.” Ronny is unfazed by my sarcasm. “You’re right. Oh well. I guess he’s gonna do time.” There is a resignation to Ronny that comes from years without. Without parents. Without money. Without anyone to take care of him. While I am thinking about this, we both see an eleven-year-old riding around on a bike and Ronny motions with his chin. “That’s me. You wanna know what I was like back in the day, look at this little homie, Darius.” Darius rides up to exchange greetings with Ronny, eyeing me suspiciously. Ronny responds with the same line he uses on everyone in the projects. “That’s Jorja, she’s my godmother.” Satisfied, Darius rides off and we walk over to a two-story unit and stand outside the security door—a heavy-duty screen made out of steel. The smell of marijuana comes wafting out. Ronny’s cousins and friends are inside smoking a combination of bud and crack and God knows what else. When they see me through the grille they start joking, then invite us in. “This yo’ first time at Nickerson Gardens, little mama?” “She’s a cute little spinner, Saint. Mama, you been here before?” Ronny doesn’t even have time to launch into introductions before I start talking and laughing with them. They offer me some of their spliff, but I decline. “No, I was here before any of you were born. In the ’70s and the ’80s, I worked at Martin Luther King Hospital.” I leave out the fact that most of the time I came to the projects I was there to pick up children for placement in the foster-care system. “You was at Martin Luther King?” One homie is suddenly interested. “Yeah. I loved it there.” “You saw me born! I came through there. I was the little baby with an Afro!” He is suddenly excited, high, and the air fills with laughter. He is choking on smoke, and Ronny and I walk him outside to breathe fresh air. As if on cue, a black-and-white pulls up and the police jump out of their car so rapidly they leave the doors open. They are running across the grass. “It’s the popo,” I observe, and Ronny starts laughing. “Yes it is. They gonna arrest someone,” he adds. His prediction comes true while Darius rides by on his bike, watching carefully, collecting data. We all witness two men who look to be in their twenties being handcuffed and pushed into the back of the police car. “They got Little Devon,” Darius reports. “Little Devon is so stupid, he got hisself arrested by a rookie. What a dumbass.” The arresting officer looks up, walks over to where we are standing, and asks what we are doing. Darius’s assessment is accurate; this is a rookie. I doubt the LAPD officer has even started shaving. He begins to give Darius and Ronny a hard time until he looks at me and pulls up short. “Ma’am?” He is tentative. “Yes?” I truly don’t want to say a thing. I don’t want to introduce myself. He is a rookie and this is South LA, but I don’t want to take the one–in-a-million chance that he is going to recognize Mark’s name. I am prepared to remarry my ex-husband on the spot and reclaim my old identity. “May I ask what you are doing here?” I want desperately to tell him, No you may not, this is wrong. But I tell him that I am a social worker meeting with my client. That suffices and he moves away. Ronny, meanwhile, starts complaining about the LAPD and their constant “fuckin’ with everyone in the projects.” This is not the friendly, easygoing Ronny—he morphs into angry-black-man mode. Destiny, his girlfriend, has warned me, “You gotta be careful with Ronny. You know he has four personalities at once.” Right now I am getting a look at gangsta Ronny—Saint. “It’s not fair, it’s not fuckin’ fair,” Ronny says, hitting the side of a building in frustration. “I know, I know,” I tell him. “Shit, I gotta go. I gotta go talk to my homies about this.” Ronny takes off abruptly. I can’t remember where I parked my car. Darius rides back by and I ask him to help me. I don’t want to wander around alone. “I need to find my car, can you—” “Yo’ ride is a Prius—yeah, I know where it is.” I had forgotten about hood intelligence. Darius leads me to the car. I give him five dollars and he rides away happily. I go home that night, thinking about the LAPD. I don’t say anything to Mark. I really don’t want to deal with his reaction. I have also gone silent because we have been fighting constantly. It’s not about gangs; it’s about counterterrorism. It’s clear that there is an insane amount of money being spent protecting Los Angeles from (drum roll here) terrorist activity. I am finding this all laughable—except for the fact that there has been what the LAPD likes to call mission creep. The war against terrorism has slowly started to include talk of the need to “fight urban terrorism in our communities.” Increasingly Mark has been talking to me in his “official business” tone of voice about terrorism on the streets and in the neighborhoods. It doesn’t help that while I am driving home after Ronny has abandoned me, I hear Mark on the radio discussing how terrorist organizations are raising funds by selling counterfeit purses at swap meets. He is about to be interviewed on PBS’s Frontline by the correspondent Lowell Bergman, my longtime hero. I don’t know whether to feel proud or angry or embarrassed. “Hi, honey, I’m home from the swap meet,” I snap in lieu of describing my day in Nickerson Gardens. “I think a terrorist just tried to sell me a counterfeit Prada bag.” Mark ignores me as I continue. “But I’m not worried, ’cuz I heard what you said on the radio. I’m so relieved that this is what my tax dollars are being spent on.” “Y’know, you don’t even know what you are talking about,” Mark begins, with exaggerated patience. He has adopted the tone of a math teacher explaining division to the class idiot. “This is not a small thing. We are talking about millions of dollars being funneled into overseas accounts. This is what is financing terrorism across the globe.” I really think I am about to lose my mind. “You want to explain to me why it is so important to watch swap meets carefully, while patrols have been cut in East LA and there was a big shootout in Nickerson Gardens two days ago?” “Here we go,” he mutters. “Poor black woman.” This phrase had its origins in a major fight that was still a sore spot for Mark and me. A month earlier, I had arrived home drained after spending time with the family of a young homie who had been shot near Athens Park in South Los Angeles. It was unclear whether he was an active member of any neighborhood. All that was certain was that a sixteen-year-old boy would be facing the rest of his life paralyzed from the chest down. I wanted nothing more than to curl up in my husband’s arms and cry. Instead, I was greeted by the sight of Mark hurriedly making arrangements to leave the house. “You can order something from Emilio’s,” he instructed. “They’ll deliver. Shannon already circled what she wants on the menu.” All I saw was the uniform and all I heard was his officious tone, so I started screaming: “Where are you going?” “Will you control yourself?” he whispered. “I don’t want Shannon to hear you yelling.” This was all I needed to hear to raise my voice another decibel level. “Stop telling me what to do! Stop being so controlling!” Then in a triumph of intellectual reasoning, I added, “You’re acting like an asshole!” “Calm down.” This was the “license and registration voice” I knew so well. In the past, Mark had told me stories of soccer moms swearing a blue streak when he stopped them for speeding. He would ignore the profanity while adding charges to their citation. As the women screamed he would write, “Driving without a seat belt,” and “Brake light out,” and “License expired”—all visible offenses that would add to the ticket’s grand total. He was maintaining the same pleasant tone with me while I screamed like a banshee. “Look, I’m not supposed to tell you this,” he began. Here we go, I thought. I wasn’t fooled. This was the sweetener. All cops used this with wives and family. You were let in on some important, inside information—so inside it was probably just being reported on the local news—to help you understand why your husband, boyfriend, father was running out the door. When Mark and I were newlyweds, the long-suffering wife of the chief of operations advised me, “Honey, get used to being alone. They’re gone all the time.” I had absolutely no intention of accepting this reality. “Just tell me where you are going,” I repeated, now using a normal tone of voice. “There’s a guy who killed two cops in Colorado and they think they’ve got him trapped in Long Beach. So the LAPD has set up a command post along with the Long Beach PD to get him. We’ve got thirty men on overtime and I’ve got to get there as soon as possible.” That only enraged me further. “You don’t have to go to this.” “No? This is my job.” Mark was just starting to show signs of agitation. “No it’s not. Your job is to run the counterterrorism bureau and babysit John Miller. Please just tell me how someone who may or may not have killed two cops in Colorado relates to counterterrorism. Please. Tell. Me.” The mention of John Miller was not good. By tacit agreement, Mark and I stayed away from the subject of the man who was, on paper, Mark’s superior. Early in his tenure, Bill Bratton had brought along Miller—who was his best friend—to head up the counterterrorism bureau, which had been designed and implemented by Mark. Bratton frequently pointed out Miller’s wide-ranging experience, which included a stint working as Barbara Walters’s co-anchor on 20/20. This did not exactly endear him to the troops. But Miller was a good guy who constantly sought Mark’s counsel and acted responsibly, given his limited law enforcement experience. Despite all this, the favoritism evident in his appointment was a particularly vicious thorn in Mark’s side and a topic I generally avoided. But not tonight. Mark looked at me sharply. “Look, you know, it’s about the murder of a cop. I’ve got to go.” “You’re all a bunch of maudlin idiots. You’re gonna spend a lot of taxpayer money on overtime hunting this guy down because he killed a cop. Meanwhile, a mother was shot and killed in South Los Angeles last weekend. Was there one hour of overtime spent on her? No. Because it was a poor black woman. You don’t fucking care.” “Look, I’ve gotta go.” He walked over to kiss me good-bye and I ignored him. After he left, Shannon came down wide-eyed. “You and Daddy were having a fight?” She was half-questioning and half-observing. “Yes, and I don’t want you to get scared. We were just fighting over the way the LAPD investigates certain cases with lots of energy and ignores other cases—particularly those involving poor people.” The ongoing brainwashing of my only child diverted me from my fury. Mark rarely interfered in the education of Shannon; for that I was grateful. When I had come into her life, she was attending a summer camp run by Calvary, a fundamentalist Christian group. This was a desperate choice, made at the last minute, after Mark was unable to enroll Shannon in a school-sponsored summer camp. I had known Shannon precisely two weeks when she announced, “I have something wonderful to tell you.” I narcissistically waited for the declaration that she would love for me to be her new mommy. Instead I had to check my facial expression when Shannon continued, “I found Jesus.” It took all my self-control not to ask, “Was he lost?” and smile while thinking, I have gotta get to work on this kid. That had all changed. Recently Shannon had arrived home from school and announced that it was important to be honest and say she was an atheist because people who were agnostic were just afraid to tell the truth. She also believed George W. Bush was probably the Antichrist. But right now she was focused on my anger at Mark. “Do you mean how Daddy doesn’t care about gangs and you do?” Shannon was well aware of the never-ending argument about how much money was spent on counterterrorism and how little was spent on gangs. While Mark was tasked with spending $50 million in government grants, negotiating how money would be allocated—City Fire, Information Technology, Emergency Response—I was working with community-based organizations that were lucky to get by on $100,000 a year. Greg Boyle did not receive any government funding at Homeboy Industries to support his work on job training, tattoo removal, mental health services, drug counseling, and education. From that night onward, whenever we argued about gangs and counterterrorism, Mark would try to end the conflict by joking, “Poor black woman.” “Dad doesn’t always understand what people go through—especially people in Watts. They are poor and they commit crimes. That’s wrong, but it doesn’t make them terrorists.” “When we went to the Watts Towers you told me lots of people there weren’t gang members. Is that what you mean by ‘poor black woman’?” I was happy to settle for this small victory. Shannon and I moved on to the take-out menu. A few days after the swap-meet argument, however, Mark and I continue to argue. “It’s not ‘poor black woman’ and you know it,” I say. “It’s the inequity of the whole situation. You should have been with me two days ago with Ronny. The LAPD is just hassling people in Nickerson Gardens for nothing. And they don’t even understand the gang problem.” It only increases my fury when Mark responds, “Look, the gang problem has been around for a long time. It’s not gonna get better—and after 9/11 we need people to feel safe.” “It’s wrong,” I insist. “People are not afraid of terrorists. They’re afraid of getting killed. They’re afraid of Florencia and the Rollin 60s. In the hood, the Twin Towers don’t mean the World Trade Center. They mean the county jail. That’s what’s real—18th Street is real.” But I know we are arguing about money and what Mark had said on the radio and the emphasis on counterterrorism because we really don’t want to talk about the elephant in the room. Mark is afraid. And, even though I didn’t want to admit it, so am I. It had all started about a week earlier, when a gang interventionist named Mario Corona told me, “There’s a rumor on the street your husband is LAPD.” I never volunteered that I was married to a cop, nor did I hide it. I also knew that street intelligence on outsiders was pretty limited. The neighborhoods knew about one another and who came into their territory, but they knew very little about people in the outside world. I was never involved in any arrest. I kept telling people nothing was going to happen to me. But Kenny Green had told me the story of Gil Becerra, and it had an impact. Gil Becerra had functioned as a gang interventionist. He had impressive bona fides—he had been in the US military and on the streets. None of this had saved him from what occurred when he got in between two rival gangs, trying to negotiate a truce. He was beaten and left for dead. He sustained multiple broken bones and now had permanent back injuries that made it painful for him to walk or stand up straight. But for me, the critical issue lay in the phrase “gotten between two rival gangs.” I was convinced that as long as I didn’t plant myself between warring neighborhoods or interfere in gang activity, I would be okay. I also was careful never to go into a violent situation without someone from a neighborhood along for the ride. When Mario told me about the rumor, I told him I was always careful. He listened patiently but warned me again. “You gotta be careful. If these guys find out that you’re married to someone who is a cop, they’ll kill you.”
Logging in, please wait...
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
It is interesting how a dead body on the street means nearly nothing. Yeah, I realize this is harsh to say (and I don’t mean that the person’s life was pointless or anything like that), but to see a dead body is just like seeing the mailman in a suburban neighborhood—its a daily occurrence. One doesn’t “freak out” when the see a dead body on the streets because it simply means that the game got them, and essentially because they aren’t dead, they’re doing something right. The game is so powerful because it is clear that it not only effects those in it, but also those who have to live in it. To condition your child to the idea death at such a young age shows how the game—a place where death is embedded into it—can effect parenting too. It is sad to think how death’s significance is at an all time low because of the game because essentially this parent is trying to desensitize her child to death because she knows how much she will have to see of it in her lifetime.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree with Jordan’s comment and it leads me to think about all the times in The Wire where we see a dead body in the street and the general feeling is that not many people are surprised or concerned about it. When they find William Gant shot and murdered on the street, people gather around as if it is some sort of spectacle, trying to figure out what the story behind the dead body is. The characters in the Wire, as well as the characters in Jumped In are so desensitized to murder and death that it doesnt seem to be as serious to them as it is to other people in less urban areas.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This statement didn’t carry much weight for me at first, but after reading the article and internalizing it, I think that it’s important to note the conditions in which this occurred- at a funeral home; something people expected; grieving loved ones, etc. Her mom even wants her to practice the shock that her daughter might face when she encounters a dead body.
One of the things that we learn from The Wire at its onset is that death is expected in very different ways. Even when we know that Snot Boogie is killed in the first episode, the witness is casual about everything, even when the body is just meters away from him. The sad thing about this is that it’s probably best for people who are surrounded by it to keep themselves preoccupied with other things. If one allows themselves to be wrecked by death in a bad neighborhood in downtown Chicago or in Baltimore, then they won’t be able to carry on because there’s too much weighing them down. They don’t get time off or special forgiveness like, say a UVA student would if their best friend or parent died. Why wouldn’t they deserve the same?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
The discussion of the opening scene with Snot Boogie and how casual the man speaks with McNulty in the context of the expectation of death fits with the topic of desensitization to violence. The people who are part of “the game”, and even the people who are direct outsiders to “the game”, are desensitized to violence from their first exposure to “the game”. These people begin to have a different expectation of death, in that they are less surprised or affected by death. It is almost to say that people in contact with the game have a lower expectation of survival for themselves and others. When Snot Boogie is killed, his friend doesn’t even seem phased by it. He is giving details about Snot Boogie, but never even stops to reflect for a moment. This is because Snot Boogie’s death was “expected”, from the moment he first came in contact with “the game”.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
It’s amazing what the mother made this child experience to rationalize death. By dressing differently and going to someone else’s funeral the child was able to separate death from reality, which may be a key skill in inner cities where people depart all the time. This parallels much of how the young kids in The Wire contextualize death as just someone else gone away.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree with David and many of the comments above that it is slightly disturbing how normalized death can become in neighborhoods ravaged by gang violence. This particular story reminds me of the various funerals in The Wire where people like Bodie send lavish flower arrangements and other gifts. Although it seems like they are trying to make up for the loss of a friend, it’s almost a joke. These over-the-top gifts are, in a way, laughing in the face of the people who have lost their lives to the game.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I couldn’t help but think of how this “inhumanity to man” can apply not only to the people directly involved in the violence, but also to the people reading or watching these narratives. I have found myself watching a large number of violent scenes in The Wire without giving enough attention to the significance of what I am seeing. I think there may be a more general problem with desensitization to death than just within the context of gangs.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think you raise a pretty interesting point in terms of a growing desensitization to death not just within the gang context. I do not necessarily agree wit you though. I think this emotionless claim is so circumstantial and feels like a growing phenomenon because of how often and how casually death is portrayed in the media. As you did, I was conflicted when I didn’t flinch in several scenes in The Wire that dealt with uncanny events that included guns, blood and dead bodies. Although this may not have affected me on the screen, if I were to come across this situation in the flesh, I am nearly positive there would be severe emotions attached to it. The way we react to death over a screen or from text and photographs is not telling of our overall emotional connection to the matter. I believe that we can be unaffected by the thought or site of death while passively watching a television show, but are forced to care when we experience death in reality because of social norms and practices.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
This can also apply to American media as a whole, so many times we are desensitized to violence, Texas Chainsaw Massacre 8 being put out on cinema, while we keep sex and love in the rear view mirror. Our whole culture as a whole is jaded to violence.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This sentence really got me thinking about the corner boys in the Wire. From a young age they are surrounded by drugs, violence, and killings. It is not something that they grow up with on TV shows, movies, or video games it is their reality. It is their life. What is another shooting after you have seen so many? What is another overdose? Do you think growing up in this environment desensitizes these young males to some extent and thus prepares them to play the game?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I too, was struck by this sentence. It seems as though what is being described here is normal. Just another day, just another life. When I read this paragraph it also made me think about the family life of teenage boys in the game. Where are the parents? What are they doing? It takes me back to season 4 in which every time you see Michaels mom she is drugged out and can barely react to any particular situation.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This line made me think of the scene in the Wire in which Bunk sees kids playing in the street right after a shooting. In it, we see kids playing with fake guns made of sticks and fighting amongst one another to play the role of “Omar.” For Bunk, this is sickening. But in retrospect, could we expect anything different? In other words, is this not the same as how I used to dress up as my mother and play House with my friends, all of whom were also dressed in my mother’s clothes. The kids in this story, however, live on the streets, either physically or emotionally, and thus mimic their surroundings through play. For them, there is no game of House because such a condition does not exist in their lives. It is in childhood that street mentality begins because it is in childhood that kids form preconceived notions of what reality is and what the future holds. I grew expecting to go to middle and then high school, go to college, get a job, and then get married and live happily ever after. These kids, however, have no notion of such a future because for them that is as much of an unreality as is the images of such living circumstances seen on TV as is me picturing myself playing “Gang.”
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
As I’ve commented on a couple other articles, this desensitization to death, drugs, crime, and poverty seems to be an unavoidable part of the inner city, poverty stricken environment that we are exposed to in The Wire, and multiple ethnography’s. Kids that grow up in these environments go out everyday with the expectation of seeing things like this that those in the suburbs could never imagine seeing. Like Chase, I also immediately thought of the scene where the kids are pretending to have a shootout in the street. In the suburbs, children play cops and robbers, representing what they see on television and in movies. However in the environments like the one we see in The Wire, these kids are replicating what they see on the streets on a regular basis.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This quote reminded of how Bunk and McNulty would probe through crime scenes filled with dead bodies and not even so much as flinch at the grim sights. Its a crazy reminder of the blunting force of repetition, how the most exciting, horrifying, or grotesque experience becomes “just part of the job” with enough retread. On one hand, it numbs the knee-jerk repulsion that comes with the territory to allow for sober judgment and calculation. But on the other, maybe it’s something less than human to be able to gaze upon a stolen life without an overwhelming rush of emotions taking over. But these crime scenes are products of less-than-human actions anyway, so once again maybe it comes with the territory.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree.
Going further, it’s also interesting to note the development of violence and death in Movies and T.V. and the increasing lenience entertainment companies allow in their productions.
In The Wire, although most deaths are treated seriously, there are bouts of comedy. For instance, the famous “fuck” scene in season one: a five minute scene with no dialogue except for variants of “fuck.” Like Darren pointed out, Bunk and McNulty are desensitized to the grotesque photographs they use to map out the crime scene (Photographs that we get a decent look at as well). But this scene is incredibly funny. Death is being used as a springboard for humor.
On the other end of the spectrum, Wallace’s death by his friends’ hands is an extremely upsetting scene.
It’s interesting to see how entertainment uses death to garner different emotional reactions. Surely The Wire acknowledges the gravity of death, but that does not stop them from throwing in some comedy every once in a while.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree that death has become desensitized in our culture. This description reminds me of the first scene in The Wire with Snot Boogie. The cops are observing the dead body on the street while others mill around and continue their day to day lives. It is as if this type of behavior and tragedy is commonplace and not a completely inhuman act, as suggested in previous comments. People have become desensitized to this type of violence because if they were still able to feel the real pain of these acts, they would not be able to continue this type of lifestyle. People become products of their environment in these types of situations and must adapt in order to keep living their lives, and that adaptation may take the form of desensitization.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree with the above comments and I especially think Cruze’s reference to the opening scene of the Wire is relevant here. This whole scene that the author is setting up is getting at the idea that the 4 boys she sees are all interchangeable – much like the interchangeable pawns. One of the most poignant memories of the entire series of the Wire to me is when Bodie and McNulty are talking in the tree park and Bodie comes to the realization that he is just another Pawn in The Game. The fact that the children are still playing, as if sirens are normal background noise, reminds me of an idea that the Wire is trying to get at. The idea that even though the players and the individuals in the Game change, the cycle will continue. In the opening scene with Snot Buggy its declared that in America, everybody gets to play the game regardless of whether they have the skills to survive it. I feel like the Game is completely inescapable in inner-city neighborhoods like the one described here because death and violence is everywhere you turn and so one must desensitize themselves as a way to survive the Game. If you see death everyday and mourn it, then your life will become filled with mourning and you won’t be able to make it in the Game. Thus, desensitization becomes the answer and individuals begin the process of dehumanizing into Pawns.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This sentence eerily mirrors the opening scene of the Wire, when Snot-Boogie is lying dead on the road as McNulty discusses the murder with Snot-Boogie’s friend. Even though viewers of the Wire know nothing about Snot-Boogie or the nature of his death, we can assume such a murder is just a natural part of everyday life on the streets. Although the cops may take it nonchalantly, even “making jokes, and gossiping,” we must remember that Snot-Boogie was a human, too. He had real relationships in the world, yet to those so familiar with crime, acknowledging this loss isn’t a priority. Leap’s heartfelt initial reaction is honest, but I wonder whether familiarity with drug violence will eventually wear away her emotions leading her to ask “Which gang?” rather than “Whose baby…?”
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
This sentence reminded me of the opening scene of The Wire as well. I agree with your point that viewers of the scene just “assume such a murder is just a natural part of everyday life on the streets”. Viewers almost instantly buy into the idea “it’s America, man”. This led to me thinking about whether depiction of gang violence in the media makes it easier for us to stomach the idea that someone was killed in the first scene of the show. Is it because we’re watching this through a mediated lens that we ask “Which gang?” as opposed to “Whose baby?” ?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This section really reminds me of the Andersen readings. There is a script that “youngsters” (as the author refers to them as) MUST follow. To not follow this is to risk isolation and being ostracized. This has huge ramifications for how police do their work.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
A ‘script’ is a good way to describe this ingrained response to cops. It’s unsurprising to the author that the victim’s associates will so bluntly feign ignorance. It’s unsurprising to the cops because this passive dishonesty is the norm. It’s even an unsurprising reaction for the readers because popular culture (quite notably in The Wire) leads us to believe that this absence of cooperation is the norm. However, this makes the passage about the immediate confession to a murder all the more surprising. Even when we have expectations about these gangs or characters, they can be wildly wrong.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Like the author notes, seeing bodies in caskets is different than on the streets. I would probably have the same reaction as Jorja Leap after seeing a body laying in the street covered in blood. This is not the case for the residents as it seems many have grown accustomed to this type of activity in the area and the children are even playing. The police, who should be taking something like this very seriously, are joking with each other and seem to not even care what happened. They all have become desensitized to murders and crime like this. It kind of reminds me of The Wire when the children are pretending to be in the shootout and are fighting over who wants to be Omar. The children are not shaken up, but rather create a game out of the incident – probably because things like this have become part of everyday life
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think that you raise an interesting point. I think that a lot of crime is perpetuated because people in inner cities become so neutralized to crime and violence, it doesn’t seem as vulgar and horrifying to them anymore. Like we’ve discussed before, it is a vicious cycle; kids often realize they will be more successful in the game than in school, and become engrossed in what they are surrounded by. My question is, if this neutralization cycles throughout communities, how will the cycle ever stop? Incarceration is clearly not the answer, as when one person exits the game, another enters. If communities are apathetic to crime and violence, I think it is very difficult to stop this pattern.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The phrase “desensitized to violence” is one you hear a lot in the debate over violent video games. Proponents of censoring video games argue that violent video games desensitize their players to violence and make them less conscious of real world violence. I have been sympathetic to these arguments but I’m rethinking them because of this article and Ted’s comment. The real and shocking violence portrayed in the wire is very unlike the violence of popular games. Both are not real, but one is much more real than the other. I think that children can tell what is real from what is not and it clearly has an enormous effect on them. I don’t think an upper middle class child who plays Halo would react to a dead body the same way a child growing up in the violent projects would.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I was really struck by this passage and I think the comments are interesting. I agree most with Win that the violence in this piece and in the Wire is very realistic, and is therefore very shocking. I disagree that desensitization to violence is what perpetuates violence. I think it is one thing to adapt to an environment where violence and murder are inherent, everyday dangers. I think it is another entirely to say that people are so desensitized that they are accept the violence. The old woman who comments that “he’s just a baby” clearly is upset by the violence. The mother mentioned later who lost her child cannot even speak about the circumstances of the death. People are affected by this violence in real and tragic ways; they learn to survive because they can do nothing else, but I disagree that violence is “acceptable” to them because they are desensitized to it. Violence is rather an unavoidable constant and so they much tolerate and deal with all the pain and horror it entails. Random violence, like the type in this scene, is looked upon as commonplace because it is. Just as we don’t take notice when we read about homicide in the newspaper. Just because we are not personally affected by the death, doesn’t mean that no one in the community is. People are always affected by the death of acquaintances. If nothing else, the Wire shows us this. Community organizers are upset about violence and seek for a way to intervene to end it. They could not care more about the death of their young people.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree with Beth here. Just because violence can be commonplace in a community, so much that it even may possibly desensitize it to some degree, this does not mean that violence’s prevalence acts as the catalyst perpetuating violence. I would even argue to the opposite that the Wire shows characters no desensitized to violence, especially when it veers from the norm or rules of the game. Think of Omar’s assertion in season 1 that he would never have killed Gant, or his disgust at the torture and death of Brandon. Life still has meaning even in a neighborhood drowning in violence and death. Take for instance the kid killed by the stray bullet in season 2. The mother and neighborhood are horrified. Even the police pay this case special attention. It is not just another body. Death may become procedural in the eyes of the police, for whom it is an inherent part of their job, but it never really becomes regular in the neighborhood as we are constantly shown the emotions and shock of death—never hesitating to kill off characters unexpectedly.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I was very impressed by the perspective and wording of this comment. I think you hit the nail on the head. The common occurrence of death is one of many aspects of these people’s lives that is forced upon them. However, the police in this district now see death almost as often as the people that live there, but I would be very interested to see how their attitudes and respectful behaviors might change if they switched to a more white affluent district and encountered the same rate of death. I don’t believe the same joking manners and talk of the next mayor would be found acceptable. In fact, I think bystanders would be outraged and the police would expect that and therefore alter their behaviors before dealing with deaths in those areas. But they would be just as accustomed to seeing deaths as they were before. What does THIS imply about people and police in the projects? I think it suggests that our society makes people willingly or unwillingly believe that deaths of minorities and the poor mean less. Bottom line.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I have no idea of how politics worse, but based off the Wire – you can see just how cynical it is. The fact that the mayor would require quotas, that dead bodies only meant numbers – I think this is definitely a root of the problem. Having a leader who simply does no care, results in policemen not caring, which trickles down to the poorest neighborhoods. If the attitude around “catching bad guys” from the top’s point of view is meeting numbers, then this for the police will then “getting paid” … which is bad policing in general.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I disagree, it’s not just about not caring it’s the way we broadcast information to the public. We are living in a society that is increasingly more and more statistical. The easiest way to show gains have been made in key issues is through numbers. Once someone understands that, it is easy to cheat the system and force the numbers to artificially inflate. I think we need to focus less on numbers and more on tangible results.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
There is this reoccurring theme of reality, or the lack thereof, and detachment present throughout this ethnography. This woman’s reality, however, cannot define the reality present within the scene. From her ideological standpoint, the image present before her is incomprehensible to the point that she must register it with a scene from a movie in order to make sense of it. The problem with this fact, however, is that most fictional “television cop shows” are formed within her same ideological viewpoint. The show, in other words, is written, filmed, and then edited all by people who come from the same world that she does. She is ultimately using a different version of unreality to make meaning of a series of events that already seems unreal to her becomes it is derived in a world that follows vastly different ideologies. Through this process of meaning making the reality before her will never become part of her notions of the real. Which inherently begs the question, what will?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I find Chase’s discussion of reality compelling and reminds me of how The Wire deals with this issue. The Wire is often considered so close to reality it is hard to differentiate between actual events that occurred in Baltimore and the storyline. The resemblance to reality is what makes the show a successful instrument for learning. In particular, season 4 demonstrates the realities of inner-city life absorbed mostly on the streets as the stoop kids begin gaining “street knowledge.” It is interesting to think about the question Chase poses regarding what will become part of this woman’s notion of the real-in thinking about The Wire and how it applies to certain characters. Although Wee-Bey is imprisoned and has a skewed vision of reality, he is able to see the reality that Namond is not made for the streets and is better off living with Colvin. This ethnography and The Wire demonstrate the struggle to differentiate between reality.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This is such an interesting claim made in this account as the author begins to make a list her surroundings and note her difference. What really stuck with me was her emphasis on how she does not “fit in” with what is happening in her surroundings, however in ways she is still affected by it, even so emotionally. This reminds me of ideas of the game and everyone is playing with in it and in some ways, reaping the benefits of it. As she feels she doesn’t “fit in” to the game she however, still finds a role within it and that being her job and her spectatorship.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
This description of a character that doesn’t “fit in” with their surroundings, but is affected by it emotionally and provided with a job and a purpose reminds me of Pryzbylewski in Season 4 of The Wire. Like Jorja Leap, he does not “fit in” with his surroundings. He has almost nothing in common with his students, and in his classroom he is very much in the ethnic minority. He is much farther removed from “the game” than Leap, but nonetheless he witnesses many of the effects of “the game”. Furthermore, “the game” provides Pryzbylewski with a purpose, because it gives him something to save his students from.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
This notion of “not fitting in” reminds me a lot of season 2 of the Wire when Beatty is the first one to discover the bodies in the storage container. Beatty explicitly states that she took her job patrolling the docks because it gave her better pay and better benefits. At no point did she expect to be thrusted into the middle of a human trafficking homicide investigation. There is no way to prepare yourself for something like this unless you have seen it your entire life and have become accustomed to it. While McNulty and the other detectives are used to seeing this, Beatty is not. It also makes me draw comparisons between Beatty and DeAngelo Barksdale who doesnt seem to be cut out for Avon’s business and admits that while he is incarcerated.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
When describing the interactions between the police officers and young teenage boys Leap describes situations filled with anger and hostility. Particularly she discusses when the officer says to Khalid, “mind if I keep this?” claiming that “the exchange is brief but speaks volumes.” Leap describes the complicated relationship between the police and the public that is basically built off of hatred. Why is this so? When reading this passage I immediately thought of a scene in season 4 when a police officer confiscates Randy’s 200 dollars, which was supposed to be used for new clothes for school, for no reason. This passage and many interactions in the wire makes me wonder why and how our society have progressed so intensely to this point, this point of complete hatred.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Shouldn’t they be working together? Is there a way people like Khalid can get credit for stopping potential violence? Otherwise, the police will still believe they have some sort of scheme and not take them seriously. People like Khalid may have the power to mediate and mitigate violence, coming from previously being inside the gang, but they have to cooperate and be incentivized to do their jobs to the best of their ability.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
After all that we’ve read, in this article and previous ones, it’s truly difficult to imagine the police and gang interventionists like Khalid working together. If they could, I imagine they would be immensely successful as each side has advantages that the other does not. The police have the law on their side and the ability to lock up dangerous criminals, but people like Khalid have a greater knowledge of the system, more connections, and more practical experience as many of them have been in gangs themselves. I think that side by side, Khalid and other social workers like him who have been through the gang system and are intimately involved with the community are in the end more successful in their efforts to pacify gang conflicts.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I agree with Campbell. I think that it is scary to see that our society has come to this point of absolute hatred. Leah explains “it’s a permanent state, and you can never go back, no matter what you may claim about your purity” when discussing joining a gang. When the police and Khalid should be working together, there is still that hatred. It is crazy to see how much hatred takes place between the police and gang members. Leah describes how Khalid and the officer “hate each other” even though Khalid may be someone who can help them save a life. It is almost automatic that a police officer and gang member will hate each other. All throughout the Wire, you see the amount of hatred that the police have for the members of gangs no matter who they are.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This sentence that the “current law-enforcement ethos equates joining a gang with losing one’s virginity” really stuck out to me. Especially in the case of Randy. Randy in the beginning of Season 4 is not associated with the corner gangs. He is just an innocent “stoop kid” selling candy. But he gets dragged into the game and truly can never escape it. Often the current law enforcement criminalizes these kids before they are even convicted or judge them before they even walk in the door so to speak. Once you even put a toe into the game you’re often pulled all the way in and a lot of the times by the very people that are suppose to be protecting you from the game. This is evident with the case of Randy and how the police fail to protect him after he helps them. Very few are able to walk away from the game with just a scratch.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
This ties into what we were discussing in class regarding who has to “check the box”. Once you have entered the game, you will most likely have to “check the box”, thereby significantly reducing your chances of moving forward.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree. In this analogy, losing your virginity and joining a gang are significant in terms of the meaning that others place on your actions. There is an assumption that a loss of virginity and membership in a gang means a lack of purity, which society gets to criticize. People have used the example of Cutty and how he is able to avoid the drug game once he’s out of prison, but I don’t necessarily agree. He can avoid actively participating in a gang, but his affiliation (and subsequent time in prison) proves to be a major roadblock in his attempts to re-enter society.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This connection between losing one’s virginity and joining a gang was really interesting to me as well. For many, virginity is a social construct that either does or does not determine one’s value regardless of one’s other traits. A person could join a gang because they feel it’s the right thing to do to provide for their family, but ultimately they would be judged harshly for it by society, regardless of their original intentions. Losing one’s virginity or joining a gang doesn’t necessarily make a person any less of a person, it just means they made choices deemed ‘unacceptable’ by a broad portion of society.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I, too, found this paragraph interesting. “They hate each other” is a strong sentence that clearly defines the situation she is describing. However, other than the situation with Randy’s 200 dollars, and all involving the corrupt policeman actually, the Wire seems to be at a disconnect with Leap here. Throughout all of The Wire, police officers like Carver and McNulty are not only working with the drug dealers and criminals, but also form very cordial and sometimes friendly relationships. The T.V. series seems to shed light on the complexity of their relationship while Leap is making too large of generalizations.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I am not surprised that this many people were moved by the passage. Equating gang involvement to losing one’s virginity is a powerful statement, so the analogy carries weight.
I was initially eager to protest this statement because a good family friend escaped tight Mexican gang involvement in LA and has since established a very respectful life with a family and business, but this is exactly what we discussed in class. Though this isn’t the news reporting an isolated case, I know that the case is indeed isolated.
What i disagree with is the fact that Khalid cannot change what the cops think of him. Even though the author even thinks he is probably still involved, that doesn’t mean he could be turned around, as we saw in the wire with Cutty. Though he ha a brief stint in the drug scene when he is released, he largely avoids it when he’s out.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This idea reminded me of the discussion we had last class about “the box” on applications in which we mark if we have been convicted of a felony in our past. These conversations really make me wonder about the level of permanence placed upon on our actions recognized by society. Yes, some people who commit crimes or join gangs never leave that identity. Yet, people like Cutty in The Wire, attempt to leave that identity, but find extreme difficulty in doing so due to the constraints society places upon those who were incarcerated or involved in deviant/criminal behavior. I think at times, it constricts the ability for people to escape from their pasts, and therefore further perpetuates the game.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
For people like Cutty who find they have little or no job opportunities outside of the drug market, it becomes a safety net of sorts; Barksdale was ready to accept Cutty back into the fold before he even left prison, making his old life an attractive option in the sense of having something to fall back on—even though he was constantly looking for a way to escape.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
As we have discussed, criminal history and gang affiliation are nearly impossible to escape. This pressure comes both from the gangs themselves and the criminal justice system. In Leap’s interview, she talks about “dark eyes,” a women who tries, unsuccessfully, to get away from gang affiliation. These issues are also addressed in the Wire, when D’Angelo says he wants out of the game, he is killed. Cutty also has extreme difficult leaving the game, coming up against institutional restraints.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think Kristin’s comment that equates the police attitude toward ex-gangsters and “checking the box” is a really smart comparison. I think these are both great examples of cardinal rule of “the game”, which is those who win the game make the rules. These are institutionalized attitudes that have come from the top down. This attitude is a reverse and perverse justification from the winners of the game. They seek to “otherize” the losers, so that the losers “deserve” to lose, which conversely means the winners (themselves) deserve to win. As we discussed in class, people hate to admit that they owe their success to privilege, and it helps to justify one’s success if you can point out the faults of the people less successful than yourself (gang affiliation, criminal record, teenage pregnancy, unemployed, drop-out). So the winners trip the losers and then justify winning the race because the losers were too slow.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think you make a great point with your comment on the fact that society constricts individuals who join gangs to an irreversible identity. I also think the strong basis of the analogy between joining a gang and losing one’s virginity is that both examples more specifically reflect a permanent loss of innocence. By joining a gang, young boys and girls make an irreversible step down a path that they can never take back. Even if they choose to eventually leave the game – if even possible – they have permanently lost their status as children due to fact that they have witnessed and participated in gang related activity. Physically, emotionally, and mentally young gang members are still adolescents, but due to their loss of innocence they are considered an equal player to those in the game and a societal threat to those outside of it.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This analogy of no return after joining a gang is very provocative, but not quite completely convincing to me. The first thing this passage sparked was the NPR This American Life story on Harper High School and the contrast it provided in terms of passage into gang life. The story talked specifically about joining a gang and how police officers, teachers and other outsiders imagined this as a clear and definitive process requiring some sort of event of passage. It was assumed to be like a pledging process and required an individual to choose to undertake it, but this was not the case. Kids did not really “choose” to join their neighborhood gang. Nor did they have a definitive moment in which they achieved an official status as a member. They lived in the neighborhood. They were all friends and spent time together. Joining a gang was a blurred line, not some defining moment.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
The analogy of no return after joining a gang can be seen in The Wire with the reoccurring things of not being able to get out of the game. Whether there is a pledging process, or you are associated in a gang because of neighborhood or family associations, there is definitely a point of no return. Rather than just quitting an after school activity, leaving the gang is equated to leaving the game and that is not tolerated. The game is literally their lives, and trying to quit the game is considered dying, figuratively, and literally in some cases.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The author’s statement that the police man probably “takes for granted” that she is relying on his protection was very striking to me, although i’m not exactly sure why. Perhaps it is because personally, I would never want to feel like a Police was taking his job of protecting citizens for granted. I feel as if police should always be actively aware of their duty to protect citizens, not just passively crossing their arms and trying to intimidate or do their job by sheer presence. In the Wire we see a full range of police officers, however we rarely see police officers interact with ‘average civilians’. When we see police officers arresting corner boys and patting them down, they all seem to follow the same motions and take on the same attitude. However, I think if we saw the Police characters from the Wire interact with someone who was pulled over for a speeding ticket, a character like Herc would probably act much differently than Kima.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
When the policeman asserts: "We’re never gonna know who did this. And it doesn’t matter. They’re gonna go on killing each other.” it really struck me. How do you intervene and stop a problem when the root of the problem stems from hate? When young people in LA are born into a gang and they hear stories of the other gang murdering their friends, family, and neighbors, how can they not join in and fight for their cause, for revenge, for their family. It seems like this problem parallels the struggle between Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza. How even mediators can temporarily calm both sides down like Khalid does in the reading, yet the peace can only be stopped for hours, days, weeks, or months. Do you introduce opportunities that take people’s attention away from the gang, opportunities that can provide more enjoyment and fulfillment, like sports? Is it the police’s responsibility to surveil the areas well enough to limit the violence as much as possible? Or is it the governments responsibility to come up with solutions?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think these questions that Matt brings up are interesting. In the Wire, it is crazy to see how just one killing can spiral into even more violence. Gangs seem to find no other redemption other than going out and killing who ever killed your friend/family member. Gascon explains “they’re gonna go on killing each other” meaning that gangs will kill to retaliate when need be. In these societies, it is almost as if killing is not a big deal to these gang members. It is something that happens all the time and there is no reluctance to kill for revenge.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This passage also struck me. The police lack of desire to even attempt to find out who committed a murder is a reason why inner city youths and adults are not fond of the police. Had this crime happened in a white suburban neighborhood, investigation to find out who committed the crime would have happened that same night. Because the police do not do anything to help, look for witnesses, bring people in for questioning, inner city youths will only continue to retaliate against each other. This never ending cycle of killing could be stopped, but because of the police lack of help, it will only continue.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Matt’s questions really get at the root of the problem in that they address the issue of the “never ending” cycle. I agree that the police’s lack of desire to stop some murders is part of the problem, but I think it comes down to the culture that has been created and tolerated for years. How do you completely change a cultural and thus affect the environment? It’s not a simple question at all and I think it will take a mix of policies, empathy, education, and programming, all of which will not make a difference without the others.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
At the same time though, I think violence is a side-effect of any black-market dealing. In the Wire, Hamsterdam is a place where all drug-dealers can buy and sell without punishment from the police. The only stipulation the Colvin gives the Barksdale gang members is that they need to stop the violence. This seems to be working until the late in the third season, when there is a murder in Hamsterdam. Still, I think this demonstrates how one facet of violence is an illegal business where there are no state protections. It would be interesting to see if gang violence would decrease in a Hamsterdam-like city, or would the gangs find something else to fight over?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
In another class I have read studies of cultures where violence is not prevalent (they were studying sexual assault in particular, but the findings extend to violence in general). A lot of people have found that cultures of violence stem from competition for resources. The inequalities in the neighborhoods like the one that Leap studies are so great that it shouldn’t really be surprising that there is so much violence. Drug gangs are competing with each other for social status, but we can’t forget the economic element to dealing drugs.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I recently read an article that detailed the concept of the “Warrior Gene” that could be naturally selected in Human Evolution to be present in many of today’s population. To me, the article seemed to be a veiled retreat back to the “biological racism” of the early 20th century, but its worth mentioning. Perhaps this sort of unknowable, intractable violence is inherent in us. THis study on the warrior gene did not exam other populations besides those in los socioeconomic groups, but speaking of Sexual Assault, rates on college campuses are as high as in any other sphere in our nation. Perhaps this violence is just a part of our humanity and is exhibited in different ways.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
“We’re never gonna know who did this. And it doesn’t matter. They’re gonna go on killing each other.” The cycle of violence embedded in this quote is horrific, but my gut reaction isn’t about reform and how to break that cycle. My first thought goes toward the motivation of wanting to be a cop. I know this is a cynical quote, and hopefully not shared by the entirety of the LAPD, but it makes me wonder why any individual wants to be a part of a profession designed to aid, assist, and protect a society if society lacks an inability to change for the better. I mean, I understand there are underlying motivations of steady pay and some power tripping, but doesn’t this quote create cognitive dissonance for cops and make them constantly question whether their work can ever have an effect?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
In response to Matt, I think it is so interesting that you made the connection to the Israeli Palestinian conflict because I was nervous I was the only one thinking that way while reading this passage. We talk about how people have no choice what family they are born in to, nor the gang they are born in to…but what about religion? And state? And culture? As Matt stated, this is the case in Israel and Palestine and has been for more decades than we can count. This hatred is so deeply rooted that young people today have come to the point where they do not know why they are fighting. Since birth, on both sides of the spectrum, Israeli and Palestinians have been taught to hate because of something their grandfather’s grandfathers went through. I see the emotional ties, but it is so hard for me to understand how and why it needs to continue this way. I see videos of two year old toddlers holding signs that curse Israelis walking in protests against the Jewish state. I do not see it fair in any way to drag the innocent in to a conflict hundreds of years old. And this goes for the friction in the streets as well. What is the point to it all? Just because children were born in to houses that were targeted in some way by another from the gang down the street doesn’t mean the third generation has to hate as well. I do not know what it is going to take to alter this, but rivalries stemmed from birth are going to take its toll soon enough.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I am very intrigued by this relationship between the cops and “gangsters.” I find that their relationship is almost a chicken and the egg scenario. They do not trust people on the street, so those people do not trust them, will never trust them. This renders the police far more ineffective than they could be if they had a better relationship with the lower class. I feel like this too does not help with crime. If the public had a higher degree of trust in the police, they would feel more comfortable to go to them. I was thinking about this issue the other day as I listened to this podcast called Serial done by This American Life about a murder case in Baltimore in 1999. Many of the people involved claimed that they did not call the police about the murdered girl because they did not trust the police to not incriminate the innocent parties in the murder. When the police lose this kind of trust, I believe that all is lost.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
It’s interesting to consider the relationship between the police and gang members. As in seen in The Wire, gang members cooperating with police can be extremely helpful in bringing down large drug regimes like the Barksdales’. However, the gangsters do not necessarily need the police in the same way. They have their own justice system, consisting of killing members of a rival gang to get even for something done against them. In The Wire, we see Omar’s boyfriend, Brandon, killed because of an incident that occurred between Omar and the Barksdale crew. Clearly the Barksdale crew can’t go to the police to report stolen drugs, so they have their own justice system to even the score. Omar and his allies have their own means of getting even as well, and part of that is to build a relationship with the police. It’s not enough to bring down the Barksdale crew, though, and Omar gets even by killing Stringer Bell. The police are actually used as pawns in the game to help rivalry gangs get back at each other, but without the police there would still be a justice system when one gang feels they have been wronged.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
People like Bill O’Riley criticize Blacks for not trying hard enough to break the cycle of poverty and violence, but how can they focus on methods of upward mobility when 24 hours of every day they have to worry about surviving? Staying alive naturally has to come before anything else. Leap’s description of how unnerving and distracting the sound of gunshots were should allow people like Bill to put into perspective how much easier it is for them to succeed. Their rationale that "some people make it out of the projects, so everyone has the possibility to " lacks empathy and understanding of human variation. Moreover, saying that a race has one culture is ignorant. Do all White people have the same culture? Then why are there poor Whites as well? The real reason that people like Bill don’t acknowledge the truth about the cycle of poverty and violence that Blacks are stuck in is because they don’t care as long as they are benefiting.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
There’s a scene in the Wire (Season three?) were they want all the drugs on the table for the news to report and they believe this will help solve all the homicides related to the drug problem. Media has come some ways since The Wire first premiered in ‘02. But anytime a gang is discussed, it’s by an ex-member who’s face is shadowed and voice is distorted. It’s from an anonymous source that provides a tip. It’s from an uploader on social media that’s impossible to track down. How helpful are media efforts to the drug problem when media has their own agenda to navigate?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think Chantel raises a good point here about the media’s portrayal and treatment of gangs. The Wire was a lofty and respectable representation of gang culture and everyday life within it—humanizing the characters as actual people with fears and hopes and choices constricted by their circumstances. But, this is one of the few exceptions to the rule, with Boyz N the Hood being the only other I could think of that attempts this kind of representation. What mostly comes to mind is the mainstream treatment with television shows like Gang Land that glamorize gangs into entertainment and trivializes all of the problems and implications stemming from them as more of a tv narrative plot device than actual battles faced by real people every day of their lives.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
For most people watching a show like The Wire, it is safe to say that the majority have never experienced anything close to the material they are seeing on the screen. The media portrayal of this way of life can definitely be seen as educational, but I more so see it as material that skews the public perception of this way of life. I do not necessarily think the media aim to glamorize the concept of gangs, but instead aim to humanize them enough to bring them in to the comfort of your own home. A show like The Wire raises several questions along the lines of who is this show actually benefiting, how are people supposed to react to the material and what are viewers supposed to do with the material, if anything at all? It is quite clear that there is a set agenda in terms of the media’s motives behind every article published and every scene cut, but there comes a point when such material is quite literally put in to a viewers hands and it is their choice of what to make of it.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
The thing that I find most frustrating about the Media’s portrayal of gangs or the average American’s thoughts towards gangs is that they always have a connotation with something that is bad or evil. While yes, it is a fact that gang violence exists and battles between gangs can be long-lived and deadly, the positive side-effects of gangs also needs to be examined. In the Wire, people like Randy, Dukie, Michael and Namond form a gang, but this gang not only is a social indicator of who they are or who they roll with, it is also a family or team. For all the times that a gang is participating in violent or illegal acts, I would argue that they spend equal time just hanging out, watching a movie or eating dinner much the way a stereotypical suburban family would be inclined to do. In addressing how to cut down inner-city violence, i really don’t agree that getting rid of gangs or the biggest gang leader is the solution. In fact, i see it as a pathway to more problems, much like in the ethnography we read about street-life in the hood of Chicago. By targeting the existence of gangs, law enforcement is making it so every man truly is for himself, they are not making the violence stop. Eliminating gangs isn’t a method of remedying the underlying problem but rather is a surface-level attack at the individuals who are players in the Game.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Here, Jorja confesses to the same sort of addiction to adrenaline that can be seen in characters like McNulty, Omar and others throughout the Wire and gang/police world. They aren’t addicted to any substance, per se, but they keep coming back to the work for the danger, the power, the adrenaline— that high that is afforded naturally but whose qualities may or may not be just as destructive as a chemical addiction.
There is obviously a certain character or personality type that is attracted to police or gang work. How does this impact how things are done within the system? Is it better to be an abusive, power-hungry cop than a drug dealer who enjoys the same prestige within his circle? Are cops better because they figured out how to adapt to the legal system rather than the code of the streets? What do the people who work in these environments—on both sides of the struggle— say about the quality of work being done and the nature of these systems we as a society have created and abide by?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think Carolines comment is very interesting and brings forth a lot of intriguing questions and important issues. It is true the policemen and members of gangs, although different, are both competing in a “game.” Maybe it’s not the same game, but it gives the same high. However, one game is a means of survival and the other is a choice. So which is better?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I really appreciate Jorja’s honesty in asserting that an entrancement with the excitement was one of the reasons she continues to pursue her profession. I feel like The Wire really successfully captures this same, inexplicable reasoning for why even people associated with the police force, can’t escape the game. McNulty’s life in multiple occasions reaches complete crumbling points and yet it is the intense drama and “pulsating high” of the crime scene that keep him committed to this career. Keema most clearly illustrates the struggle to carry a normal, office career after getting a taste of the adrenaline inside the yellow tape. It causes issues within her personal relationships, but it appears almost like an addiction she can’t fight.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Jorja expresses extreme fear during her presence at the crime scene. In all of the other ethnographies we have never encountered explicit fear from the point-of-view of the author. Even when the young sociology grad student was researching in Chicago, he seemed oddly comfortable with his situation in the towers. In this instance, Jorja is frighteningly honest with her emotions. This characterizes the voice and portrayal of the scene in a uniquely female POV—not to say that all women would be scared, but I personally would be frightened at a murder scene. In Jorja’s case, her fear motivates her to understand more.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
“But I am also scared of the LAPD and how many of these Boy Scouts on steroids have demonized every adolescent in the vicinity; I am frightened someone may shoot at them or that they may shoot at the wrong person.” Leap touches on an extremely volatile subject, especially so in the recent cases of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. Those cases aside, urban police in places of high crime rates are under immense pressure. This combined with rampant racial profiling, those who do not know how to handle the pressure well may end up targeting the wrong person, whether they are aware of the mistake or not. Her “Boy Scouts on steroids” comment suggests an overzealousness in law enforcement that she has perhaps seen for herself.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I feel like I keep commenting with reference to this scene, but it struck me as perhaps Simon’s most overt political appeal against the war on drugs. When Colvin is speakign to Carver, he tells him that by calling it a “war” on drugs or gangs, pretty soon people are going to start looking like the enemy instead of people who need to be protected. Police officers are just people too, and as we see in the wire, they can develop a single mindedness not unlike boy scouts, and classify everyone into neat social categories.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This characterization of the danger reminds me of the type of fear I learned about in a history class on WWII. We had been discussing blanket bombing techniques and the mental terror that they inflicted on people who suffered through them. The randomness of violence in that situation, and in this one, coupled with the frequency of danger, means NO ONE is EVER safe. Gang-controlled territory literally is a war zone, and people suffer similar conditions. We heard in the NPR piece about Harper High that students routinely suffer PTSD. The idea that people are constantly at risk of violence breaks down one’s psyche, creating constant anxiety and a base level of fear that never subsides. People adapt as best they can, but even children in their own homes are not safe from death by a stray bullet (as shown in the Wire). Her concern about retaliation from the police against the wrong person lends itself even more to the idea of a war and rampant “collateral damage” (violence against innocent people). It seems inhumane that people within the United States should have to spend their days living with the terror of an active war zone.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Elizabeth made a great point here about how people in these areas essentially have the same PTSD that someone living in a WWII Target city or I might add Pakistan would feel. They are in constant fear of getting attacked. I also fear that because these conditions are going undiagnosed and untreated, they are only getting worse. This shines light on the perpetuating nature of poverty, because in the American context it simply has no ends. Like Carver says, this isn’t a war on drugs because wars end.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This part of the article reminds me of the conversation that we had in class about how difficult it is for some to assess where they will be in 10 years. While students at UVa stress about where they’ll get a job and who they’ll marry and how many kids they’ll have, youth of the inner cities often can’t think past next week. As the author conveys, the future is so uncertain when you are constantly surrounded by gang violence. Bystanders are often victims of random acts of violence, even those trying to do good.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
When compared to other countries, America does have much higher rates of violence, particularly involving guns. The ideological support of Second Amendment rights has extreme consequences for impoverished neighborhoods. Guns have become easily available in impoverished neighborhoods run by gangs. This availability is repeatedly illustrate in the Wire. “Muscle” for street gangs are always equipped with “chrome,” and the guns are often carelessly tossed aside after their use. It is nearly impossible to fathom that this prevalence and use of guns was what the founders had in mind.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree with Zack guns and thus violence have become extremely disposable and prevalent within our society. The gangs in the wire often just dispose of the gun after they kill someone and buy a new one. This kind of reminds me of todays media environment and how it’s all about availability. Whatever story is most violent and available at the time often makes the news and than it’s on to the next story a few days later.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Kaili’s point on the story being about what’s available reminded me of season 5 when the Baltimore Sun had the option of running a short segment on a house fire or the death of Omar. They only had so much room, and they thought the house fire would appeal to more people, even though Omar’s death was more “violent.” Therefore, Omar’s story was never told, never mentioned or even acknowledged by the city. It just points out that media outlets pick and choose what the public will care about
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Though I’m all for irony, this is a serious comment. I remember pretty explicitly something that was said on a cab ride in dublin. My group of friends asked the cab driver about an area and if it was bad (since another person had communicated a message like that to us), and he practically scoffed at us. The man, who had moved to Ireland from Africa, told us that nowhere was going to be as dangerous as it was in America. He told us he didn’t understand how people in America could walk into schools and shoot people. How could we ever feel safe?
This opinion, when contrasted to the numbness of the police that is described earlier, shows that there definitely is a different mentality in America. Though it’s good to be aware of the dangers we could face, it’d be nice if we didn’t have to.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This quote really resonates with me and serves as a perfect summary for a lot of Leap’s work. The validity of this statement is pretty depressing seeing as we like to think of America as a place of peace and justice. However, as we have learned through our readings and watching The Wire, violence is incredibly common. I appreciate Leap’s motivation to end the excessive violence, I just wonder how much will come of it. As we have seen through the HBO series, the characters who truly care about ending violence develop relationships with the gang members and then have to watch them die. McNulty is constantly making friends with soon-to-be-dead gang members like Wallace. The show seems to present a negative connection between caring about violence and death. Leap says she wants to find the solution, but is the violence issue solvable? Violence has been a part of American history since it began and while it may be increasing in certain areas, I fear that it will always be a huge part of our nation.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
What a powerful summation of the institutional restraints on upward mobility that produce gray-markets like the gang-controlled drug trade. I’m reminded of Anderson’s writing on how and why young black men from these communities are “unemployable”, and feel that the solution is far more easily said than done.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think this quote is one of the salient parts of this ethnography. It speaks to the implicit connection between desperate poverty and violence. I think one of the best parts of ethnographies are that they illuminate the way choices are constrained on the micro level which on the macro scale are easy to demonize. These deaths seem directly caused by angry or violent people, but they are also directly tied to the poverty of the people involved and the desperation of the underground economy.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This comment reminds me of Dukie in Season 4. He is a kid who all the other kids, street and stoop alike, pick on mercilessly because he is poorer than the rest. This points out that no matter facet of society you are looking at, there is some sort of hierarchical structure. Dukie attempts to climb the ladder of this structure throughout season 4 and 5, knowing that he is looked down upon by most, and eventually defaults to being a junkie in a street ally. His pride helped him navigate through the structure, but once that pride faltered, he was left with the rest at the bottom of the food chain.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
At school, Dukie is treated specially by Prezbylewski because he is the poorest of the poor—evidenced by his clothes, his smell, and the behaviors of other students towards him. Because “there will always be another Dukie,” Prezbylewski is unable to lift Dukie out of poverty.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
That for me was one of the most powerful moments of season 4. The principal telling Prez that there will be more “Dukies” was startling, but hindsight now that I think about it, it makes sense.
The reason why I think it was so powerful was because the entire season you see Prez trying to make an impact, to really change and help someone. But this scene just sort of blatantly says this such help, and such change really is … impossible in this current system. Showing just how poorly organized and how poorly ignored these children are.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Wow that is so interesting. It is interesting that we have fabricated this whole notion of helping the poor and no kid left being/ trying to do the right thing, but in this scene of season four the principal essentially sets the record straight. There will always be other dukies and Prez can not help all of them.. This is so powerful in that it does come down to the contradiction of society. We want to help, but there are just too many to help! At the same times, is that any reason why we dhouldnt try, or shouldn’t come up with solutions to the problem. It is almost as if we are accepting defeat accepting the fact that we can’t help everyone.. This whole scene just reinforces the fact that upward mobility is impossible, unless you somehow have someone like Prez to help you (someone of higher class help you to get there) , but there are people like the principal that shoot them down because of the frightening reality that there will be more poor children to help.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Leap talks to a man named Ronny about being in a gang and he explains to her how its more than just a gang, its like family. Leap compares being in a gang to her Greek heritage— she was born into it, raised in it, grew up surrounded by Greeks etc. The same goes for the gang members. It is not something people choose. We see this in The Wire as well as in a few of our readings and the npr episode form class. At the beginning of the reading Leap talks about her first encounter with death— her grandmother’s funeral. She goes on to talk about her experience at a crime scene where a young boy was killed and there were children playing nearby. These children in poor neighborhoods in L.A. have a completely different first experience with death than Leap. It shows how the gangs make their way into kids’ lives at a young age.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Zana makes a good point here about how gang’s are family, but I just wanted to add that there is also this level of necessity that goes into it. Yes they don’t really have a choice on whether or not they want to be a part of the gang because they are brought in at such a young age, but also many of these people need the gangs just like they need a family. They provide financial, spiritual, and social support when they need it most, just like a family would.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think family background is a big factor in how the boys of the Wire are shaped. In this article, it states that “Ronny’s family has also passed down a history of violence”. Most of the time the family background of the boys in the Wire influences the boys actions. It is the passing down of the roles of older family members to these boys that almost forces them to become part of the drug trade without question. For example, in season 4 Namond’s mother expects Namond to take on the same role that his father did in the drug trade. Even though Namond does not seem like he wants to do this, he is forced to do so for the most part because of this family history. It is in these family’s nature to take part of the drug trade, so when boys are born into the family, they are under high expectations from their parents to partake in the drug trade.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
It’s interesting that Ronny has experienced violence in both of his families: gang family and his actual family. Growing up in a system of gangs exposes and normalizes violence and death for children. Namond’s mother demonstrates verbal abuse, where as Michael’s family has a murky history of domestic violence. While the drug trade perseveres and relies on violence, families are broken apart because of it.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
As Leap explains, Ronny is the “third generation of violence” in his family. He acknowledges that this vicious cycle of gang violence must be broken. I think that this idea is what every class discussion, reading, and episode of “The Wire” boils down to: how can we break the cycle? It is nearly impossible for children who grow up in a dangerous and violent environment where gangs rule and education is scarce to prosper and lead a successful life. If their path is to be changed from their generational track record, it has to start when they are young; it has to start with their education. In Season 4, Pryzbylewski’s character is determined to break the cycle for Dukie by going above and beyond the call of duty of an inner city Baltimore teacher. He helps him with laundry and food and holds him accountable for attending class. Unfortunately no matter how much effort we may put in to breaking the cycle, it is still an extremely difficult and risky process. As we see in The Wire, Even Prez’s dedication wasn’t enough, as he later finds out that Dukie has dropped out of middle school and is now working the corner.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I was surprised by the story of Ronny’s cousin, Joey. Specifically that he immediately confessed to the crime:
“Oh, he told them he did it… Why are you surprised? He did it.”
All other juvenile arrests in The Wire plead the fifth. I guess this is because they have gang affiliation to which they remain loyal. I don’t see any indication that Joey was in a gang, but nonetheless, I think it’s interesting that he had no reluctance to admit what he had done.
Does this say anything about the culture he grew up in? I’m curious to hear everyone’s thoughts on this.
To wrap up, I’ll quote Ronny once more, “Oh well. I guess he’s gonna do time.” There seems to be no distress in that statement. I think it, unfortunately, illustrates how commonplace arrests are in the poverty class.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I’d like to echo Alex’s point that, among the poor, incarceration is a fact of life. Many of us have never known people behind bars while in many communities it’s a revolving door from the projects to jails back to underfunded communities that are breeding grounds for crime and poverty. Joey’s confession conveys just how incarceration was a socio-economic reality. Rather than being the result of a grave moral transgression, we should see what happened to Joey as a product of an array of systemic inequalities – in education, in housing, in healthcare.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Ronny’s lack of emotion towards the fact that Joey is probably going to be incarcerated makes me think of the dynamics within the prison in Season 2 of The Wire. In Season 2 it is evident that the game continues and simply takes on a new twist when a member is in jail – same loyalties, similar politics, completely new surroundings.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think it is interesting to note Joeys reaction. I think stephanie brings up a great point that prison to them/ just how it is in the wire, is a natural common occurrence and that they wil do time and get out and continue their lives. The game continues.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Ronny’s observation that the LAPD targets the projects could probably be justified empirically. The reason for this is that city police departments, like the LAPD want to have high conviction rates so their numbers make it look like they’re doing their job. Politically it makes sense for the LAPD to target the projects. Unfortunately, the result of this is that the projects becomed mired in high incarceration rates which only add to the manifold obstacles to upward mobility for residents of the projects. Furthermore, like when Bunny Colvin likens parts of Baltimore to a war zone, police departments return over and over to these crime-ridden communities to lock away ever more people. Thus, this kind of broken windows theory of law enforcement is flawed; the solution is more funding for public services in cities (not ever more incarcerations).
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Leap’s phrasing-“angry black-man mode”-is compelling in that it encapsulates the transformation of a sweet kid named Ronny into the thug Saint. It instantly dehumanizes him, highlighting how simple labels can define an entire race. Ronny’s history is erased when he becomes an angry black man, seen only for his external posture of aggression and violence. This recalls the boys in season 4 of The Wire as they stood on the precipice of ‘manhood,’ forced to officially enter the drug trade. Additionally, I believe that Leap is trying to emphasize how kids in these neighborhoods never truly get to experience childhood, having to be on guard and aware of their behavior. Darius, who Ronny compares to himself, studies closely the interactions of his elders, as he knows that the only way to survive is to ‘become a man’ very quickly.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
This angry black man mode just serves another reminder of the double consciousness of African Americans in society. These kids, like Ronny, don’t get to experience childhood, neither do the kids in The Wire, because they have to teeter a balance between these two lives to survive. But the fact that it escalates to anger so fast when the LAPD come speaks to a laden mistrust of police force from generational repression from law authority figures. What can society do to eradicate this stereotype of the angry black man?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
This is a really interesting way to look at the duality of Ronny’s character, and more so the duality of gangsters and black people in the projects. In the scenarios described before, Ronny is your average kid. Laughing, goofing around and hanging out with his friends. But there is a dark side to society that brings out the dark side of him. He is human, but part of his method of survival requires a dark side because of this treatment by police. This is able to be described as “angry black man” because this is a trope that most black people do have to use when it comes to dealing with the police. After such a long history of racial profiling and violence, how could one not develop a dark side of anger like this?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I agree, in that, I found the term “angry black-man mode” to be interesting, as well as, dehumanizing. Like Mary says, this term highlights the shift from helpful Ronny who is happy to sit around with Leap to scary Ronny who is willing to kill people for what he needs. Leap could have simply referred to his shift as a shift into “angry mode” but for some reason, that did not do the job. Do we get the same feeling when she uses “angry black man” as we do with “angry man”? We should, but I fear that we do not.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
There are certainly two different feelings we can all say we get when we here the term like “angry black man”. It is dehumanizing and especially “othering”. These kids don’t get to experience any sort of childhood because from day one they have to be taught how to live as a black man in America, not just as a “man”.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This discussion reminded me of the news clips we watched about the Ferguson shooting. There was one clip in particular where the female FoxNews anchor implied that black men, even unarmed black men, are so physically threatening that they can be assumed to be carrying a weapon. I think this speaks to a larger creation of a social role of the “angry black man.” We saw this trope with the Trayvon Martin shooting, in Ferguson, and even when President Obama came out and said that even as the President of the United States he still knew what it felt like for a woman to cross the street when she saw him coming. I’ve learned in psychology classes that people respond to the expectations other people set for them. This perpetuated stereotype of the “angry black man” or the “violent black man” is a dangerous misconception that has real consequences for the treatment and reaction of black men across America.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
THis line reminds me of one of my favorite movies, the Departed, and how one of the police officers grew up with divorced parents, one in a middle class home, the other in the projects. They ask him to use this upbringing undercover, just as Ronnie is asked to show around the researcher. It is interesting to me that to be successful and be fromt he project, one must cultivate multiple personalities. It reminds me of Anderson in many ways, the idea that even decent kids have to learn the ways of the street. Ronnie is an example of how as those street kids age, those tendencies and needs of the decent v. the street begin to take on different personalities all together.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think this idea of multiple personalities is very important because I think that is exactly what most people use to succeed/ push throughout his world. People have multiple personalities to deal with certain people, events, and occurrences int he world.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The mission creep of transforming the war against terrorism into the war against “urban terrorism” brings to mind yesterday’s class discussion. Thinly veiled policies against African Americans are color blind on the surface, but translate into incredibly punitive practices. The introduction of anti-terrorism policies post-9/11 in LA understandably perplexes Leap and begs the question: what constitutes terrorism? I would agree with her that living under constant fear of violence is the real terrorism pervasive in LA. Yet the government-and the LAPD- do not treat this threat with the seriousness they treat the much more remote threat of terrorism. Rather, the residents of these neighborhoods are seen as pariahs, regardless of the individual circumstances of the inhabitants.
This recalls the relationship in The Wire between the police and FBI, the latter of which almost entirely shifted its focus (and resources) to anti-terrorism when the underlying problems in Baltimore had little to do with terrorism. I believe that the drug trade represents a more realistic form of terrorism in cities like Baltimore and LA. Non-state actors perpetrate murders and violence against innocent civilians. Yet in this form of terrorism, the government is apathetic, and in some cases, complicit in its functioning.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree. When Leap explains her on going fight with Mark about what is considered terrorism by the LAPD, I thought about the MIchelle Alexander reading and how the “war on drugs” is just a different way to limit the rights of African Americans. It seems to me that labeling street crime as terrorism is just another excuse using state resources towards African American incarcerations.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Completely agree. Its funny how after 9/11, the entire thinking of the country changed. But its now 13 years later and the far bigger threat to our cities and urban hubs is the violence involved in the drug trade. Like we’ve talked about in class though, the police are scared to go to certain areas and these people are left without protection. I don’t know that more money will necessarily change that as the cops will still be unwilling to go to these areas.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I made a point about this in the other reading with reference to how we focus so much on the dire conditions of poverty and poor education systems in countries outside of our own. The same can be considered with terrorism. Of course, after 9/11 it is extremely important that our country focuses on external threats that could impact our country, but the fact of the matter is that there is also so much terrorism here at home in the form of the drug trade and gang violence. It is important to adopt the perspective that we are facing a lot of the same problems that we pin to other countries, even though they might not show up in quite the same form that has become coded to us through the media and actions of institutions.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I really agree with your point, Mary Zack. A truly staggering statistic that I recently discovered was that in 2012, there were 532 murders in Chicago (nearly 1.5 a day), and police estimate that about 80 percent of those murders were gang related. What’s crazy is that given these shocking figures, the national outcry was muted at best. In February 2013, CNN reported that some children living in gang-ridden parts of the city carry guns because, “to them, getting caught and serving time for possession of a gun is better than getting caught without one and dying.” It seems like if instead of “gang violence” the bloodshed were called “terrorism;” or if instead of labeling these groups as gangs we were to call them terrorists, the nation would demand greater action. After all, if children are afraid to walk to school because they might get killed or if residents are afraid to identify perpetrators for fear of retaliation, I think it’s safe to say they are being terrorized.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I agree with the above point. I think in this country, for a long time, the majority of the focus has been placed on urban terrorism rather than actual foreign terrorism. This relates back to class when “white flight” and “block busting” were discussed. Although another 9/11 is terrifying, a more realistic fear for many suburban families and in this situation, the LAPD, is the presence of African Americans. The small percentage of African Americans involved in the drug trade and crime has been shown on television and other mediums enough that now police and suburban families feel like “urban terrorism” is what’s wrong with the country. It’s almost laughable.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I also agree with Marcus’s point. Its even worse when people go so far as to directly correlate the death toll of U.S military forces in the MIddle East with gang-related deaths in America’s most violent cities. Terms like “Chi-raq” “Atlanta-stan,” while used as slang by the youth or tongue-in-cheek by conservative talk show pundits, reflects a disturbing trend of labeling with the the stamp of un-American violence. The term “terrorism” has an alienating and damning quality in media culture today, and I think it’s a very dangerous thing to label our own youth’s as “terrorists”
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
All the ethnographies we’ve read present ample firsthand experience living and interacting with improverished families and/or gangs. Yet up to this point I felt that all had some degree of sterility and purposeful nuance. And I don’t mean that in a bad way. Kozol, for example, is a wildly empathetic, demoralizing, and yet inspriational piece of writing aobut Vicky’s family and their struggles. But Kozol always feels… fair, and rational to some degree. He constantly thinks about the big picture and how his experience is a microcosm displaying what needs to be changed. Jorja Leap on the other hand just writes what she thinks and feels, without apparent consideration for offending those close to her or severing relationships. This line in particular is incredibly damning of her husband by equating herself as the class idiot in his eyes. I think this was actually a fairly incoherent post, but my bottom line is that Leap’s tone is uniquely stream of conscious for an ethnography. I like it.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Leap’s issues with her husband seem to have stemmed greatly from his profession as a cop. This made me think of McNulty and his tumultuous relationship with his ex-wife that eventually led to their separation. So much of this is because of his job as a cop that took him away from home and thus led him astray from his wife and duties to his family. This piece, along with the Wire, does a good job of showing just how easy it is to get caught up in an element of police work and have parts of ones personal life fall apart.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think the point Mary raises is interesting; this piece brings attention to the dedication many cops have to their jobs, which keeps them away from home. We can also see this similarity in the drug dealers of The Wire as well. The relationship between McNulty as well as D’Angelo with their partners was similar in that they both turn to habits such as coming home late, going to bars and strip clubs, and being absent in their children’s lives. They lose sight of caring for their family due to their inability to deal with any stresses outside of the stress of their jobs. In this way, are cops and drug dealers similar?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This reminded me of one of the great quotes from the Wire- Kima says to McNulty, “How come they know you’re police when they hook up with you. And they know you’re police when they move in. And they know you’re police when they decide to start a family with you. And all that shit is just fine until one day it ain’t no more. One day, it’s ‘You should have a regular job.’ and ‘You need to be home at five o’clock’.” (3.3) i think that’s one of the most interestingly explored threads in the Wire and one of the only way women are shown. They’re shown not being able to handle relationships with cops (Kima’s wife, McNulty’s wife, etc.) The women are sort of shown as not being able to stick with their men, who are ironically shown as flawed heroes with a number one commitment to their jobs.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I also found it really interesting how being married to a cop affected Leap’s career and personal life. In an interview I found of her (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdONleKpoIk),), she explained how once the word got out that she was married to an LAPD officer (although she says she was always honest with those she interviewed and told them), they would start to test her. Leap explains that the people she would interview would purposely give her false information in order to see if she would tell her husband. Overall it actually seems like this ended up advancing her research because she kept everything confidential. Once they realized that none of their stories made their way back to the LAPD, “I was trusted,” Leap says. Although at first many people would think her husband’s career would end up destroying hers, Leap has found ways to use it to her advantage.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I’m not sure if it’s due to my annoyance with Jorja Leap’s decision to include so many personal details about her marital dispute, but I have a very hard time siding with her in this argument. It’s very easy to point to all the injustices in a system when you are an outsider. Obviously, the police force would prefer to have as much funding as possible, and use that funding to eliminate all crime and murder. Managing a tax-funded institution involves making choices regarding allocating expenses and resources. In the case of the “poor black woman”, it is clear that the police have valued the life of these two police officers over that of this dead mother. However, it does not imply that the police don’t value the lives of citizens in the margin of society. I think that if the police had spent more time and money investigating the murder of a mother while ignoring an escaped cop-killing fugitive, then that situation would raise more questions about whether the police force is properly allocating it’s resources. Leap points out the injustice in the situation, but she doesn’t pose any sort of realistic solution to the problem other than more funding and attention towards dealing with gangs. She neglects all of the constraints facing the city of LA and the people who maintain the institutions in the city, such as budgeting and politics.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I would react against Campbell’s post somewhat in saying that the difference between valuing the lives of some over others is not a funding problem. Leap isn’t saying that this is a product of misallocation of police funds or that the police are racist. It goes further than that, it pushes back to the theme of institutional dysfunction that is so well explored in ‘The Wire’. Police departments are political and as such are responsive to the optics of crime and law enforcement as shown by the media. Furthermore, there is more political pressure to not necessarily prevent the most crimes but to look most favorable in front of an electorate or to those who make political appointments. Just as Deputy Rawls shows, in season three, when asking his Lietenants to meet unrealistic demands by fiddling with the numbers, police departments are often dysfunctional and fail to serve their true purpose because politics obscures. I think Leap is implicitly arguing that there is something about the way police departments are run that treats people differently according to the optics that their race, class or gender might raise in the media.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This piece of the story brings up a significant problem in the justice system. If someone kills a cop its somehow ten times worse than if a random civilian gets killed in drive-by shooting. Why is this? Sure police put their lives in danger for the sake of protecting society, but there is always the threat of being killed. A mother in a poor neighborhood doesn’t put herself in danger on purpose to protect others’. In The Wire we see all the police get wildly upset when Kima is shot and injured in a fake drug deal that is supposed to help take down the Barksdale crew. The police are determined to figure out who it is that shot Kima, even though she wasn’t killed. Later in The Wire, a child is killed in a gang-related fight in the streets of one of the Baltimore neighborhoods. We never see the police trying to hunt down who killed this innocent child, yet it was very important to find the person who shot Kima. This poses a major flaw in the justice system; in our society innocent bystanders should not be killed and their killers get away because police officers just classify it as a gang-related murder and move on.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Is lack of understanding the culprit here or the lack of trying to understand? What seems to be apparent is Mark Leap is not a bad guy— he takes care of his own. These are what guys in gangs do, too. Neither side seems able or willing to empathize with the other and so the cycle repeats itself.
What if more social workers became cops? What if cops were required to be teachers or engage in some other sort of independent social work that would deconstruct the “family” of cops all over, allowing them to see the situation they are trying to police without the lens of being police, which is being part of a close-knit community like gangs/sets/greeks.
Our communities color the way we see things; are our cops hindered by the way they are banded together?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think money is a big issue here too. Funding or lack of funding causes these changes in priorities. What is social workers were paid part of the funds spent on counterterrorism? What if all cops had to go undercover before they’re on payroll? What if Hamsterdam existed? There’s a lot of what if’s, but things aren’t going to change for a long time when money is such an integral part of the efforts.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This section reminds me of real life situations in inner city neighborhoods and also times in “The Wire” when the police would harass people for nothing. The police spend so much time and money trying to eliminate gangs and drug trade when in all actuality those two things will never cease to exist. Rather than go in their patrol cars and search for real crimes, they purposely drive through inner city neighborhood and hassle and harass inner city youth who they think are suspicious. Not all the time, but a majority of the time, those “suspicious” people will have nothing more than a joint on them, but will still face physical punishment from the police. In the Wire, this reminds me of the time Prez punched that innocent kid in the eye, or the times Carver and Hurk would just pull up to the corners and start beating on the kids even if they had nothing on them. Police abusing their power and feeling like they can hit or speak to anybody in the inner city or hood as if they are less than a human is the reason is why the police are so disrespected in these inner city environments.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think that one of the reasons Carver and Herc spent so much time harassing inner-city kids is the frustration they harbor in not being able to actually catch them doing anything illegal, so they settle for trying to ruin their day. This makes for a vicious cycle that their pride doesn’t allow them to break. Virtues aside, Carver and Herc are more reckless and lose their cool more often than the rest of their unit, and it also probably stems from their dispositions that make them go a little power-mad. Unfortunately, there are real-life Carvers and Hercs as well.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
While punishing petty crimes and attempting stop drug activity for small lengths of time may not have a significant impact on stopping the drug trade, I think it would be irresponsible to do nothing about it. Much of the reason why crime is so rampant in inner city neighborhoods is because of the atmosphere, so attempting to change that could have more tangible effects than anticipated. If cops didn’t patrol those neighborhoods as much as they do, can you imagine how much more crime and indifference to norms would exist? I think what this conversation arrives at is there is no satisfying way to begin trying to eliminate this problem, but it has to get started somewhere.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This reminds me of how Bodie gets murdered just for talking with McNulty. It is hard to describe how valuable one’s reputation on the streets is, but the Wire does this well by articulating that you can get murdered on the pretense of snitching, even if all you did was smile at a cop.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Jorja Leap assumes that she is safe because she didn’t intentionally involves herself with gang activity, however, through our previous readings and by watching The Wire, we know this to be false. She has increased her chances of being a target by being married to a police officer and by actively involving herself in certain cases. This raises the question as to whether Jorja has entered “the game” as well.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think she is definitely part of the game. She is in such close proximity that she must be involved, even if she isn’t as influential of a player as Avon or Stringer. Even the title to her book implies that she’s involved: “Jumped In” (cheesy pool analogy: if “The Game” is a pool, she just “jumped in” the deep end).
Perhaps Leap’s and Sudhir’s (“Gang Leader for a Day”) strongest contribution to The Game is that they report their findings. By making the workings of gangs visible through their books, they have changed how the game is played.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I really like that analogy Alex and I think it definitely rings true. Jorja is definitely just as involved in the game as any one of us. Also, not only have both Leap and Sudhir made the game change but they have also simply brought visibility to the real life struggles of these young black men, more visibility than any statistic. There needs to be a continuance of and a stronger appreciation for findings like those given from Leap and Sudhir.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
As complicated and nuanced as the relationship between drug gangs and police can be, I think that the police walk an interesting line between in and out of ‘the game’. While they aren’t directly involved in the distributing and selling of drugs, or in the business of a gang, the police make targets of themselves when they actively work to thwart gang activity. This adversarial role makes police vulnerable to violence simply because they are police and are seen as part of the institution working to stop the drug game. So while I wouldn’t say they are in the game, I would say they stand to lose the most from peripheral violence.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
It’s interesting to think about how the police are in the game even though they aren’t active participants of the drug trade— in fact they’re fighting the game which makes them part of the game. Leap talks about how if the gangs find out she is married to a cop they will kill her. I did not know they would have such a strong reaction. I assumed they would just shun her, not kill her. In The Wire I feel like the relationship between cops and gang members is pretty casual even though they don’t like each other. In one episode Body and Poo run into Carver and Hurk at the movies and it is as if they aren’t cops and drug dealers.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree with Zana that I was shocked to learn that Leap runs such a risk through interacting with these people in the projects while being married to a cop. The Wire does not portray such high stakes in an interaction between a cop and a gang member, yet this woman faces such a risk if people actually learn who she is. It is interesting that the line of her work is in such contention with that of her husband’s, and there certainly does not seem to be a shortage of this contention between them under their roof at home.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think police have to be considered part of the game, especially when they patrol certain areas and get to know members of the gang. In the wire, when Carver gets so upset at the gangsters, its because he deals with them enough and gets to know them personally and he is emotionally invested at stopping the drug trade. When police get familiar with the areas and gangs, they can gain advantages to stopping crime and take their job more personally, thus making dealing with gangs part of their livelihood and being a player in the game.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The fact that Leap’s risk is derived from a personal relationship instead of a professional one is just one of the many reasons why extralegal economies are so dangerous.
“The game” is a business, yet her personal relationships and decisions could affect her fatally rather than economically or professionally. We have laws and a government in place for the security to engage in business practices without the repercussions of whatever we did at work determining whether we live or die. Sure, business decisions can impact personal situations and vice versa but your life, health and safety should not be in the balance.
This is one of the leading arguments for legalization of all substances, actually—because black markets, without any sanctioned laws or governing body create violence because violence is the only way to enforce order without civil punishment or law enforcement methods.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Even though Leap is putting herself in a really dangerous situation, she is actively benefiting from her husband’s position in the LAPD. There are obvious pros and cons to being a reporter and a police officer’s spouse. Dangerous relationships oftentimes carry high rewards. We see this with the drug-dealers’ girlfriends in a few of the ethnographies we have read. They benefit from their boyfriends’ money-making, yet know that deadly repercussions can result from their boyfriends’ occupations. Leap has to weigh the perks she gets from being a cop’s wife with the harms. It’s unclear whether she would still be doing this extreme kind of reporting if she weren’t Mark’s wife.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I’ve always wondered the real relationship between cops and drug dealers after watching the wire. Before seeing the show, I thought it was always a constant and blatant hate, but after seeing it the relationship is portrayed as one that is filled with hate, but not to the point of boiling over with emotion. I don’t know if the way the relationship portryaed is correct or not, but it is interesting to see how after chasing drug dealers for years the relationship can soon turn into not simple hate, but a competition amongst each other.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
While most cops aren’t directly involved in the drug trade, what about the ones that are crooked and are involved. I think back to the prison guard that was getting the drugs to all the inmates. This could very easily happen as the police do have access to drugs. Then what about undercover cops that sell drugs? Are they part of the game? I found an article online that talks about this issue in greater detail
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I’ve always wondered this question as well because undercover cops for a time being are just helping the game to continue. However, I’ve come to believe that their good eventually outweighs the bad they had to do in order to get there. It would be interesting to hear from an undercover cop’s perespective on how it feels to be a part of the game even just for a little while. However, I would not consider them a part of the game because they have alterior motives than the actual drug dealers. It is interesting to think about it they are part of the game, but realisitcially they aren’t because they are doing a necessary evil in order to try to gain a magnificent good.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
When Omar testifies against Byrd he insists that “I ain’t never turned my gun against a citizen.” The witness, William Gant is clearly not in “the game.” We see him as someone simply caught in the cross hairs. So why don’t we consider the police caught in the cross hairs? Many are well meaning simply assigned to neighborhoods in which the game is taking place. They aren’t actively participating and not consciously accepting the consequences of being in “the game.”
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This fear illustrates the complexity of determining where the lines of “the game” are drawn. Are family members also involved in the game? The Wire addresses this throughout. D’Angelo’s mother Brianna and girlfriend Donette are not directly involved with the drug trade. However, they clearly have a stake in the trade and benefit from the income that it brings in. It also to some extent puts their safety in danger. The police officers family members, on the other hand, do not seem to be as directly involved with the game. However, they still rely on the income that it brings in to the police officers.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
This is a really interesting point. I think that a family member’s complicity makes them a part of the game. From what I remember (I could be wrong!), Omar’s grandmother wasn’t aware of his stick-up jobs. His distress over her life being threatened by his involvement in the game stems from the fact that she is protected by an insulation of ignorance. So Brianna and Donette, strongly associated with and benefitting from the game, are fair targets.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
See I totally disagree with your point that they have the “most to lose”. Because this is their job, they signed up for this, they know whats expected – and they can resign – separate them selves from the game.
The people who are at the most to lose … are the kids, the parents, the generations of family who are stuck playing this game, that they never even had a choice to in the first place. They cannot leave the game, because for them the game is their life. Sure a couple of kids in each grade might actually get through, but what about everyone else. I definitely respect the police, and I am probably 100% ignoring other facts – but in my opinion its the kids who have the most to lose.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
General Document Comments 0