Letter From Birmingham Jail Summary

My Opinion on the Issue of Police Brutality

After being imprisoned for peacefully parading against racial segregation in Birmingham, Alabama Martin Luther king Jr. wrote a lengthy letter while confined behind bars. He titled it “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” Kings letter was specifically addressed to clergymen due to their criticism of his demonstration, calling his works “unwise and untimely” (566). In his letter, he carefully focuses on why he has been placed in jail and explains why it is necessary that humans stand up for they believe and what is consider right. Most importantly, this letter gives insight on the events of police brutality that took place not only in Birmingham, but in America as well in 1963. King also describes the series

of steps that he and his followers went about resolving the racism and discrimination issues that were present at the time of the civil rights movement (566-578). Since the beginning of time America has come a long way in regards to race. According to Bayor, in the 1600s-1700s immigrants came to the united states from various places. Tensions between the different races began to spark around the year 1789 and shortly after, slavery began. Several years passed and America developed “black codes” which were laws that freed all slaves. In 1896 segregation separated the colored and white persons. Meaning that colored children went to an all colored school and white children went to an all-white school, colored men and women drank from the colored water fountain and whites drank from the white’s water fountain, and the same with restaurants and bathrooms. Segregation was put to an end in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act (Bayor). Although all races live equally, discrimination still exists throughout the country. Discrimination is defined as the cruel treatment of different categories of people or their characteristics, commonly on the means of age, sex, or race. Though there are many types of discrimination, the type that King describes is racial prejudice and as mentioned in “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, with racism comes police brutality. For hundreds of years’ police brutality has reared its ugly head and has been said to have come back in full force due to recent concerns in various regions of America. Police brutality is defined as the physical and physiological abuse provided to someone by an officer or officers. Wortley and Owusu-Bempah both point out that police brutality occurrences are not limited to the united states. These episodes take place in all parts of the world (27). Police brutality is also said to materialize because of racism. Although some believe otherwise, I am not alone when I state I do not feel as if all beatings, injuries, shootings, or deaths caused or executed by officers of law should be titled as police brutality. I do not believe in being prejudice. I believe that everyone is created equal, and yes I do agree that officers can be brutal to suspects, but what has to be considered is, what that person did to provoke the official? Let’s assess three of the most recent and commonly known “police brutality” events.
In December of 2014, eighteen-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed by a Ferguson police officer after attempting to run.

Prior to the incident, Brown had forcefully robbed a convince store and stole cigars. On top of that, Michael Brown had been using the illegal substance, Marijuana. The shooting sparked several riots which urged Wilson, the police officer, to resign from his position and was later charged with murder (Hitchcock 20). Brown was in the wrong. He should have never robbed or stolen from a store and he most definitely should not have tried to run from the officer. Whether Brown had been white, brown, prink or black, all criminal justice system officers would have reacted to the situation the same. Wilson was just doing his job. Shortly before, Brown had robbed a store and stole from the same place. Wilson had no idea of what the eighteen-year-old was capable of performing next, therefore, he had to do what was best for himself and everyone surrounding to make sure the small population were out of harm’s

way.
Likewise, on September 29, 2016 in California, an unarmed black man, named Alfred Olango, was fatally shot by a police man. The reason the officer opened fire was because Olango pulled a vape device out and pointed it in the direction of the officers (Melanie). If someone pulls out an object and points it at a policeman, without hesitation that officer will pull the trigger on whatever weapon they have because that is what all officials are trained to do; make quick judgments. Police cannot be positive as to what is being pulled upon them, especially if there is a great distance between the suspect and the authority which corresponds to the saying “kill or be killed.” With that being said, officers will protect themselves as well as those around them at the time of the event if a situation related to this were to happen. Accordingly, this occurrence cannot and should not be counted as police brutality because like the officer involved with the Brown case, he was doing what he was supposed to.
Similarly, on September 21st another black man was shot in Charlotte, North Carolina.

According to Kerr Putney chief of the Charlotte- Mecklenburg Police Department, officers were searching for a wanted man when they witnessed Keith Scott get into a car with a gun in hand. Officers then approached Scott and warned him several different times to release his weapon. Instead Scott tried to get back out of the vehicle still clutching the handheld gun, which was when he was shot by Brentley Vinson, a black official (Shoichet and Sandoval). There were two mistakes made by Scott. The first was carrying the gun. According to the North Carolina Firearms Law, the only person who may carry guns in public places are, law enforcement officer, military soldiers, investigators, and “[a]ny individual with a valid concealed handgun permit (under either North Carolina law or the law of issuance) provided the weapon is a handgun, is in a closed compartment or container within the person's locked vehicle, and the vehicle is in a parking area that is owned or leased by State government” (11). Following my research, it was concluded that Scott was not of any authority and did not possess a permit to tote the gun. His second faux pas was refusing to follow the orders of the officer. When he tried to escape out of the automobile with the firearm, the patrolman felt threatened and defended himself due to the fact that he could not sense how Scott was going to react with his weapon. Again, alike both

of the other cases I mentioned earlier, this affair is not police brutality, being that the agent was provoked in his actions and had a legit reason to respond in the manner that he did.
Now, I am not saying police brutality is completely out of question or does not exist, because in all honesty, it does. For example, the shooting in North Charleston, South Carolina. According to Sanburn, “Walter Scott, a 50-year-old black man, was shot and killed by officer Michael Slager as he was apparently fleeing North Charleston. A video recorded by a bystander appears to show Scott running away from the officer as was shot in the back eight times” (14). As you can see, this definitely is and should be called police brutality. Although Scott had been fleeing, Slager should not have shot the unarmed black man. Scott was not out to harm anyone; he was simply running away. What Slager had done was unruly and uncalled for. The officer could have gone about the situation in a more law abiding fashion. All cops, when they become official, are given tasers. Instead of shooting and killing the older gentlemen, the taser would have been a better method in this particular event. By adding the Scott case to my essay, I am pointing out the fact that police brutality occasionally transpires. However, what I am trying to show my readers is that even though police brutality sometimes does arise, not all run ins with the police should be known as force by officers.
I can see how others could perceive every action of these police officers to be considered “police brutality”, but they are not; not every one of them, anyway. Like I said, what has to be accounted for are the events that led up to the climax of the occurrence; what made the police officer react to the situation as he did? Both points of view need to be evaluated, not just the one being severely injured or killed. After examining the entire event and taking into account all of the information, normally, the number one leading cause of the police offers actions is present. Therefore, if a man or a woman gets severely injured by a cop while committing a crime or doing something unjust, then it is their own error and not the officers.