Black Lives Matter, Law Enforcement, Politics, Religion

White Privilege — according to a White guy.

adraper

I am white. And I benefit from white privilege. Before I wrote this, I spent a lot of time soul searching trying to decide how I felt about it. I know that some of you will have a knee jerk reaction to this — especially if you're white. I know you aren't used to being defined by your race or singled out because of it. I also know that you will probably bristle at the word privilege. Privilege makes it sound like we are part of high society, that we've never had struggles and misfortunes or that we've always been treated fairly. Privilege in this sense doesn't mean any of those things. Some in the media purposely confuse privilege to mean you haven't worked hard or earned the accomplishments you've made. They use privilege to mean that everything's come easy to you. I have struggled with my health - I get CT scans for cancer every several months. I have

struggled economically - due to health reasons I lost my business, laid off my employees and had to declare bankruptcy. I have struggled socially with personal relationships - I am divorced. Many Whites in my boat would probably say, "Hell man, if there's one thing my life ain't - it's privileged." And they'd be right. But I still benefit from white privilege. I don't feel guilty for being White. I also don't feel guilty for benefiting from white privilege and neither should you. I'm not here to race shame you. My goal is to help you understand, as I have understood, some ways that I have it easier because of the color of my skin. For those of you who are still feeling defensive, how about instead of acting like we gain a privilege for being White, let's frame the argument in a different way — Blacks lose privileges for being Black. In this way we avoid discussing it as…

Law, Law Enforcement, Politics

“Defund the Police”: Giving Law Enforcement the Right Tools

adraper

In the past few weeks, the nation has seen an alarming amount of instances where law enforcement has broken the law in its interactions with protestors. This is ironic since those that are sworn to enforce the law are the ones breaking it. It makes the situation doubly ironic when the protestors who are being subject to police brutality are protesting just that - police brutality. It's sad to see law enforcement make the case against itself. While some interactions are racially motivated, there are others that have nothing to do with race. I believe that, more often that not, officers encounter situations outside their job descriptions and training. Imagine a scenario where peaceful protestors airing grievances aren't met with police in riot gear riding in military vehicles (which would escalate a peaceful situation) but are met by a mediator, trained in solving complex problems between hostile parties. Force is not the right tool for many situations. It's like law

enforcement has been trained to see things as though a square peg will fit into all the different shapes on the toy. The issue is, the toy has various different shapes that require skills officers don't possess. One shape could be mental illness, another suicide prevention, while another could be a domestic dispute. All of these require the right shape or you end up trying to force the square peg into the round hole. The truth is, this is insanely unfair to the public and to law enforcement. Officers Aren't Equipped to Handle Certain Situations The Academy, a police training organization lists their curriculum and hours required to graduate from their program. Cadets attend the academy for a total of 888 hours. This breaks down to twenty two 40-hour weeks of learning. In other words, cadets go to school from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. 5 days a week for 5 and a half months. https://theacademy.ca.gov/fire - The Academy, South…

COVID19, Law

Ignorance Unmasked: Shelley Lewis’ Constitutional Right to Spread Covid19

adraper

It was the typical hot summer day in Northern California where the streets were so hot you could see the heat waves rise off the asphalt. Sometimes you could even see a mirage. My friend Joey and I had been swimming in an irrigation ditch and thought it might be nice to run to what we called the "Little Red Store." As 8-year-olds, we didn't pay much attention to the name of the store or really anything else. Our attentions were hyper focused on the rack of toys that the owner had just inside the door. And just next to that was the candy rack -- if you had any change in your pocket at all, you could fill your Levi's cutoffs with enough candy to rot your teeth out before you got home. While the sidewalks were hot, we'd developed quite the set of calluses and weren't much fazed as we sprinted the several blocks to the store. If

our feet got too hot we'd run into a neighbor's yard that happened to have a sprinkler on and we could run for another block. By the time we reached the store we were drenched. Wearing nothing but our Levi's cutoffs, we ran through the door in search of treasure. I had just made it to the rack when I heard a crash behind me. Joey had slipped on the tiles and run into an old lady who was at the counter. They were both on the ground safe but embarrassed and upset. Joey the former and the old lady the latter. "What are you two doing running into my store with no clothes on?" The owner yelled. As 8-year-olds, Joey and I both knew there were two reliable responses to a question that you didn't have a good answer for: 1. Answer "I don't know." It is impossible to reason with someone who doesn't know why they do things.…

Constitution, Law, Politics, Religion

Who says the government can infringe upon your rights? The Constitution.

adraper

Recently, I've been reading about people who say it's unconstitutional for the government to infringe upon their rights. I'm nearing the end of my third year of law school and am in my Constitutional Law class right now preparing for an upcoming final. The cases that form the precedent for how we evaluate when and how the federal and state government can infringe upon our rights are fascinating and a great read. But the facts are that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the Constitution. Nobody else. This is why their case law is so important - it's how you learn how they interpret the Constitution. In an analysis to determine if the government (here the State government) can infringe upon a right, you must first determine what kind of right is being infringed upon. (We'll leave religion out of this analysis because the Free Exercise of Religion and

the Establishment Clause have another type of analysis.) The right that is being infringed upon is the right to work, to go outside, to hang out with family and friends in gatherings, etc. This is a liberty right and it is considered a fundamental right. A fundamental right is one that is deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed. This is important because in order to infringe upon a fundamental right, the government must pass the highest and most stringent standard of judicial review. This standard is called strict scrutiny. In order for a government to infringe upon the rights stated above, they must meet ALL of the following elements:1. The ordinance or law is necessary in order to achieve a "compelling state interest";2. The law or ordinance is "narrowly tailored" to achieving this compelling purpose; and3. That the…