A disturbing endorsement

The videotaped death of Terence Crutcher, an unarmed black man who was killed by Tulsa police on Friday, offers a disturbing look into the distrust that has arisen between police and communities of color.

Crutcher, 40, was walking toward his vehicle, hands raised, with officers several feet behind him, their guns drawn. A police officer in a helicopter circling overhead said, "Time for a Taser, I think. That looks like a bad dude, too. Probably on something."

Shortly after, as shown in several police videos, Crutcher was tasered by an officer and shot dead by Officer Betty Shelby. Shelby later claimed through an attorney that she thought he was reaching into his vehicle for a gun, and that even with three colleagues standing beside her with weapons drawn, she feared for her life.

In truth, Shelby shouldn't be the one in fear. Not only because she and her colleagues outnumbered the unarmed Crutcher four to one, but also because blacks who even attempt to harm police officers face swift and often fatal retribution.

On the other hand, police officers who kill African Americans most often go unpunished, even when there is video, even when there are witnesses, even when there is outcry from a people that has suffered under laws designed first to enslave them, and then to belittle them, and finally, to relegate them to second-class citizenship.

The police have been given free rein to enforce those laws with brazen brutality in communities of color. And now, as athletes and educators, entertainers and politicians stand up against that cruel reality, the organization representing our nation's police officers has proven our concern is legitimate.

The Fraternal Order of Police - both nationally and locally - has joined white supremacists like David Duke in endorsing the candidacy of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

That makes me wonder if the FOP has a firm grasp of the U.S. Constitution its officers are sworn to uphold. If it did, why would the FOP endorse a man who proposes a ban on Muslims entering the country, even as the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the establishment of an official religion in America?

If the FOP was truly about enabling its officers to better enforce the law of the land, would it support Trump's assertion that, "We really have to look at profiling [of Muslims]?"

Doing so would violate the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees due process, and thus, equal treatment under the law.

Does the FOP endorse Trump's proposed "deportation force?"

That would be odd, since the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says such a force would "erode civil liberties of undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens alike by leading to a systematic reliance on racial profiling and illegal detentions," thus violating their Fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Does the FOP stand behind Trump's proposed use of torture? That would be odd for an organization that represents law enforcement, since the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution bars the use of cruel and unusual punishment.

But as the videotaped shooting death of Terrence Crutcher illustrates, there are police officers in this country who are already engaged in behavior that violates the rights of Americans citizens, especially people of color.

That's why the Justice Department will investigate in Tulsa, just as it investigated police departments in other cities in the wake of such racially charged shootings.

Heartbreakingly, this could have been avoided had the Tulsa officers followed the law. If Terence Crutcher, an unarmed American citizen, was engaged in illegal activity, he should have been arrested, charged, and given the opportunity to obtain legal counsel. If a judge upheld the charges, he should have been tried by a jury of his peers. If convicted, he should have faced sentencing that fit the crime. That's the law of the land.

But in far too many cases where African Americans are confronted by white police officers, those rights are ignored in favor of bullets, and police are allowed to act as judge, jury and executioner.

In endorsing Trump, a candidate who has proposed enough unconstitutional tactics to make one's head spin, the FOP is not only damaging the reputations of the many good officers within its ranks.

The FOP is, in essence, seeking to help its officers break the law in order to enforce it.

That's unacceptable. Not only for the families who are left behind after men like Crutcher are killed unjustly.

It should be unacceptable for all of us.

Solomon Jones, whose column appears Tuesdays, is the author of 10 books. Listen to him mornings from 7 to 10 on WURD (900-AM). More at Solomonjones.com.