Stop and Search powers are put in place to protect
society. This law give police officers the right to question and inspect any
citizen for weapons, drugs, stolen property or anything that could be used in a
crime. But how do they deduce who to stop and search? 1. If serious violence
could take place, 2. If you are carrying a weapon or have carried one before,
3. You're in a specific location or area. All but the second demand a police
officer to use their own judgement and determine from who could be a criminal
based on their appearance and body language.
 |
| Fitting the profile: Joshua Saunders | Photography: One Mile Away |
A recurring theme I've witnessed with my own eyes has
been black teenagers and adults stopped and searched by police, while white
friends are allowed to walk by without being searched.
Our country's legal system abides by the foundation
that a person is 'innocent until proven guilty' but under the stop and search
powers, police officers, and from my experience of West Midlands Police, appear
to be targeting black males more than any others race. The apparent profile
appears to be a black male wearing a tracksuit, chains, or a hoodie. A profile
which naturally must mean an individual who fits that description is carry
either a gun or a knife, is a part of gang culture or is simply up to no good.
In Channel 4 documentary Miles Apart, which was
released a couple of weeks ago this issue became evidently more apparent. The
programme recorded former gang members from Birmingham's Johnson Crew and
Burger Bar Boys attempting to cease the warfare, which until recently was still
ongoing between the two rival groups, as it has been for the past few of
decades.
Throughout the course of the film, West Midlands
Police pursued host Dylan Duffus and filmmaker Penny Woolcock. The team filmed
during the Birmingham Riots of 2011, and also recorded every interaction the
pair had with the police, who demanded their tapes several times and even
searched Woolcock's house. Fortunately she had hidden them elsewhere in a
friend's China cabinet, or the film may never have been made. West Midlands
Police went onto threaten the pair and Channel 4 that if they did not put up a
credit at the end of their documentary declaring that the police may have been
portrayed in a negative then they would attempt to sue them for a second time.
The first unsuccessful court case was for Woolcock's refusal to hand over the
film rushes, which they claimed could contain evidence of criminal activity.
In the documentary the police were shown in a
negative way, not through editing but via the raw footage depicting police
officers searching black males for nothing more than a stereotyped and
prejudicial fear that assumes that any black individual fitting the
profile could be a danger to society. This unfair presumption widens the gap
between police and the society they serve, and in future, instead of trying ban
a film which accurately represented action of some officers from West Midlands
Police force, they should be accountable, learn from it and change.
No comments:
Post a Comment