Brooke Baldwin, the host of CNN Newsroom, brought in two experts in the field of criminal justice to discuss this phenomenon known as the 'Ferguson effect,' when trying to understand the sudden 9% growth in violent homicides in Baltimore.
Ex-NYPD detective Harry Houck and (Dr.) Marc Lamont Hill, (a professor of African American studies), always have pretty fiery debates over policing and race, and they had one again on CNN today, when discussing crime spikes in multiple cities with Brooke Baldwin
.
Harry Houck. who has over 30 years’ experience and retired at the prestigious rank of Detective First Grade with the NYPD, often appears on news shows, and most frequently, he chooses Fox 'News' to lay out his version of da facts. On CNN, he said,
"I personally believe it's because police are being handcuffed more and going out there and proactively you know, work against the criminals in the inner city".
BALDWIN: But you got to the whole Ferguson Effect that people were referring to and that may not necessarily be the case for why crime has spiked *crosstalk*
HOUCK: but I think a lot of the rhetoric out there has empowered the bad guys, the cops aren't going to stop me as much, maybe I can carry my gun more.
Once it has been established that the two men disagree wholeheartedly, things began to heat up. They discussed the low morale that has resulted from the indictment of the six Baltimore cops involved with the death of Freddie Gray. From Mediate:
In discussing the “Ferguson effect,” Hill agreed with Houck that in black precincts, a police presence is needed, but “a presence can’t become an occupying force.” Houck brought up concerns about low police morale in many places and said, “A lot of the rhetoric out there has empowered the bad guys.”
Houck even claimed that too many cops are being arrested these days, and Hill bewilderedly asked, 'Every cops who's done something wrong is arrested? That’s your honest belief?”
Houck said, “I believe so, yes.”
The conversation shifted to the trying, convicting and sentencing of cops. Houck buys into the false, Fox-esque argument that cops seldom commit crimes, and when they do, they are always apprehended and punished accordingly. Hill argued that the isolated incidents, as of late, that a cop suffered backlash from their brutality was ONLY when we had video evidence, like in the case of Walter Scott who was clearly murdered by a cop who shot him FOUR TIMES IN THE BACK! Even though Houck asked him to give an example and he immediately came up with this fortunate cell phone video that put a terrible cop behind bars, Houck still adhered to his view that the miniscule episodes of misconduct are always handled properly by Internal Affairs, except for the times that they are not (which could be in the thousands, but Houck is not paying attention to that possibility).
Houck still insists the cops internal policing system works flawlessly. He tried to twist Hill's words around to say that he believes every cop who doesn't have video evidence is automatically guilty?
No, Hill replied, don't try to twist my words into a new meaning.
Hill stressed it is some cops, only some cops who routinely get away with police brutality by dehumanizing suspects. But Houck seems to think that any doubt of the integrity of the police force will automatically lead to a crime spike. However, Baldwin proposed the increase in drugs on the street via the CVS looting may be the cause of the latest spike in violence and crime.
Clearly Hill won that argument, no contest. Houck just sounded like the same hatemongering racist who said, “Listen, Trayvon Martin would be alive today, okay, if he didn’t, alright, have a street attitude,” the former NYPD detective insisted. “That’s the bottom line.” Without really having to say much, Hill watched Houck dig his own grave and lie in it by simply resorting to the truth, while Houck relied on hyperbole and fiction to make his assertions.
