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
The brazen old women and young men Leap describes here are quintessential Wire characters. From all the runners and moneymen to the old women who are staples in the community scenes, these archetypes are widely represented. Bodie and Poot, the corner kids, the old woman who witnessed the shooting of the civilian witness, and the old woman who refused to abandon her home in Hamsterdam are all characters made from these molds that convey the deepest connections to the streets, whether they are historical and physical connections through the women or “Game” connections through the young men. These two groups of very different people, in a sense, run the streets, and are therefore most comfortable “milling around.” The old women know that they are generally safe from harm in their matriarchal civilian status, and the young men know that the threat of harm is simply part of the territory.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree that characters such as the older women have such a strong connection to the streets. In a couple of readings this semester, writers have mentioned how old women – grandmothers, mothers, etc. play a crucial role in the lives of street kids, but we see very little of this in The Wire. This section of this essay also reminded me of “Gang Leader for a Day” because of his developed relationship with the older woman/landlord. It seems like characters and narratives like this have been almost eliminated from the stories The Wire tells.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
While it is strange for them to play in the middle of such a devastating situation, it isn’t all that devastating because it has become a normalized event. This reminds me of the shoot out that Omar and his crew did when his friend died in the street. The kids were reenacting the shoot out minutes later while the police and crime scene were investigating the area. Bunk witnessed the kids switching roles and fantasizing that they were Omar, like he was a hero of some sort. The same can be said about the many murders and shoot outs that occur within the show on a general basis. They seemed to just come with the territory most of the kids just let these events occur without any regard to how depressing they were. I truly do think that this is so devastating to think that kids can lose the ability to sympathize with death and victims.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
It is upsetting to me that the children in this piece, and in The Wire, are unable to recognize how terrible a killing is because they have become normalized events for them in their commmunities. Like T’Keyah mentioned above, the children in the Wire reenact a shoot out right after it happens, without realizing the extent of what has happened. These kids have become desensitized to the sound of gunshots, to police sirens, and to attending funerals. I find it interesting that the adults and th men on the street are the ones that allow themselves to get the most emotional about death. Omar is one of the characters in The Wire that kills the most people, yet he is the character that gets the most emotional when the people he loves are killed. Omar hasn’t been desensitized to death, which is a reason why I think viewers are sympathetic to him despite the number of people he kills.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This sentence calls to mind the scene in season 2 when Beatty discovers the cargo box of dead women. Even after investigating, the identities of the women remain unknown. For example, although McNulty tries to find the name of the woman floating in the water, she is ultimately declared anonymous by the morgue. However not all of death is like this, and I feel The Wire does a fantastic job of humanizing deaths that seem far away from our comfortable lives. The show helps us empathize with these characters by recognizing all dimensions, therefore relating their lives to ours.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
As we discussed in class, besides respect and other major street values, “Stop Snitchin’” is pretty much the street mantra. Even as the final member of what Leap presents as a foursome of children lies died in a pool of blood, the other three, whether they know anything or not (they probably do), “uniformly” deny any knowledge of the situation, as they are wont and socialized to do. Imagine living with the ideal that public employees meant to serve and protect cannot actually be trusted when confronted with the homicide of a comrade. These boys live in that reality where they are safer and better off keep their mouths shut to the authorities in order to maintain the code of the street and not stir up any more problems for themselves.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The description of the nonchalant attitude possessed by the police during a murder investigation is startling for me, as it would not be the way I reacted to a murder, but it is just another day in LA for the detectives. One of the most interesting things about The Wire is the way the police are depicted, specifically in the homicide division. Murder does not seem like a big deal to them, and they joke around about the subject often. It appears that in a city like Baltimore or Los Angeles, there is simply so much crime and death that eventually the detectives become desensitized to the violence.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think this is a good point and I would like to add that detectives/police almost need to be desensitized in a way in order to do a good job. I’m not trying to say that that is the only way they could be good detectives or cops, but at least in the show, it seems like it helps them take a step back from the situation and look at it from a logical standpoint. I remember at some point in the 4th season Bunk tells Kima (when she is a rookie in homicide) that she needs to have “soft eyes” when investigating a crime scene, meaning she needs to be open to the possibilities of what could have happened, rather than have a sort of tunnel vision, focusing on only one part of the scene, leaving her ignorant to the bigger picture. I would say that the opposite of soft eyes, “hard eyes”, if you will, could include that someone is so emotionally invested they shut themselves off from the bigger picture, rendering them a poor detective or investigator. So in some ways I could see how desensitization, in some ways, can be helpful, almost necessary, for their line of work.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I would agree with your assertion that the desensitization of murder in the police unit in The Wire is a “good” thing. The police characters are able to move past the shock of a dead body and analyze the murder scene critically. As you note, there is a theme of “soft eyes” throughout series. Generally, having soft eyes makes the character blind to the reality of the situation, whereas having hard eyes makes them see things more realistically.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think both of you make great points here, and I would just like to add that journalists also fall into the same category as these detectives and police. In some sense, journalists have to be desensitized to violence and crime because they are responsible for investigating cases and reporting a great story about what has happened. Journalists have to be willing to put themselves in uncomfortable situations, knock on doors, approach grieving family members, controversial government employees, etc. and they have to pick and pry at their subjects emotions to get the angle they want. When a journalist becomes too sensitive, they will not be able to focus on the facts of what happened or be able to look at a case with “soft eyes.” Season 5 of The Wire focuses on the Baltimore Sun, and we are able to see how the paper and journalists handle Baltimore crime and politics in contrast to the way the police department and government handle their cases and issues.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Leap doesn’t offer the full context for this quote, but based on the quote alone, I can’t help but be reminded by The Wire’s Season 3 in which many powerful people in command, such as Mayor Royce, make decisions with nothing in mind but securing their high standing position in the hierarchy of whatever institution they are working in. There were a lot of political motivations behind certain decisions (I remember Mayor Royce spent hours in his office trying to figure out a way to “spin” Hamsterdam to the press in his favor) that were arguably not for the greater good of Baltimore County but for themselves. In one seemingly small stray quote, Grasso implies the mayor wouldn’t listen to department issues if he wasn’t interested in reelection, suggesting that similar kind of political motivations influencing powerful people in The Wire’s Baltimore are also influencing people running LA.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I also note a lot of potential similarity between this quote and what we see in The Wire. While it is clear that mayoral figures are shown doing for the police department only things that will help their campaign in the end, I think another interesting part of the picture is the police department itself. Every policeman and police head is very aware of the corruption and decision-making that is going on within their political system, especially with Mayor Royce. Just as Officer Grasso is aware that the mayor will listen to her and her team on this case, the police in The Wire, to an extent, know the mayor’s influence in their cases. The line between police and mayoral power is very fragile as either end can influence the other’s success greatly.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I’m wondering how exactly police departments maintain focus on daily objectives within the department while dealing with these external forces. In the Wire we see a myriad of complicated, often highly political, issues within the department. Either, a police chief is getting the axe, or someone new is shaking things up. Stability seems to be an issue, and this must be problem in a line of work which deals with law and order.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This sentence and the one preceding it echo the situation in Season 2,3, and 4 of The Wire. As we saw, the interaction between the mayor and police commissioners is a symbiotic relationship. In order for Mayor Royce to show he has made improvements in crime in Baltimore, he asks them to make the homicide rate decrease. This example resonates with what Leap is describing here. The police are interested in clearing murders, while other bureaucratic forces are interested maintaining good rates.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The quote “It’s all static interrupted by voices interrupted by more static—until there is almost a rhythm to the cacophony of noise,” struck me. To suggest that there is a “expected” rhythm to the crime being reported over the radio makes me think that nothing is being done in the police department to reduce this crime. It’s as if the police department waits around doing nothing until they have to attend to a crime.
One of the main focuses of the police department in The Wire is to reduce crime, but throughout the entire series it seems that none of their attempts to do this are successful. In the Homicide division especially, we see the detectives sitting around waiting for calls to come in reporting murders. The detectives playfully joke around about who will have to take the next call, but don’t actively do anything to prevent homicides (except when they are working on exciting cases on special details). The incidents don’t stop, and there will always be more murders—more static over the radio.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think you make a really interesting point regarding police action. As audience members, many times throughout the seasons we see explicit ways the police could shut down a case or prevent a murder, etc. from existing in the first place. One thing I have noticed particularly is the way communications between units would help exponentially in solving crimes and perhaps event destroying the cause of much of the drug parade and violence. I think that is why the Major Crimes Unit (particularly in the 1-3 season) is so successful. It pulls in detectives and officers from different units and comes up with ways to prevent certain crimes from taking place — through the wire tap.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I always find things like this so fascinating in that I grew up just 20 miles north of Los Angeles and never heard anything about this my whole life. I find it hard to wrap my mind around the fact that horrific violence and bloodshed are going on around me, especially for inner city neighborhoods, and I, living within my own socioeconomic bubble, miss out on understanding this and the broader implications it has. The author follows this up saying that she is one of the few white people within the yellow tape. I wonder just how much media coverage, or the lack thereof, has made me clueless to the larger picture of things going on around me that I’ve just missed the clue on.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I don’t know why, but this section of the essay kind of bothered me. I think because even though we see that a white lady not uniformed can have feelings and be touched by this young boy’s murder, it doesn’t really matter. Her having this emotional response isn’t going to do anything or change the stakes on the streets and the lives of the boys who will fall after him. So, while I respect her sharing her personal reaction to this, because I am sure I would have felt the same, her position in this situation is still hopeless.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Law enforcement in The Wire appears to additionally have this view. Those that join the gang in Baltimore, specifically focusing on the “corner kids,” are predictable. We are unsurprised when Dukie, who we see much potential in, ends up participating in drug deals. The odds are against him with his surroundings (family and peers). Yet, Leap argues that while the cyclical violence of gang life is a reality, redemption is not impossible. What are potential means of redemption in this case?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree with what you say here, that the loss of one’s virginity, taken literally, is “predictable.” However, it can also be considered a “milestone” in one’s life (assuming that joining a gang is the norm). From other readings we have done, and as The Wire demonstrates, ones peer group has the potential to evolve into a “gang.” And in Baltimore and other cities, often there aren’t employment opportunities, which pushes people to work “underground,” in the drug trade.
The Wire does show that people (Cutty, Namond, Poot) can leave being in a gang though. What can we make of this?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
As Carolyn states we have seen the myriad of factors that contribute to one’s involvement in “the game” whether it be structural, cultural (More Than Just Race) or other forces.
The Wire exemplifies a peer group becoming one’s gang through the Barksdale group (Avon and Stringer being childhood friends and D’Angelo’s involvement through familial ties) but also shows the divergence of groups as in the case of Namond Brice and Michael Lee’s friendship.
In response to your final questions I would argue that Cutty, Namond and Poot are exceptions to a general rule (which there always are). I think The Wire includes these characters to show various plot lines and other struggles that arise in low income urban areas. Cutty shows the struggles of someone trying to get a legitimate job post imprisonment, the long process and need for connections when starting his own gym and trying to better the community. Namond’s struggle of dealing with his mother to join the game despite his resistance and that although he acted out in school, he was not a bad “corner” kid. Poot is a bit trickier but perhaps after the many deaths of his friends he saw no way for himself to continue being in the game, which I could see happening to many people in real life.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
In class today we talked about how Anderson in his reading brings up the point that what is considered “descent” can often be drawn from what someone looks like. Professor Williams explained how children dressing a certain way or acting like the typical “gang member” automatically assigns them to being indescent or of street culture even if they do it just to earn respect or even ensure personal safety when having no real connections to “the game.” This statement only further confirms those ideas. Leap explains that associations with gangs are a permant state. If you are or even more importantly thought to be part of a gang, you have lost a sort of innosance in the eyes of society permanantly. There is no going back. If we are judging certain individuals to be of the street culture just by how they look and dress, then we are condemming them to a permanant state of being associated negatively in the view of wider society. There is regaining ones reputation and Leap shows by her description of ex-gang member Khalid.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
One character who demonstrated the difficulty of breaching the permanency of gang affiliation is Dennis. After jail he wanted to get “decent” if you will, fell back into crime, and then moved on again to decency and created the gym. But even after the gym he was reaching out to kids on the Corner, on the same streets he came from. He is even mistaken for a gang member in the hospital, due to his previous medical history. He will never be able to lose that reputation fully.
I think where Dennis is nuanced is that he used his “permanent state” of being in a gang, to change the context of his life. Because he had the affiliation to Barksdale’s crew, he was able to reach out to these kids specifically, relate to them, and attempt to steer them away from the corner life. (This is kind of like what Khalid seems to be doing, using his past for good).
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think this sentence is really important because it echoes the profiling that Leap has already brought to light. Here, Leap is addressing the fact that no one has paid any attention to her because she is white and she is a woman. In terms of profiling, she does not serve as a threat for both of these reasons. This is an example of white privilege (and maybe gender privilege?) because she is granted access to this space, simply because no one views her as a threat. Her privilege is further supported by her recollection of Khalid being questioned by the cops. Even though Khalid had a seemingly valid reason to be present at the crime scene, he was profiled because he looked like a potentially dangerous black man.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Throughout this essay there are mentionings and hints at sexual aggression. Whether it is the tension between her and Khalid, or this hovering mentioned here, or her comments about gang rapes. However, they are never fully developed. Why? Is it because it is common with the territory or is it because she doesn’t want to explore it? I ask these questions because these narratives are also left out of The Wire almost consistently.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Khalid Washington’s disgust in this part of the piece reminds me of McNulty’s disgust when he finds out that his detail for the Marlo murders is going to be shut down. After spending a year investigating, McNulty, Lester Freeman and the others on the detail feel that they are extremely close to pinning Marlo with the murders in the boarded up row houses and are frustrated to be moved around yet again. Although McNulty is lower down on the totem poll within the police department, he actually has a lot more experience, and insight than those that are higher up than him in the department. McNulty truly cares about his cases and doesn’t want to stop investigating until he solves them, but that doesn’t matter to people like Carcetti or Burrell. McNulty is considered to be a rogue and is brushed off by those in the department that are focused on statistics.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree with your assessment of McNulty’s hierarchical status versus his enhanced knowledge. The connection to Khalid here, I believe, is that Khalid, in a sense, also represents a part of the law enforcement “street bureaucracy.” While he is gang-affiliated, he is currently in the business of unity, smoothing things over, and keeping some non-violent peace. He certainly has a wealth of knowledge about what goes on in the gang world, and yet he garners no respect from the “real” law enforcement. Much like McNulty who feels he would have a lot to contribute if he just had the resources or the leeway, Leap seems to be expressing that Khalid could be of great service to the police, if they would simply give him the time of day.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Aside from McNulty, a majority of the white police officers are very untrusting of CIs and people on the street in general. Herc and the other white officer from the Western district are often more worried about doing street rips and taking down the corner boys than doing legitimate police work. Gascon seems to have a similar mentality. Because Washington was wrapped up in gang warfare, he is automatically bad — lacking any redeeming quality. However, we see in the Wire that the most successful cops are those that work with the community — Colvin, Carver, Bunk, McNulty. They see the humanity in those working on the streets. As they say, “it’s all in the game. It’s just business.”
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This brings up a very good point in my opinion. Often times we can accept violence and gruesome content on the movie screen, but I think that seeing live footage or real content that may be like that of a Quentin Tarantino film can be helpful. This makes us regular citizens understand the extent to which these people have been exposed to such explicit content, but in their daily lives. I mean you really have to think about it to understand it. We watch from the comfort of our own homes, or in a movie theater with our lovely popcorn and soda and after 1hr and 45 minutes it’s over for us, whereas there is no over for someone who lives in this environment. It can happen anytime throughout the day sometimes more than once in a day, and at all hours of the night as well. Could you imagine being inside a Kill Bill film for 24 hours constantly having to witness death over and over again? Then multiply that by weeks, months, years that’s a tough reality.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
T’Keyah is quite right as she points out that the violence that most of us see in the media, and we can pick and choose how often we experience this mediated violence. If I am uncomfortable by the graphic content of Pulp Fiction or Django Unchained, I can turn it off and I will never see or hear about it again if I so choose. The people living in these communities cannot simply turn off the violence they see, and the trauma they undergo as a result of living in violent areas can have a profound impact on them later in life.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I completely agree, and I think this relates to the idea that Anderson presents when he says that even the “decent” families team their kids how to be “street smart”. Living in these communities, whether you are involved in the game or not, you will be impacted. You will see violence and probably even face violence (like the Stickup Anderson describes). It is a way of life and it can’t be turned “off” like you two point out.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think the cultural representation of violence is often driven by the initial reaction and not the results. Living in a “street smart” society may appear effective for some characters in the Wire, but in the end who really gets out.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I agree with the points everyone has made here but would like to add that much of this experience is hard to fathom in that everyone experiences things very differently; even the experiences of one family in an impoverished inner-city neighborhood are different from another. What some may view as a daily occurrence and be sickened by it, others may see it so often that it becomes a part of their everyday existence. I found myself thinking this throughout the Wire and the constant shootings that youth like Poot and Bodie go through so often. How taxing it would be to constantly think that each day could be your last and that fighting back could mean you have a lifetime of jail ahead of you in which you’ll likely need to continue a path of violence to survive. It seems almost perverse that people share and relish in seeing death and gruesome scenes on the internet but are terrified of the idea of seeing the same act in real life and the trauma it would cause them emotionally.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Leap brings up an intersting point, that she honestly doesnt know what is scarier, that fact that gang violence is so rampant but also that the police have basically been reduced to demonizing every minority adolesent around huge swaths of population as basically expendable. We see this in the Wire as well, where cops and people in the drug game as well have accepted that murder will happen and the only police response can be to think everyone is a killer, and death is just going to happen. THis can be so dangerous because essentially it leaves a perpetual cycle of violence where violent gangs are perpetuated to more violence by law enforcement that not only doesnt really care about who is dying but also treats those near to these tragedies as animals and not deserving of their intervention.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
After watching the Wire and finishing our readings, it is hard not to feel sympathetic for those that live in the inner-city environment. Not only is there an endless cycle of violence, but a cycle of drug use and poverty. This is why we rarely see people “escape” or break-through. The institutions feed off one another and we actually experience a “ratcheting” effect. In other words, the only way to stop the vicious cycle is to make real changes to institutional structures. Otherwise, the situation will continue to be perpetuated.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
In the context of current events concerning police brutality, this is a prescient dig by Leap. If a decade ago, Leap was claiming that the police “demonized every adolescent in the vicinity,” then clearly nothing has changed for the better in police-community relations. The lack of deescalation procedure training or implementation and the prevalence of officers acting out of fear or rage or both (like we saw with Prez on that fateful night) are issues that are contributing to the active destruction of the lives of minority children and young people.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree with what Ryan said above regarding the scary notion that police brutality and militarization have left a larger rift and lack in understanding between both the police and the people at large. As we saw in Ferguson, the police are more concerned in acquiring larger vehicles and more special operations gear than in treating the source of the problem and becoming acquainted with the people they serve. This perpetuates a gap between the people that serve in the police force and those who are oppressed by them, but more dangerously forces the common people to take sides and often leads to talks grounded in racist notions and an “us vs. them” mentality. Violence begets more violence and the fight between gangs and the people of impoverished communities only intensifies .
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This perfectly sums up what the show depicts happens following a murder in Baltimore. The bodies lie in the street seemingly uncared for because whoever the dead’s “boys” were have to run to save themselves rather than care for their departed friend. They are rarely mourned for long, at least by their fellow gang members, because the most pressing issue is to fill the gap and get revenge. For example, after the death of Prop Joe at the next co-op meeting, after briefly mentioning Joe’s murder the most important issue was filling his shoes to keep the business running. Life keeps going and the game keeps being played. To me this shows that everyone in the drug game or even in a gang is just a pawn, because even the kingpins can be easily replaced. This is the priority; no one stops to back up and reconsider the “gang problem” or “drug problem” as a whole because they are too lost in the forest of the game.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I definitely agree that death seems to be easily glossed over in “the game.” However, I think that this desensitization to death has to be a survival technique. If murders of loved ones and friends occur on a seemingly regular basis, I’d have to imagine that people in “the game” must be forced to turn off the humanizing emotions of grief and sorrow. I also think that exposing children to death and murder at a young age can help perpetuate the seemingly universal desensitization to death because they perceive these actions as normal, and thus don’t put too much extra thought into murders when they occur.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Do you think this was a reason that classrooms seemed to be so full in The Wire? If we are assuming that many of these children don’t have parents who will ensure or encourage they get to school, there is often little motivation to go (like we see in the rule that they must come in once a month). But in the show, the teachers always seem to be handling a lot of students. I wonder how much of this is related to these children being hungry, and school being a place with a guaranteed meal and shelter.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The situation described by Ronny is similar to many of the stories we have seen in The Wire. There are numerous factors that contribute to one joining a gang but it clearly is not a simple choice. Having widespread family involvement puts forth a predetermined future for many of these kids as connections and reputation play a significant role in street culture are are the means through which opportunities are afforded. This is evident
through D’Angelo’s position in the Barksdale gang with his relation to Avon.
Furthermore, the participation of the family normalizes drugs and violence at a young age. The pressure one receives to participate is demonstrated through Namond Brice’s mother who views her son as a disappointment when resisting drug dealing or engaging in violent behavior.
.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Ronny’s situation, while being very similar to DeAngelo’s, also reminds me Namond and his efforts to escape from the shadow that his father cast over him. The fourth season is a transformation for Namond, and under constant pressure from his mother and the other boys in his neighborhood, he tries to step into his father’s shoes and become the next Wee-Bay. He eventually realizes that the game is not for him, and he is fortunate enough to be adopted by Colvin and given a chance for a better life. This rare example of a happy ending is not typical for people like Namond and Ronny, because the game is not something they chose, they were born into it.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
While family ties do predetermine some characters’ involvement in the game, other circumstances pull characters to join. For example, Michael does not have any preceding ties. He goes to school, is a good student, and takes care of his younger brother. When Bug’s father returns from prison, Michael turns to Marlo for help. For his situation, Michael knows that Marlo can make the problem go away, but he will have to repay him. In this case, joining game goes beyond family ties and pure choice.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The Wire shows that in many families, whether makeshift or blood related, loyalty is the what keeps the individuals alive. From the police perspective there is Bunk, who always backs up McNulty. From street perspective there are the many women and children who are looked after by the gang even after their husbands/fathers are in jail. Nonetheless it is important to note that loyalty within families is honored less in gangs. For example, Stringer kills D’Angelo and Avon kills Stringer, all for seemingly disloyal actions.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think that the Wire shows us that loyalty to the “game” is above all else. In Season 3, Bunk is trying to solve a murder that Omar has information on, but McNulty doesn’t want to give Omar up because he knows he could be useful in the future. Avon kills Stringer because he had D’Angelo killed, but Stringer had just snitched on Avon because he needed to go to keep the business alive. In other words, we do see “family bonds” as reasons for certain killings and job postings, but more frequently, we witness the emphasis that all of the characters put on the game and its rules.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Leap’s reflexivity of her personal experience in what she considers a Greek “gang” reminded me Moskos’ quote that “the distinction between a gang and a group of friends is often based more on race, class and police labeling than anything else” (Moskos 76). Despite Leap’s translation of her experience growing up and her longing, at times, to return to “the gang,” Leap and her family are still white, and race matters, both socially and economically. What is considered “white,” has changed throughout history, but it seems that police driving by a group of Greeks on the street would not stop the car, get out and harass them, as the Baltimore police do repeatedly to the “corner kids.”
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Reading this, I wonder how much Leap’s personal experience actually compares to that of the “gangs” we discuss in this course. Yes, race and class are distinguishable feature of a “gang”, but I find her Greek comparison a far cry from black urban, violent gangs.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree, she seemed more like she was stifled from overbearing family members that were, and this is key, still very much aware and respectful of the law, than from some sort of cultish gang she makes it out to be. I feel like the only connection to other, “real” gangs is that the violence that happens is because of drugs.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I do agree with the previous to comments, in that Leap’s experience in her Greek “gang” is different than that of traditional gangs in terms of view of violence. However, the aspect having a choice in joining a gang remains the same in my view. Because your life in every way is so emmerced in this small sect of poeple, it becomes second nature to assume the personality/projection of that group whether that be of Greek’s just sticking together, or becoming part of the neighborhood gang and commiting sometimes aweful acts of violence.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
So far the debate has centered around what separated the greek gangs vs. the black gangs in The Wire. But what connects them? Perhaps Anderson’s “street” values are mutually accepted and adhered to by both and that’s why we can place the two in a similar field. After all, the “loyalty” mentioned here seems to be valued the same as by the greek gang as it is by the gangs in The Wire.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
“Police labelling” is key. Sure, Leap’s entire youthful existence occurred within a closed system with the sense of nurturing community that also exists within gangs, but the police certainly weren’t bothering them.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Although I appreciate Leap attempting to help her readers further understand gang mentality by providing her Greek family as a comparison, I think the fundamental difference between her Greek family and the gangs she addresses has to do with violence. From my understanding, the major reason members can’t leave a gang is that they will get killed. The fear of death seems to be what ultimately drives loyalty within “the game” in the Wire. For example, in season 4 when the corner kids are asked to describe what makes a good corner kid, each kid offers different suggestions but ultimately decides that if you mess up, you die. When Wallace tries to leave “the game” in Season 1, he is killed because he does not show loyalty. A lack of loyalty and attempts to leaving “the game” result in death time and time again in the Wire.
Due to this fear of death, I don’t think Leap can accurately compare her membership to her family and that of a real gang. Even if her family disowns her, she still has her life to show for it.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This sentence reminds me a lot of the scene in Season 4 when Donut breaks into Pres’ car because he locked his keys in his car. The nonchalance of Donut’s actions are replicated in Darius’ quick and cool reply. As Leap mentions, “hood intelligence” is not what we commonly consider intelligence — in schooling. This form of intelligence is more “skills” based. One perfects a craft and is considered intelligent. We see it consistently in the characters of Bubbs, Omar, Donut, and Randy. They aren’t book smart. They’re street smart.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This reminds me of how McNulty is always trying to get the Feds to participate and help the BPD with the drug war. They usually respond about how they don’t get invlved in local police work unless it has to do with Russians or terrorism. Leap is mad that this kind of global issue has more trump than the black woman shot in a street.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree with Shanelle. The global aspect of terrorism especially when we consider to new context of a “globalized world” has let it trump all other forms of social violence and issues. It is my belief that the media is at the heart of this view, simply because they show what worries the majority of Americans. Most americans watching the media dont worry about innercity crime and gang violence, becasue relistically it wont ever affect them. But a random terror activity like 9/11 could theoritically strike anywhere especially in areas that designated important to America. Coincidentally these happen to be in nicer neighborhoods and areas. At a certain point, it simply comes down to emphasizing what will sell better.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
In addition, we see in The Wire that the FBI often holds the upper hand, therefore controlling the outcome of the case. In season 2, the FBI is only willing to help the team if it remains about monitoring union behavior. Ironically, this endeavor ends up aiding the Greek terrorists. Thus it is important to value both sides: that which is far away and that close to home.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This sentence and the following ones are interesting to me because it illustrates that there are multiple types of terrorism. After all, the word’s definition is simply “the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization”. While nowadays and especially in the political sphere this has come to be synonymous with threats from the Middle East, this paragraph shows that this is not the only type. If people in poor communities are more deathly afraid of being shot in front of their own house than bombed by a foreigner, does that mean it should be as much of a priority for the feds?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think that this is a great question and although I do not have an answer, I think the show does a great job of portraying this kind of “urban terrorism”. For example, later in the 4th season of the show, Randy was not even able to leave his house for school because his foster mom was worried about what people (i.e. Marlo’s gang) would do to him if he left. Although there was a cop car stationed outside his house, Baltimore police’s priorities shifted once they got a call that a fellow cop was supposedly getting shot at, leaving Randy and his foster mom in real danger. The scene doesn’t illustrate a case between foreign and urban terrorism, but it does show a poor organization of priorities on behalf of show’s Baltimore Police, similar to the poor organization of priorities that Leap sees within the LAPD. I don’t know if the Wire is directly suggesting that Baltimore Police is flawed or that maybe not everyone can be promised help, but I think the show is at least prompting the viewer to ask critical questions, such as yours, about what issues in urban environments like Baltimore deserve priority and whether or not those issues are getting the attention they need by the institutions that are supposed to help.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Too often I hear this bullshit narrative concerning police officers being the dark night that we need to save the day and somehow making the stretch that terrorism would run rampant without their continued efforts. I don’t believe this shit for a second and while I never like using curse words while making one of these responses I just can’t take the idea that police are the unsung heroes of our time. There are great police officers out there, just as there are great soldiers and sailors, but even they know that they are doing a job that helps them pay the bills and the vast majority of it is not exactly glorious. The idea that Mark is trying to say that they are preventing swap meet money from financing terrorism around the world, when in all actuality they are preventing poor people from getting clothes they need, is nothing less than disgusting. This narrative has run its course and isn’t grounded in reason, in fact, if this class has taught me anything it’s to not believe crap like this.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The words of the author in this sentence could be straight from the script of the show. A major theme of the show that persists throughout the five seasons are the bosses stomping on good police work for one reason or another, and it always bothers Jimmy McNulty, who is as irritable as he is dedicated to the job. As Jorja describes to her ex-husband, why are we focusing on a swap meet that could maybe lead to a terrorist plot in the future, when there are real, tangible problems to focus on in our own backyard that are afflicting our citizens this very day? It is a question McNulty and David Simon are constantly asking, and a problem that they believe needs to be addressed immediately.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This description of police home life mimics McNulty’s situation with his first wife and then Beattie. He has a cycle of drinking too much, staying out too late, and obsessing on his current case. Much like the situation here, he alienates himself from him family and support system in effort to dedicate all his time to the case, almost to a fault. Especially as we saw in Season 5, McNulty dedicates himself to his faux serial killer case in order to get the higher ups to care about police work. All in all, one of the perils in McNulty’s character is how he abandons his support system to focus on his cases and in the process spirals into reliance on alcohol.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This ties in directly with our discussion of media coverage of whites versus blacks in shootings the first week of class. We discussed the Sandy Hook shooting, which received massive attention throughout the media. Yet, Sandy Hook was a school full of white children. Thousands of black students are killed every year in gun violence, but not addressed even close to as much as whites are. This statement presents the sad realities of media attention to class and race. What makes the story of the death of the cop more important than the shooting of a poor black mother? This conversation shows that there is no difference, but reveals the tragic realities of media coverage.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
As discussed in class, there is a harsh reality to the unequal media coverage. But to answer your question, “what makes the story of the death of the cop more important than the shooting of a poor black mother?” I think one component to the answer to this question is that the police are able to publicize and put resources into what they choose to do. As an institution, law enforcement is extremely close (as Professor Williams talked about the “blue wall of silence”). If a police officer, one of their own, is killed, the police can choose to call the local news, for example. To publicize what they find is important (or to cover up or be vague about what they do not consider "important). There are many possible answers to this question, but media attention doesn’t stem solely from those producing the media, they are, occasionally, at the beg-and-call of the law enforcement to comply and provide information.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I do think that the realities of media coverage is something that should truly be looked into as we see in the last season of The Wire, we see the female sun reporter in the first episode really upset that her story didn’t make it to the front page of the newspaper, in which a co-worker jokingly says wrong zip code and because the victims were black. It’s the harsh reality of media that those who live in a disadvantaged area will hardly ever have their stories heard. This example also extends to the homeless murder albeit fake, no one took it seriously until Carcetti and The Sun reporter received a “call from the murderer” and they made a big deal about it. In which case I think that these examples show that the media coverage plays a big role in which cases are treated with urgency or if these situations are brought to the light.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree, T’Keyah. Season 5 shows that it’s not just the media who cares more when the victim is white, it’s the politicians, too. This was the motivation for McNulty’s big scheme. He has a realization that the bodies in the vacants and so many similar deaths were eventually forgotten about and underfunded because the victims weren’t white. He is able to predict that he will get more attention from the media and more money from the government if his victims are white. Sadly, this premonition actually comes true, which speaks volumes about inequality.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
A common thread through The Wire and the readings is how much race and class impact the amount of attention, both from the police and the media, that is given to homicides. One reporter in the Baltimore Sun newsroom summarizes this theme by saying, “Wrong zip code. They’re dead where it doesn’t count. If they were white, you would have had 30 inches off the front” of the paper. As discussed in class, we rarely hear about African Americans being killed, yet when something happens to a white person, it tends to make the news. It seems that there is more attention to crimes against African Americans in the media since Ferguson, but do you think it is equal representation? Or, are only certain crimes (ie. associated with police brutality) publicized, while crimes in poorer neighborhoods remain unnoticed? How does the intersection of race and class impact the media coverage that a situation receives?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I commented on this statement as well. As we discussed in class, media coverage tends to make much more a deal of of white, middle/upper-class issues (especially dealing with death and shootings) versus similar incidents with poorer black individuals. A question that I have always had concerning this idea is because shootings are much more prevalent (as we see with statistics from class) in poor urban communities, does the media avoid frequently covering them because they are commonalities? Do they not want to cast a poor shadow on these less privileged communities? Or is it that mainstream media coverage is top-down from a majority of elitist white perspectives, who may not even know the incidents happening in theses areas?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think these are very important questions with many possible answers as Madison has said, one of which may be access to information. The Ferguson case has for-fronted the issue of police brutality to African Americans but was also game changing by providing footage as evidence. Since then I think that news outlets have been able to report more and been in a position to take a more critical stance because of this new information.
However, it should be noted that the media has had a long history in excluding African Americans. This reminds me of the recent controversy surrounding the Oscars in which many African Americans refused to attend because of the lack of recognition of the Black community by the Academy or, for the one’s who did go, addressing the issue by constantly discussing it throughout the show. Though many of the comments made by host Chris Rock will be undoubtedly controversial, this will hopefully spark important conversations about the exclusion of African-Americans in many facets of our society even today and that much work still needs to be done to reach equality.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Is this something that anyone is surprised about? I in particular understand that there is a fundamental difference in the way crimes are perceived, reported, and handled by the police and news outlets. Race and class are more factors of what gets coverage and what doesn’t than the actual facts of the case. I’m not surprised at all by this comment.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
As we have seen in The Wire, the allocation of government funds is a constant issue as different institutions fight for money and there never is enough. Though Carcetti intended on giving police officers a 5% pay increase and increasing efforts on projects such as a witness protection program, when in office he was unable to fulfill these promises due to existing debts and the need to fund schools. What do you think of the predicament posed in the article, should more money (and how much) be allotted to community-based organizations? What other institutions do you think should be receiving more attention and assistance from the government?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I admire Carcetti’s desire to want to do better for the Baltimore schools, but I feel bad for the guy. There’s simply just too much for him to do and not enough money I definitely think that the community organization should get a large portion of the money, maybe 20%, but at the same time Baltimore is such a rough city that the police department needs money as well, to keep those like Chris and Snoop from shooting up everyone for silly reasons like “they said Marlow was a punk.” I think that the way to make a city great is by investing money in the security of citizens and investing in education, so that children can actually use the system for social mobility. The Wire does a good job of bringing up the important issues that can arise when it comes to allocating government funds. I think that it’s a lot harder than what anyone intended. And I think Carcetti notices this when it comes down to the police department not getting paid at all.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I don’t feel like the excuse that the “gang problem” being around “a long time” is valid for ignoring acts of what Leap describes as “urban terrorism” in LA. I also can understand a little better where Mark is coming from because from this comment I realize how hopeless he is for the future of gang violence, but I can’t help but wonder if this view is extended to the entire LAPD and is an idea reinforced by the department rather than his own personal opinion? Is that the reason behind ignoring “urban terrorism”? This also reminds me in part of “Hamsterdam” in The Wire, simply because it seemed like an act that showed, at least to some degree, that the streets could get better given a certain radical initiative. If LAPD had their own kind of initiative like “Hamsterdam” would they shift focus on what Leap wants them to?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I also feel like this sentence is a demonstration of politics at play. Rather than focusing on the long term reduction of crime, making people feel comfortable in the short term becomes the larger goal. In my opinion, this is a narrow point of view because the police focus on winning the battle instead of winning the war.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Especially since over one hundred times more people have died by firearms than by terrorism since 9/11.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I’m not sure if the goal is to win the war. If we are maintaining the idea that drug and street related crime, which involve gang violence, is a problem that has an explicit solution than yes – win the war. But I don’t think it does. If so, we would’ve been closer to finding it by no I would hope. Until they are all legalizes, which I don’t see happening in the near future, this will be an integral fixture of society. And a problem which i don’t think you can necessarily eradicate. As such, the police should respond accordingly.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This sentence made me think of the scene in which Freamon tells McNulty that drugs have been around before them and they will be around after they’re done. But this time we see it from a different perspective – a perspective that does not care as much about the drug work because they see it as hopeless. I agree that I can see where he is coming from, but it’s a much different take on things than someone like McNulty has. I agree with the comments below that a lot of this may be political.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The level of distrust held toward the police is emphasized throughout the Wire, our readings, and Leap’s piece. In the show, whenever someone was thought to have been affiliated with the police, they were shot. Even Bodie, who was briefly seen with McNulty, was immediately killed. And Mr. Prez was verbally attacked by students when he began teaching, as they assumed he was racist and had killed many people on the street. It continues to show that there is no mercy when it comes to talking with, or even being the slightest bit affiliated with an official.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think you bring up an important point. The police are heavily distrusted in the Wire, our readings, and Leap’s piece. However, I think it’s important to consider where this distrust comes from. The police, especially in the Wire, are often quite corrupt. They often use unnecessary force and brutality, steal from people they search, and abuse their powers by searching people and vehicles that they don’t necessarily have a right to search. For these reasons, it seems wildly clear why people distrust the police. My question is: What would happen if the police behaved in a completely lawful way? Would they still be able to work their jobs effectively, or does being a police in a drug-invested area require bending the law?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
General Document Comments 0