Community members continue to hold protests in different areas of the Saint Louis metropolitan region, directed against racial profiling and racially-motivated killings by area police. During one of these recent protests, my SLU Law colleague, Professor Justin Hansford, was arrested by the police. In a beautiful essay, Justin recounts the experience and the road ahead. Here's just an excerpt:
"Protesting is an act of hope. It's not altogether reasonable to believe that standing in a certain place, walking around in circles, chanting and clapping, can in some way create a better world. But it calls for a measure of determination to offset the inevitable fear of backlash, repression, arrest, and violence that accompanies any endeavor of speaking truth to power. I am proud of my efforts to protect the First Amendment rights of these protesters, and no attempt to criminalize this legal work will change that. Dissent makes our democracy dynamic, and in this case in particular, I share the dreams of those who protested that day and wish avidly that their hope is fulfilled.
The hope that animates this movement in Ferguson is the dream of new relationship with the police that is defined by mutual respect. The good news is that there are many ways to do that. The bad news is that any meaningful solution is going to require both the community and police to give up something they value.
For the community, it will entail giving up time and energy as a new culture of more vigorous citizen oversight of policing emerges. For the police, it will entail giving up a general culture of impunity, and being held accountable financially and professionally for excessive use of force and racial profiling in black and brown communities, perhaps for the first time in our nation's history. As much pain as these changes might bring, and as difficult as it may be to get us there, making this transition is the only viable pathway to a future of racial harmony, peace, justice, and human rights."
Are we to assume Professor Hansford chose to skip out on teaching his Monday class (meets every Monday 10:00-11:50AM) as scheduled in order to irritate shoppers/employees at a Walmart? Can anyone confirm he actually attended his class that day?
I wish law professors put teaching their students ahead of their own pursuits more often.
Posted by: confused by your post | October 27, 2014 at 05:27 PM
Professor Harrison, what are the "racially motivated killings by area police?" Do you have some information that you can share with local and federal prosecutors? Or are you projecting your political views onto one or more situations that you've read about on the Internet? For the sake of your students, I sure hope you don't teach criminal law.
Posted by: PaulB | October 27, 2014 at 05:35 PM
My apologies, it's Professor Redding.
Posted by: PaulB | October 27, 2014 at 05:36 PM
From the essay:
**************
We asked why we were arrested, and they said that it was for trespassing. Apparently, in some type of Kafkaesque legal mind-bender, the police had persuaded the manager to close the 24-hour Walmart. We were standing there while it was closed, so we immediately became trespassers, without having moved an inch or having entered the building with the knowledge it was closed. It actually would be a great law school exam question for my torts students this semester. (I'm hoping that they don't read this.)
**************
Under Missouri's criminal trespass statute, 569.140 & 569.010, they don't need to close the Walmart to make staying a trespass. They just need to tell you to leave. If you decide to stay, defying the order to leave, that's a violation.
Posted by: Orin Kerr | October 27, 2014 at 08:56 PM
"confused by your post," I am confused by your lack of reading comprehension skills. Nowhere in the essay does it say the protest and arrest occurred on a Monday. In fact, the essay clearly states that it was a "historic, inspiring, and exhausting WEEKEND of protests." What Prof. Hansford does on the weekend is clearly his own business.
Posted by: 4thYearProf | October 27, 2014 at 10:38 PM
4thYearProf, a two minute internet search found that the Walmart protest where there were multiple arrests was indeed on a Monday, something "confused by your post" may have also found but which you, obviously, did not bother to check. Here is a link to a reuters article. http://news.yahoo.com/police-arrest-50-protesting-shootings-blacks-st-louis-015524575.html
Maybe the facts are not important in teaching or research but they are very important in the practice of law. I find it incredible that you were not willing to spend a minimal amount of time getting the facts before making assertions.
Posted by: anon | October 27, 2014 at 11:05 PM
4thYearProf, the protest was on Monday as a two minute internet search reveals. See Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/14/us-usa-missouri-shooting-idUSKCN0I20I520141014 and the website for Ferguson October which reports:
October 13, 2014– St. Louis, MO – Dozens of protestors from Organization for Black Struggle have shown up to shutdown Walmart making a link between John Crawford, killed by police in a Beavercreek, Ohio Walmart on August 6 and Mike Brown killed by police officer Darren Wilson over two months ago in Ferguson, MO.
The protest is a part of Ferguson October’s Moral Monday, a day of non-violent direct action that has seen clergy members arrested at Ferguson Police Department, workers arrested while blocking Emerson Electric, disruption of holiday shopping at Plaza Frontenac, and disruption and arrest at City Hall.
http://fergusonoctober.com/walmart/
Posted by: anon | October 27, 2014 at 11:13 PM
4thYearProf, from what I can tell, based on the press reports about the protest, it occurred on the night of Monday 10/13. I'm not sure why anon thinks that the prof skipped his Monday morning class, though, as the protest seems to have happened at night.
http://fox2now.com/2014/10/13/michael-brown-protesters-demonstrate-outside-the-maplewood-wal-mart/
Posted by: Orin Kerr | October 27, 2014 at 11:46 PM
4thYearFrof, from your handle, I am confused by a "prof's" inability to do 30 seconds of web searching to confirm that Prof. Hansford's "observation" and subsequent arrest at the Maplewood, MO Walmart took place on Monday October 13.
Web address for protest clip showing Prof. Hansford:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQH6vY11M40
To the extent that Prof. Hansford's protest activities or "unplanned" arrest caused him not to hold his scheduled Monday class or Tuesday afternoon class, I feel bad for his students. Can anyone confirm he taught both classes as scheduled?
Posted by: confused by your post | October 28, 2014 at 09:21 AM
What did Wal-Mart do to anyone? There is no reason they should have been forced to shut down. Same goes for any other business that has been occupied by trespassers as part of a protest. Find a real public space to get your message out and let businesses operate so that people can go to work.
Posted by: JM | October 28, 2014 at 09:58 AM
4thYearProf, from your handle I am confused by your lack of ability to perform a 30 second web search to confirm that Prof. Hansford's "observation" and arrest at the Maplewood, MO Walmart occurred on Monday October 13.
Found tube showing Prof. Hansford.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQH6vY11M40
In the minds of many, protesting police misconduct is a good thing. My concern is whether Prof. Hansford's personal interests (protests and being arrested much to his "surprise") caused him to not hold his Monday class or Tuesday Torts class as scheduled. I have researched the matter on-line and thus far have not found an answer.
My concern is a fair one and pertinent to the post. If Prof. Hansford held his classes as scheduled, then there is no issue here.
Posted by: confused by your post | October 28, 2014 at 10:01 AM
Comments may not show up immediately since some are being sent to spam and I'm in Pakistan, 9 hours ahead of EST (hence, operating in a fairly different time zone than most commentators).
I will delete comments that try to turn this post and discussion of it into some sort of scamlaw convention. On that note, it is perfectly reasonable to not show up to teach a class when one is facing a personal emergency, including arrest by an out-of-control police force. Classes can be rescheduled--and routinely are for all sorts of reasons (planned and unplanned). That's the last comment on that line of argument that I'm allowing here. Sorry, scammers.
Posted by: Jeff Redding | October 28, 2014 at 01:31 PM
Professor Redding, I respect your right to not allow comments which you do not like. You are the ultimate judge with respect to comments on your post. I apologize for double posting and will refrain from doing so again. Protesting police abuse has merit as does the concept that African Americans' civil rights are routinely violated without recourse by law enforcement officers in this country.
Asking whether a law professor failed to teach a scheduled class in the situation at hand is not an base attack unworthy of further attention. It is useful to debate/discuss here the tensions and equities involved in balancing a professor's teaching obligations and outside interests. There is much to be gained from such a debate, even if it allows some fair criticism and differing opinions.
As you are the judge deciding what may be posted, perhaps you may let Professor Hansford's recent scholarly work advocating for the "appearance of fairness" inform your decision to allow further discussion on the subject here. For my part I agree to post nothing offensive on the matter.
Best,
confused by your post
Posted by: confused by your post | October 28, 2014 at 03:16 PM
CBYP: I often tell students who don't do well on exams: "Valid points, but you didn't answer the question." And that's sorta my feeling about trying to interject some 'concern' for student welfare into a blog-post that did not even remotely try to raise this issue. There is an issue of curating here, and I *am* making the editorial decision not to allow scam-porn into every single comment thread for my posts. Simply put: There is absolutely nothing extraordinary or comment-worthy in a professor canceling (and rescheduling) an occasional class here and there, if that is even what happened here--and the assumption that it did is pure speculation and an attempt to change the topic. Please stop.
Posted by: Jeff Redding | October 28, 2014 at 03:29 PM
I will respect your wishes and editorial decision Professor Redding. It's great to bring attention to Professor Hansford's actions on October 13 and his related writing on the matter. Given that this site is a venue for the discussion of legal professors and legal education in combination with the post's subject matter (Prof. Hansford's recent activity) it does not follow that the respectful discussion of potential negatives involved has not been raised as an issue. It has. At any rate, that's the last I will say on the subject.
If there are other topics you feel were raised by your post which you would like to discuss here, then I would legitimately like to participate here.
Posted by: confused by your post | October 28, 2014 at 04:08 PM
The "question" to which the content of comments on this post should be directed is unclear.
Are you simply looking for others to validate your view that "racially motivated killings by area police" are the subject of a "beautiful essay" about "protests" written by your colleague?
If not, and you actually invite others to think about, critically examine and discuss this topic, and your obvious assumptions concerning it, why not try to answer the questions posed above:
Did your reference to "racially motivated killings by area police" include the celebrated case involving Michael Brown? If so, what is your evidence that incident was "racially motivated"?
Why was the protest at a Walmart?
Is what a law professor does off campus ever relevant? Under what circumstances would it be legitimate to question a law professor's off campus activities? NO circumstances? Is any question about this topic "porn"? Isn't leadership on any cause a legitimate topic for debate?
Posted by: anon | October 28, 2014 at 04:09 PM
Still waiting for an answer to PaulB's question and, thank you PaulB for clarifying the identity of the author of the post.
Posted by: Jeff Harrison | October 28, 2014 at 07:32 PM
anon: "Did your reference to "racially motivated killings by area police" include the celebrated case involving Michael Brown? If so, what is your evidence that incident was "racially motivated"?"
Read up on the Ferguson PD.
Posted by: Barry | October 29, 2014 at 11:20 AM
I am not surprised that the general public has jumped to a conclusion in the Brown case without seeing all the evidence. But, a law professor should know better. What if, when all the evidence is in, it turns out that the shooting was justified-that the officer was defending himself? What will Professor Hansford say then?
And, since when is arresting someone for disrupting a business "Kafkaesque"? How is disrupting a private business "truth to power"? Police are justified in arresting protesters on private property. How is this racially motivated?
Posted by: Anon 2 | October 29, 2014 at 01:43 PM
"What if, when all the evidence is in, it turns out that the shooting was justified-that the officer was defending himself? What will Professor Hansford say then?"
Easy. He will say the same thing. Individual fairness is not a concern to academics with a strong political agenda. The point is to always advance the primary message, even if it means distorting facts, ignoring reality and impugning the innocent.
I feel bad for all of the decent hardworking people of Ferguson whose lives have been thrown into turmoil by the dangerous and disruptive protests of large groups of people whose sincere desire for truth and justice is questionable at best.
Posted by: JM | October 29, 2014 at 03:37 PM