The “Blue Lives Matter” bill is the wrong way to protect police

Black Lives Matter, All Lives Matter, and now Blue Lives Matter… For the past couple of years we have been inundated with seemingly competing messages on whose lives should be given the most attention in the public sphere. Passionate advocates have rallied around these slogans and drawn their lines in the sand, all the while covered in fear that their issues and their concerns will be ignored. However, history shows us what we all know to be true: all lives do indeed matter, including blue ones, but it is the issues attached to black lives that are systematically thrown aside and ignored, making #BlackLivesMatter a necessary and absolute statement.

On Aug. 4, New York Assemblyman Ron Castorina introduced the Blue Lives Matter bill. The bill seems to be a response to the recent assaults on officers following the high-profile deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling last month. If passed, the bill would classify attacks on police officers as hate crimes. Below are four points that explain why this approach is wrong.

First, the title of the bill calls out a redundancy. Naming this piece of legislation “Blue Lives Matter” is apparently a direct response to #BlackLivesMatter. If so, it provides an insult by denying what people are experiencing, and serves to negate the grievances voiced by its advocates.

I speak out vehemently against violence, period. This includes gun violence on our streets, excessive force on civilians and of course attacks on our police, who put their lives on the line every day to protect the public. The attacks on and murders of police officers that took place are egregious offenses that should be universally condemned. It’s critical to note that perpetrators against police will rightfully be held accountable. The same cannot be said when the offense is the other way around. Of course Blue Lives Matter and there is overwhelming evidence across the country supporting that. The same cannot be said about black lives.

Second, let’s utilize available information. I recognize that these are tense times we are living in. Police officers are dealing with an emotionally heightened public and are battling demonized perceptions. I also recognize there’s been a peak in attacks against officers compared to this time last year. It’s important, however, to keep in mind that the number of police officers who have been attacked or killed while on the job has remained steady since the 1980s. Many believe by the end of the year the rates of officer deaths will level off to historical lows.

It’s also important to highlight that white offenders kill police at a higher rate than other racial groups. According to FBI data, between 1980 and 2013, roughly 2,269 officers were killed by offenders, and 52 percent of the killers were white. Most importantly, we have to remember that behind these numbers are real people, and real families that simply wish their loved one was still with them. In addition, the killing of even one officer must have psychological effects on all officers.

Because of this, measures must be taken to ensure that police officers feel safe, protected and respected. That includes both in reality and perception, as both can affect job performance and the lives of those they serve. But this bill does not do that. It is a publicity stunt that entrenches real-life concerns for law enforcement in a dichotomous arena with social justice concerns, where neither side can be heard because the conversations are operating in the same space.

Third, what about existing laws? New York already has laws on the books that make assaults on police officers a higher-grade charge than assaults against civilians. An assault against a law enforcement officer is an automatic felony, with the least serious charge of “assault in the second degree” carrying a minimum two-year sentence. If there is sincere interest, the first question we should ask is whether the existing laws are sufficient. Do we need another law or a public campaign about what already exists?

And finally, calling an attack on a police officer a hate crime intentionally manipulates the law, and can very well weaken the hate crime concept. Hate crime laws are founded on a person’s identity, which shapes how they move and interact with the world. An occupational choice, even a courageous one that has innate dangers, simply does not fall into that realm, and placing it there does a disservice to the original intent of hate crime laws.

Based on the bill’s presentation, I know that many will try and place any opposition to it in the simplistic “anti-police” category. However, the fact is we should all want our police to feel safe and actually be safe. Let’s have the real discussion they deserve around that notion, and not fling a bill into an arena that unnecessarily, and often erroneously, conflates fact and fiction. It’s not helpful, and it’s dangerous.

Jumaane D. Williams is a New York City Councilmember representing Brooklyn’s 45th District.