Outrage over Sen.’s remarks is misplaced

Sure, State Senator Ernie Chambers’ remarks where incendiary, but we are all missing the point

Nebraska State senator Ernie Chambers of Omaha created a firestorm after controversial statements he made during last week’s hearing on a bill that would allow concealed carry permit holders to have firearms in bars and establishments that serve liquor.

Chambers, a 77-year-old Independent and 40-year veteran of the Nebraska Unicameral, made statements that compared the police to ISIS.

“My ISIS is the police. Nobody from ISIS ever terrorized us as a people as the police do daily. And they get away with it,” Chambers said.

His rhetoric, while extremely hyperbolic, isn’t necessarily original. If you follow any right-wing Facebook pages, you’ve probably seen the meme of a Ferguson, Missouri, protestor wearing a shirt with the slogan “ISIS terrorizes us less than the Ferguson PD” printed on the front. The shirt is tacky, but if you break the cardinal rule of the internet and read the comments below the photo, you’ll notice the stream of comments that mock the shirt-wearer’s intelligence, followed by atrocious racist jokes and sincerely butt-hurt white people who’ve completely missed the point.

I’ve become desensitized to right-wing reactionary outrage, so Chambers’ comments are far from upsetting to me; my jimmies remain un-rustled. The way I see it: the slogan and the language used are meant to be as provocative as possible. He was outrageous on purpose because people weren’t listening to the arguments he was providing.

In communities where excessive harassment occurs, people who complain about having their rights repeatedly violated by the police are systematically silenced, marginalized, and ignored. The police are meant to protect citizens, not kill them over petty offenses (there is a separate essay I could write distinguishing the difference between “policing” and “law-enforcement,” but that will have to wait for a later date). When reasonable complaints go unanswered, I can hardly blame someone from taking a more bombastic approach.

I served in the Marines, so in my eyes the over-inflated rhetoric Chambers used is on the level with an angry hippie calling me a “baby-killer” and accusing me of murdering civilians overseas. Comments like that are hurtful, and while they make me feel bad, I’ve got thick skin and I’m not going to get upset about it. People are free to say what they want, and I fought for my country to defend their right to say it.

So, while the comparison Chambers made was out of place, his root argument is not. I am conservative enough to believe that most police officers are there to do their jobs and protect the public, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that the Department of Justice probe into the Ferguson Police Department found how police have abused their power. There are police who profile and harass citizens based on their race. The law enforcement profession is not immune to criticism any more than the military, and the people asking for Chambers to step down seem to want to ignore the problem.

What bothers me is that there’s no outrage from the right-wing when police shoot an unarmed civilian. I don’t think you can argue that a police officer is justified in killing someone for jaywalking or selling a loose cigarette. I don’t think those are crimes warranting a summary execution.

But here is the thing that I’m thinking about: Everyone wants to criticize Chambers for the sound-bite that’s being circulated, but no one wants to acknowledge the context of the commentary Chambers offered at the opening of the hearing, specifically when State Senator Tommy Garrett of Nebraska’s third legislative district, gave his comments arguing for a particular amendment.

Garrett introduced the conceal carry bill with an amendment that said police should be allowed to conceal carry on school grounds while off duty. Garrett said the idea for the amendment came from a discussion with a Nebraska State Trooper who wanted to be able to concealed-carry on school property while attending his child’s sporting events. In Nebraska, if you are caught with a weapon on school grounds, you will have your weapon confiscated; you will be detained by police, and charged with a felony.

“When I see the way the cops in Omaha kill people and get away with it, I don’t want them carrying guns on school grounds where there are children,” Chambers said.

“If a woman has a knife, and she has thrown the knife, then they shoot her. That with which she could hurt them, she no longer has. So it’s like shooting somebody fish in a barrel, and they’re cleared.

Another man, standing on the hood of a car with his hands against the fence, and they shoot him.” Chambers said.

Chambers, an Army Veteran, then asked Garrett, an Air Force Vet, why on military bases in the United States, there are places such as Mess Halls and the Base Exchange, where trained service members are not allowed to carry their issued firearms.  Service members, who receive far more training than the 8-hours required under Nebraska’s concealed carry law, are prohibited from open-carrying their issued weapon into certain facilities on base. So what exactly entitles the Police to preferential treatment?

Chambers was asking Garrett to provide more justification and a stronger argument in favor of the amendment. The discussion continued, and Garrett continued providing facile arguments in-favor of letting police carry concealed on school grounds.

I’m believe in the second amendment, and I support our police. But I think we need to ignore the ISIS comments, because Chambers asked a valid question:

Why aren’t police held accountable for shootings, excessive force, and outright brutality?

For the people asking for Chamber’s to apologize and resign, I strongly feel you need to first; grow a thicker skin; next, take a step off your high-horse, and finally; answer this question. What makes police so damn special?

The full video of the hearing is available here: