Price: $13.95
Product Description
The horrific images of the Rodney King beating by the LAPD and the torture of Haitian immigrant Abner Louima by New York cops are the most blatant reminders of police brutality against blacks in the United States. But as Oakland-based civil rights attorney John L. Burris (who represented King) and co-writer Catherine Whitney remind us in this disturbing book, the problem is more widespread than most white Americans are willing to admit. "Our nation practices a selective blindness," they argue. "In this great and strong nation, we have all become unwitting accomplices to the continuation of the conflict. "Along with alarming statistical data, Burris and Whitney chronicle several nightmarish incidents of law-abiding African Americans at the mercy of police officers, including an Oakland community leader who raised his children to respect the police--and was then beaten senseless in front of their eyes. The authors also examine the closed "blue wall of silence" mentality that pervades police culture, reinforcing an "us against them" point of view. But, offering more than a catalog of well-justified complaints, they present a good 10-point "Blueprint for Police Reform" that includes "a dual training focus of force and communication" to supplement nonviolent procedures, as well as the denial of career advancement to officers who have racked up numerous citizen complaints. "If law enforcement is to abandon the culture that supports misconduct, silence, heavy-handedness, and disrespect," they write, "a new scaffold must be erected to replace the old." --Eugene Holley Jr.
Guest Reviews
Reviewer: Larry Murphy from Fresno, CA United States
I applaud John Burris' book, Blue VS Black. The book did not shock me, probably because I had the advantage of being an insider when much of what Mr. Burris describes was going on. What does amaze me, however, is the attitude of denial expressed by the former Oakland officers reviewing the book. I am the author of Blackjack and Jive-Five, a book that chronicles many of the internal barriers faced by black police officers as they struggled to become part of the Oakland Police Department in the early 1970s. White officers did not want them and were in no mood to accept more than just a token few-so you can imagine the furor that affirmative action unveiled. I was a white sergeant in that department, one who helped to recruit and train these fine, young black men, and one who also tried to help them assimilate into an overwhelmingly white-majority police culture. It was a brutal time for those black officers. So, this question comes to mind for those persons who criticize John Burris' book as being fictional, slanted, and self-serving: If so many white Oakland officers could not even be civil to the black persons within their own ranks, how can the abuse of black citizens be denied?? There indeed was abuse toward blacks-both internally and externally-and it was widespread. Moreover, if I shock some by stating this, consider the fact that abuse would have been much worse had it not been for a very tough police chief during the late 60s and early 70s who would not tolerate open racism and did everything within his power to control that which was clandestine. Mine is a sad commentary, but true. It amazes me that other former Oakland officers reviewing this book can have lapses of memory about the racial issues brought forward by Mr. Burris. I read a borrowed copy of the book, but have since purchased a copy for my personal library. I am sure I will consult it many times during my future writings.
A Good Middle of the Road Book November 13, 2001
Reviewer: Amanda Lewis-Wu from Sunnyvale, Ca United States
Why do I say this? Well because this book is very well intentioned and is not anti-law enforcement. What it is however is eye opening and factual. It is also an easy read and keeps the reader interested. I think this is a very good book for someone who is interested in knowing more about police brutality but has never read anything about it before. In other words a good starting point. It is very mainstream however. I still liked it but had one friend who felt it was a little to warm and fuzzy "let's all just get along" sounding and skirted some of the meatier issues and colder facts. But like I said it's a good starting point for someone just developing interest in the topic.
Reviewing Burris' reviews June 10, 2001
Reviewer: Edward G. Brooks from Oakland, CA
The reviews are very biased, on both sides, but mostly on the police-conservative-law and order side. My first thought after reading the reactions of the law and order people is that if Burris gets them this upset he must be doing something right. Here is an objective bit: Read Martindale-Hubbell (they have a web site) and see what Burris's rating is. M-H rates lawyers. This is done by sending out evaluation forms to lawyers and judges who know the person being evaluated in some professional capacity. These ratings are highly prized and hard to get. The highest rating is "A-V", which means A for highest legal ability, and V for highest ethical conduct. Burris is rated "A-V". The complaints by the right wingers about the cost to the city of settling these police misconduct suits conveniently avoids mentioning that it is a jury of city citizens who levy the verdict on the city.The city is well defended and in fact has a lot of advantages in the legal contest. So when they still lose and lose big, that simply means the misconduct was real, and the plaintiff's damages real.
Something to think about February 18, 2001
Reviewer: A reader from Smyrna, TN USA
I have read some of the negative reviews about Blue Vs. Black, and I completely disagree with these reviewers. I found the book to be full of insight about the things that CAN happen to citizens at the hands of those paid to protect us. The book offers material that gives the reader some serious issues to consider. I believe the author's reform solutions weren't intended to be the last word in criminal justice, but were simply meant as a starting point and spring board for others thoughts on reform. It is so easy to criticize...I read everything from, "his facts were off on the dollar amounts won by plaintiffs" to "he wrote this book to make money because he's not a good lawyer". Instead of being critical, I suggest we use this book as a starting point to focus on police/community conflicts.
