Resources and Ideas for Police Officers Who Want to Leave the Force

I am compiling a set of articles gleaned from the internet focusing on people who have left the police force, or want to leave the police force, and how to go about it. Most of these articles were published before the George Floyd incident. In light of what we're seeing during the protests for George Floyd, the "few bad apples" line that gets thrown around about bad cops, doesn't seem to be playing out. "All bad apples" feels more accurate right now.

But you're one of the good ones, and you can't stand what you're seeing and what you're being asked and forced to do. And I get it, times are tough now, we're in the middle of a pandemic, and unemployment is high. But there are still jobs to be found, and you can go find one of those.

If you're already wondering if this is still the profession for you, if you're starting to question if you're perpetuating a system that is doing more harm than good, then you've already made your decision. You just need to get ok with it. So, without further ado, here is the list:

Why Leave Behind Police New Industry

Reasons Cops Quit

Other Career Options for Former Police Officers

Another List of Reasons Cops Quit

Comprehensive PDF Article from 1990, Still Relevant Today

A First-Person Perspective on Leaving

8 Reasons You May Need To Leave Your Department

Consider A Career in IT

A Thread Regarding Other Industries and What to Put on Your Resume

Possible Career Paths For Ex-Police Officers

Why I Left The Police Department

Jobs For Retired Police

Why These 20 Cops Decided To Quit Their Jobs

Why I Hated Being A Cop

Chattanooga Police Chief Urges Officers Who Don't Have an Issue with George Floyd's Death To Quit

Burning Walls, Building Bridges: Book Review

Today’s post is dedicated to the book, “when they call you a terrorist, a black lives matter memoir,” by Patrisse Khan-Cullors and asha bandele.

Like the title says, this is a memoir, written by one of the three women who started the Black Lives Matter movement in 2013. This book was published in January of this year, so it’s very up-to-date, and timely. Purchase here. I chose this book because the title really stood out to me. Imagine being a person fighting for civil rights, human rights, in this country and being branded a terrorist for it. By people who are actually the terrorists. It is just so frustrating and unfair and wrong, and the worst of it is, it doesn’t have to be like this. We all could band together as a people, and stop it. But we don’t, because we're too busy choosing not to see it.

This book is a must-read for everybody, but particularly for white readers. If you are like me, trying to actively learn more about how white privilege and institutional racism works in this country and in ourselves, you absolutely have to read this book. And if you are not simultaneously inspired and outraged by the time you finish reading it, then you need to read it again until you do.

“when they call you a terrorist” is extraordinarily well-written. The memoir focuses on Patrisse's life, and her family growing up in California. Interaction with the police was nearly constant and began at a very young age. Prison was an ever-present element of life. The double standard we place on people of color and then pretend is equality is impossible to ignore. 

You can see everybody described in this book so well, even though their looks aren’t really described. Their auras shine through the pages and they are so alive. Because they are. Sometimes you have to stop for a while when reading this, to remember that this is all real. This is the reality for so many poor black and brown people in this country. And the most frustrating and upsetting part of it is, that it doesn’t have to be this way. We could all help change this, but it’s so easy as white people, not to see it. We really do have to be reminded, every day, that Black lives matter. And maybe, one day, we’ll all start remembering that and acting like it.

I couldn't help thinking about how I would have felt if I had been in Patrisse's shoes. If my life had been like her life. I saw elements of my own family in hers and it was a huge reminder of how much more alike we all are to each other in this giant human family of ours than we are different. So why wasn't my life like hers? Why wasn't her life like mine? And you can't help but feel how stupid and arbitrary white privilege is. It's outrageous and outraging.

This book left me feeling ashamed for not caring about the #BlackLivesMatter movement sooner. For not researching it and promoting it sooner. I care about people and want to help make the world a better place for everybody, but even so, my white privilege shielded me from seeing something that needed attention. Reading this has made me want to do more. It’s not much, but I intend to purchase a copy of this book and will make the effort to buy it from a Black-owned bookstore. If I believe that Black lives matter, then Black-owned businesses matter as well. It’s one small thing I can do.

I was inspired by the passage about protesting in Rodeo Drive. White people need to hear this message the most, and as a white person, I am in a position to use my voice and privilege to talk to other white people about this. I don’t have a unique perspective, I have not lived this life, but I can still share it with other white people. I can also make sure that I support candidates and vote for people who fight for this. People who believe that Black lives matter. My role in this is not to have a unique voice or a place in the actual movement, but to support it from behind and beneath. To just be a body in the crowd.

I am in awe of Patrisse and her journey. I am angry that we allowed what happened to her and her family and community without caring or listening, all the while proclaiming that we loved all people. I am inspired by what she, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi have accomplished by starting a movement that is shaping a generation and reshaping the entire country. I hope that one day we will not need organizations like this, because our actions will truly match our words. When we claim to be colorblind people who love everyone equally, one day, maybe we will look up #BlackLivesMatter in history books and read about how it all started there. The questions we must all ask ourselves is: What did we do to help? What did we do to make sure that Black lives mattered? And how much better are we all, as a nation, now that we live like they do?

Burning Walls, Building Bridges: The Supreme Court

In light of the Weepy McDrunkface Kavanaugh confirmation yesterday, I thought I would take a look at the Supreme Court and its role in either upholding or dismantling racism in this country. I am not a lawyer and I have no expertise at all in the subject of the law, so everything I write is just my personal interpretation of the cases. I stayed up until 12:30am today reading through all the different Supreme Court cases from the era of the Civil War, until present day. I focused on cases that pertained to people of color and/or civil rights specifically. There are actually a huge amount of cases from over the centuries, and I read through all of them.

There have been a lot of landmark cases that we know about from over the years, but I think we either forget or just don't know how many cases they weigh in on in the course of a year. Some of them are isolated cases. Some pertain to a particular city or state. But almost all of them can be used as a precedent for future cases. Some lost relevance when another case came along that overrode a previous ruling.

A refresher on how the Supreme Court functions. The Supreme Court is one of the three branches of government. Laws are created in a few different ways in this country. Cities and states can pass their own laws. For laws on the federal level, they are created and passed by Congress, another of the three branches of government. The Supreme Court's function is to interpret laws. Justices are nominated by the President, the third branch of government, and confirmed by the Senate. Justices hear cases not just on a federal level, but on a local and state level as well. Their main aim is to determine whether or not a law is within the confines of the Constitution. Generally-speaking, they don't rule based on the ethics/morals of an issue, which is why there are plenty of examples of them upholding laws that most of us would find reprehensible.

Theoretically, Supreme Court justices are impartial. They interpret the law as it pertains to the Constitution and use only their knowledge and intellect. The problem though, is that Supreme Court justices are humans who interpret the law based on their own life experiences and opinions. They have feelings and those play a part in their decision-making. This is why we see conservative-leaning and liberal-leaning judges and why a balanced group would be considered ideal. When the Court leans one way over the other, the rulings tend to follow whatever the majority is.

My research of the rulings regarding people of color and civil rights showed two distinct patterns. For black, Latinx, Asian, and Arab Americans, the Supreme Court rulings have largely been a case of "two steps forward, one step back." But they have ultimately, pressed forward, towards greater equality for all Americans. It has been a "slow but steady" pace, but it has moved forward, thus far.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins
In this case from 1886, we have a case where institutional racism on a local level(San Francisco), was challenged and successfully dismantled by the Supreme Court. San Francisco had passed a law about the need for people running laundry businesses in wooden buildings to have a license to be in business legally. Then in order to exclude Chinese Americans from running the businesses, the city refused to issue licenses to them, thus allowing the city to shut them down for running illegal businesses. The Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of the 14th Amendment for such a practice by the city, and San Francisco was forced to stop. This is a great example of something seemingly race-neutral, the need for licenses, being enforced in a racist manner, and adversely affecting one group of people over another.

United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind
In 1923, an Indian man sued the United States in order to become a naturalized citizen. Based on an act from 1906, only white people and people of African decent could qualify to become naturalized citizens of the United States. Thind argued that as a person of Aryan decent, he was in fact, white. The Supreme Court ruled that although he was Aryan, he wasn't Caucasian, and that was what truly determined whiteness in this nation. Therefore, Thind was not white and did not qualify for naturalization.

Smith v. Allwright
This 1944 case deals with voter disenfranchisement in the state of Texas for voters of color. The Democratic party had long ruled the state of Texas and had determined themselves to be a private organization who could make their own rules of who was allowed or not allowed to participate in the primaries. Because of other forms of disenfranchisement, the Democratic primary was the only one available to voters of color. The Supreme Court ruled that this was in fact discrimination based on race and the Democratic party was forced to open the primaries to all voters.

The above are examples of the give and take of fairness and movement forward for most people of color in the United States. For Native Americans, however, with a very few small exceptions, the Supreme Court has been used to further oppress and marginalize them. One could even say that it's been weaponized to inflict maximum harm to them. My personal theory is that in order to continue justifying our presence here and what we did in order to take over this land, laws and their interpretation have always erred on the side of the United States. To give too many rights to Native Americans would have been seen as de-legitimizing our presence here.

Elk v. Wilkins
This case from 1884 declared that Native Americans could not be considered citizens of the United States because they lived on reservations and were therefore loyal only to their tribes. The citizenship of Native Americans would be permanently decided by other means, but it is still technically on the books as the only ruling the Supreme Court has ever made regarding citizenship of Native Americans.

Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
A 1955 case determined that a subtribe of the Tlingit people of Alaska had no right to financial compensation from the materials taken from their land by white people, because they weren't a tribe of their own.

Menominee Tribe v. United States
In a rare victory in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a tribe even though they were no longer legally recognized by the federal government.

Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones
This case from 1973 was a bit of a draw. The Court concluded that the federal government had the right to tax forms of business on tribal land, but that they could not tax the actual land itself.

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe
In what I could consider an extremely dangerous precedent set in 1978 in this case, the Supreme Court ruled that tribes were not allowed to prosecute non-tribal members on reservations, regardless of whatever crimes they may have committed on the reservation. This has effectively given non-Native people carte blanche to go onto reservations and commit whatever crimes they desire, without facing prosecution. When we hear stories of Native women being murdered or disappearing from their land, we can most likely thank this ruling for why it happened and why, if a person is ever caught, very little is bound to be done about it.

Though the Supreme Court hasn't made as many civil-rights-related rulings in the last couple of decades compared to the 1950's and 60's, there are still some being made. There will most likely always be race-based cases to be heard, sadly. Just last year, the Supreme Court upheld Trump's ban on several predominantly Muslim nations. While Muslims are not a race of people, the fact that all of the nations on the list are largely non-white nations, I am including it as an example. The Supreme Court voted along their liberal/conservative leanings to uphold the majority of Trump's ban.

With the retirement of one liberal justice and the confirmation of a conservative justice in his place, the court now leans conservative. This doesn't bode well for people of color hoping to find justice in the highest court in the land. Of course, only time will tell how all of this plays out. From what I read of the cases, so much of it depended not on the actual rightness or wrongness of the case, but in how well the case was presented. People fighting for civil rights will have to make sure to present air-tight cases that leave little to refute.

This brief look at the Supreme Court and some of their rulings over the centuries has made a couple points stand out to me. First: While the president is an important figure in this nation, who we elect to the Senate is just as important, if not even more important, in the long run. Congress is often a balancing act for the POTUS so that the Supreme Court doesn't even have to get involved for most of it. Electing people who will confirm the best candidates to the highest court in the land is vital to our nation. Second: The people making the laws will always make them so they work out in their own favor. This means that it's also extremely important for people of color to be a part of every decision-making process in this nation. From city councils all the way up to the Supreme Court.

I know people talk about destroying this system, and I understand to an extent. But I don't think it's the system that's broken. I think it's the people in the system that need to be switched out for better people. People who use the system the way it was set up, instead of finding ways to cheat it. If the system was actually used the way it was supposed to be used, it would be as revolutionary as burning it to the ground. We have to keep fighting to make that happen.

Burning Walls, Building Bridges: Colin Kaepernick

Burning Walls, Building Bridges: My journey to learning about what institutional racism is, and how to help dismantle it.

Welcome to the first of a new series on combating institutional racism in the United States! I hope this will be a good chance for all of us who are hoping to help make a change in this country, to figure out the best way to go about it. Since this is the intro post, I will explain what I think is the most helpful way to engage in this issue, and also tell you a little bit about myself. My hope is that this will spark a dialog about the issues that we can all come away from a little more enlightened about.

The "Rules": Obviously any and all people are welcome to read and participate in this, but I am assuming that most people reading this will be white. As a white person living in this country, I can see how segregated we still are in our lives and acknowledge that most of the people in my life, who will have access to this blog, are also white. Because of this, we all come from a place of privilege but may be in different places of realizing and acknowledging it. My hope is to create a safe place for people to ask questions or comment on things without having to worry about being judged for it. One of the things white people who are further along on their journey of dismantling racism in their lives tend to do is rely on self righteousness to make sure they feel better about themselves. "I'm woke, so I'm good, but look at what that white person just said! Let's destroy him so that I can keep showing others just how woke I am." It becomes the "I'm the most non racist person" contest and it doesn't resolve anything. If anything, it makes the problem worse and it plays into our own insecurities. We stop growing when all we do is accuse others of being worse than we are. So, that stops here! No more of that! Unless you make a comment that is blatantly and unapologetically racist, I will do my best to never attack you or respond in anger and I ask anybody else following this blog and commenting, to do the same.

The Format: I will try to do a post every other weekend or so, depending on where I am in reading books and articles on this subject. I would like this project to be sustained over time and I have to tendency to do too much too soon and get burned out. 

About Me: I am a liberal woman from Seattle. I'm 40 years old. I don't post where I work online so I won't be sharing that information here, but it is a place that works for the public in a non-profit setting. I identify as "whitish". What in the world is that, you are probably asking me right now. I am white, that is how I look, that is how society sees me. I have been granted full white privilege. However, I actually have a small (2.5%) amount of African DNA in the two DNA tests I have taken. This confirmed what I had suspected based on my research over the past several years. While I acknowledge that I have no place in today's black communities in this country, and I would never try to worm my way into them(see Rachel Dolezal for an example), I know that I have black ancestry in my history. I have chosen, unlike other white people who choose to ignore it, to embrace it. I do not share a present with today's black communities, but I do share part of a past. And because of that, things like white privilege stand out a lot to me. The arbitrary nature of how it's assigned, I feel that very sharply. How can I not? And certain issues hit me on a more personal level now than they did before, even if they still don't actually affect me or my life. So, I decided that instead of ignoring my history, I could embrace it and use my white privilege to reach out to other white people in hopes of helping us as a community to move forward in how we handle racism.

And now, a definition: Racism. We prickle at this word when it comes up in conversation or is used in relation to us. We don't hate anybody! We don't even see color! We're colorblind. We don't actively try to keep anybody else down, so how can I be racist? Not all white people are racist!-Which translates to, other white people might be racist, but I'm not, so make sure to acknowledge that when you talk about racism in this country. I am exempt. The problem is, racism doesn't mean what we think it means. Even though the dictionary defines racism as more of the hatred and active oppression of people, the meaning has changed to now mean a person who benefits from living within a system meant to benefit one group of people over another group of people. What we think of as racism would really fall under the category of prejudice.

Here's a good article about the definition of racism. And I would highly encourage you to read the comments on this article to see the kinds of things people of color have to deal with in order to point out racism to white people. White people can be incredibly angry and defensive when they are told that they benefit from a racist system. It isn't the job of people of color to teach white people about their racism, and most of those who do take the time to point it out, get attacked. This is one way we can take on fighting all levels of racism, by taking on those hostile white people ourselves.

This Week's Topic: Colin Kaepernick's Thwarted Message
Because I'm just starting out and I haven't read any books yet, my topic is something that has been in the hearts and minds of a lot of Americans since it started in 2016 and had resurfaced when Kaepernick teamed up with Nike for an ad campaign that began last week.

(Source)

Here is a timeline of Kaepernick's first year of protesting police brutality and racial inequity in this nation's justice system, and people's reactions to it. When it first started, nobody really knew what to make of it, but when he started gaining national attention, people began finding reasons to disagree with it. The one that stuck, though, was the idea that sitting during the anthem, or even taking a knee, was somehow disrespectful to the military. Conservatives and conservative news sources latched onto this idea and used it to change the conversation from police brutality and inequity in the justice system, to one of who has the right to protest and under what conditions protesting was considered acceptable. As liberals and liberal news sources fought back, they further continued the discussion of protesting and how it should be done. The message Kaepernick was trying to promote, was buried and the status quo of inequity has continued unchallenged. The conservatives won this battle, with help from us. White privilege is still very much intact and we can go about our day not worrying about what happens if we get pulled over by the cops or have to go to court for something. Too bad for the people who do have to worry about those things, but we had to stand up for the right to protest, right?

I am not going to debate the merits of Colin Kaepernick and whether or not he is "good enough" of a person or a citizen to be the conveyor of this message. I tend to look at all those arguments as continuing to take away from the discussion of racial inequity in the justice system(notice I'm using that phrase a lot? That's because I'm trying to put the focus back on the message, not the debate on protesting. This is a simple tactic we can use to help move the argument back to where it needs to be.) This issue is something very important to Kaepernick and he has the ability to use his current position to bring awareness to something very wrong in this country, and he is doing it. And since nobody else is really standing up for it, he's the man. He's the one, and he is not standing down. The moment we bog ourselves down in "But he doesn't do this or he did do that, and that makes him not a good enough person to convey this message," we are ending the message. We are saying that we will only support this issue if the person talking about it fits our narrative. We're saying that we're waiting for a more ideal or "model" minority to convey this message and until that happens, we won't have anything to do with whatever the message is. This is what is known as "gatekeeping". It makes the white people who do believe in the message, but don't want to align themselves with the messenger, upholders of the racist status quo. This undoes everything we claim to stand for and only works to make us feel more superior than others.

Here's one thing to keep in mind about him, if you are having issues accepting him as the face and voice of this movement: Do you think he's really happy that he has to be taking this stand at all? Do you think it excites him that his football career has been decimated and that he himself is in danger any time he is pulled over by the cops? That he has to see his own community torn apart by the inequity in this country? I highly doubt it. He probably hates this just as much as the people who hate him for standing up to it. 

So, going forward, if you believe in Colin Kaepernick's message of racial inequity in terms of the police and the justice system in this country, the easiest thing you can do when you hear others talking about it, or see them online, is change the conversation back to that message. When we hear the debate going on about protesting and taking a knee during the anthem and being respectful towards the military, take it back to the original message. Don't fall for those red herrings. We're only upholding a racist system by doing do.

Does anybody have any thoughts or questions about this? If you have suggestions on books or articles I should read about institutional racism, please share them with me. And if you have any thoughts on a particular institution or industry that we should explore in depth to see how racism affects it, please let me know those too. I have a list going but I'm sure it's hardly comprehensive. I am currently reading a book that I hope to finish and talk about in the next post. So, until then, keep fighting the fight for equity!
-Summer