A 16-year-old girl is dead. But an entire system failed her

What a day that was.

First came the good news: A cop was held accountable. Finally! What had seemed impossible actually happened.

But then came the bad news: At the very same time, 765 miles away, a cop was shooting a 16-year-old Black girl dead.

I know that Tuesday's verdict doesn't unravel centuries of systemic racism in the US, nor does it fix a system of law and justice that needs a total overhaul.

I also know that Ma'Khia Bryant should not be dead. But she's dead because an entire system failed her — not just the element present on the last day of her life.

It’s hard to say this, but if there ARE scenarios that justify deadly force by police, this seems to be one of them. It may be that there ARE no such scenarios; an argument can be made that police should never use deadly force. But in my view, the case that CAN’T be made is that this officer had other options, based literally on time and space.

On the afternoon of April 21, Columbus police are dispatched after two 9-1-1 calls. In one, a girl cries, "They're trying to fight us, they're trying to stab us."

From the bodycam video, we can see Officer Nicholas Reardon exit his patrol car, and we can hear him ask in a calm voice: “Hey, hey. What’s going on? What’s going on...?"

Suddenly a skirmish draws his attention to the right. One girl drops to the ground. The other girl (Ma'Khia) runs, pins a third girl (in pink) against a vehicle, lifts a large steak knife, and thrusts it up toward her. By now, Reardon's shouting: "Hey! Hey! Get down! Get down!" Then shots ring out, and Ma'Khia falls to the ground.

Please note that everything in the above two paragraphs takes place in 9 seconds. And everything in the second paragraph takes place in 3 seconds.

Count that: 1, 2, 3 seconds.

Another video picks up moments after the shooting. EMS has been called and another officer has begun lifesaving measures. He asks bystanders her name, and says to her: "Stay with us ... Stay with us, Ma'Khia."

Let's deconstruct this.

WHY DIDN'T THE COP DE-ESCALATE THE SITUATION?

That may have been possible even two minutes prior. But I can't fathom how even a trained social worker or therapist could have done so in 9 seconds — especially when the last 3 of those seconds involved a steak knife being lifted and thrust toward someone (who was also a young Black girl, by the way).

To his credit, Reardon's demeanor (or at least his voice) IS extremely calm in those first few seconds. Yet he's completely ignored. In fact, things actually ESCALATE from there.

The people present obviously know something of the dynamic between the girls, yet they'd not de-escalated the situation either.

WHY DIDN'T HE USE A TASER?

Police use tasers for their OWN protection — when an aggressor threatens THEM. In an attack on a third party, they use deadly force. And tasers fail to incapacitate about a third of the time.

Perhaps most importantly, the officer was 10 to 15 feet away from Ma’Khia when Ma’Khia’s knife was 2 or 3 inches from “the girl in pink.” Neither a stun gun nor tear spray could make up the distance in time and space.

I want to ask all the people saying, "The cop was in no danger!" if they’ve forgotten about the girl in pink: She WAS in danger. She’s WHY he used deadly force at that particular moment.

WHY DIDN'T HE JUST GRAB HER ARM OR PUSH HER DOWN?

Reardon was 10 or 15 feet away from the altercation. The knife was a few inches away from the potential victim. What would you have done? What if by getting that close, that deadly weapon had been used on him and then the girl in pink?

It’s true that parents and teachers break up fights between teens all the time. But how many of those altercations involve steak knives? And for those who assume a teen GIRL can’t do any harm … respectfully, you don’t know much about violent crime.

Besides: If all that needed to happen was for someone to grab someone’s arm, then why didn’t someone do that before police arrived? (If you say it happened too fast, you’re right. It did.)

WHY COULDN'T HE HAVE SHOT HER IN THE LEG? OR THE HAND? WHY DID HE HAVE TO SHOOT HER 4 TIMES?

A shot in the leg is more often fatal than shots in the torso, because of the femoral artery.

A shot in the hand is something you see on TV. And in this case, may have proved fatal to the girl in pink.

There's reasons why police use deadly force, and they apply to cases like this.

Ma'Khia wasn't fleeing a scene or resisting arrest. She was literally in the PROCESS of stabbing another girl, whose skin would have been broken less than a second later. And a single bullet is rarely enough to stop an aggressor at that point.

BUT MA'KHIA WAS THE VICTIM. SHE'S THE ONE WHO CALLED 9-11 AND WAS TRYING TO PROTECT HERSELF.

Ma'Khia WAS the victim ... until she ran to one of her attackers and turned a knife on her, AFTER police had arrived to the scene. I mean, Reardon is RIGHT THERE. She sees him. He asks (calmly) what's happening, and no one responds to him.

I can't fathom any scenario where an individual uses deadly force in self-defense AFTER police are on the scene, standing a few feet away, and it's still considered self-defense.

Maybe these girls had bullied Ma’Khia for years. Maybe they’d beat her up before. Maybe she’d never been so terrified as she was that day. But none of that is relevant in those final seconds.

Police were called to this residence to protect someone from being stabbed — and that’s exactly what they did.

BUT SHE WAS JUST A BABY ... SHE WAS ON THE HONOR ROLL ... SHE WAS WEARING RAINBOW CROCS ... IT WAS ONLY A KNIFE....

I am sorry. Ma’Khia may have been a fantastic student, despite whatever life circumstances led to her being in foster care. She may have been a sweet, gentle girl up until that moment.

But at that moment, Ma'Khia was not "just a baby." She was a large young woman apparently in the process of stabbing a smaller (presumably weaker) young woman with a long steak knife.

COPS WOULD NOT HAVE SHOT HER IF SHE WAS WHITE.

That seems to be the case much of the time. Based on what we know now, it does not appear to be the case THIS time.

MA'KHIA'S BLACK LIFE DIDN'T MATTER TO THESE COPS.

Really? Did the girl in pink not have a Black life, too?

THE PRESENCE OF POLICE ALMOST ALWAYS EXASERBATES THE SITUATION.

Agreed. That's why the system must change. But on this day, at this moment, this is the system we have. Officer Reardon did not create that system.

Narratives are unfolding online that (unfortunately) sound like what we have come to expect from MAGAs and QAnons:

These tapes are fake ...

What REALLY happened is that these teenage girls were just laughing and singing, and white cops came to the house blasting away ...

There was no knife, or she'd dropped it, or it was planted on her later...

The cops laughed and high-fived each other as Ma'Khia lay dying.

My heart breaks for everyone. This is how horrifically distanced we have become.

I don’t know about Ma’Khia’s life, but I know enough about the child welfare system to assume her family’s problems were severe. Ma’Khia had likely been victimized throughout her short life.

I’m 100% sure that it didn’t need to come to this, though. In those 16 years there were probably millions of moments when things could have been turned around. And some of those moments took place on the last day or hour of Ma’Khia’s life.

Why was an altercation happening that was frightening enough to warrant two calls to 9-1-1?

What adults in Ma’Khia’s life truly loved her and supported her?

I don’t know. But those aren’t things Officer Reardon (or anyone) could have fixed in those last 9 seconds, much less those final 3.

Ma’Khia did not “deserve" to die. But her potential victim didn’t “deserve" to die either. This shooting was not a judgement on her personal worth, but simply the only available means to prevent the death of another.

Ma’Khia’s death is a horrible tragedy. It happened to take place at the same moment as George Floyd’s family was experiencing a bit of justice for their own tragedy. But Ma’Khia Bryant’s family has suffered a different sort of tragedy altogether.

So, this happened:

CHAPTER 1: JESUS SHOES.

• Nike manufactures Air Max 97 sneakers, which retail for $160.
• MSCHF, which specializes in "absurd, cynical, and viral products" mocking society, purchases 20 pairs (in white).
• The brand then modifies these shoes by inserting a drop of River Jordan holy water, blessed by a priest in Brooklyn, into the soles; painting MT 14:25¹ on the side; and tying a crucifix charm to the laces.
• On October 11, 2019, at $1,425 a pair, MSCHF’s
  Jesus Shoes sell out in less than a minute. (Today, in March 2021, they’re going for as much as $4,000 a pair on StockX.)
• NIKE responds to press inquiries that they’re not in collaboration with MSCHF.

CHAPTER 2: SATAN SHOES.

• MSCHF purchases another 666 pairs of Air Max 97s from NIKE (in black).
• The brand modifies THESE shoes by inserting a drop of human blood, "sacrificed" by six of their employees, into the soles; painting LUKE 10:18² on the side; and tying a pentagram charm to the laces.
• On March 29, 2021 (the day I write this), MSCHF’s Satan shoes go on sale for $1,018 a pair. The brand collaborates with very gay rapper Lil Nas X.

CHAPTER 3: CHRISTIANS' TIZZY.

• NOW, NIKE loses its shit. And who can blame them? Enraged Americans are screaming boycott. The brand releases a strong statement denying ANY connection whatsoever with MSCHF and its theological shoes.
• The Rev. Mark Burns, named "Donald Trump’s Top Pastor" in 2016, calls Satan shoes "evil" and "heresy" and implores Christians to "rise up against this!”
• Republican Gov Kristi Noem, currently under fire for South Dakota’s disastrous response to COVID, calls the shoes "outrageous, disgusting and perverted" and asks, "Do you know what’s more exclusive? Their God-given eternal soul!"
• MAGA Pastor Greg Locke —who endorses LITERAL civil war against liberals — sermonizes thusly:

bunch of devil-worshipping wicked nonsense, pentagram-wearing on your tennis shoe, 666. You think I’m gonna stand for that? You’ve lost yo’ mind… Bunch of Satanism. Bunch of wickedness. Bunch of devilism. Bunch of demonism. Bunch of psychotic wickedness.

• UPenn marketing professor Stephen J. Hoch calls MSCHF “smart” to make only 666 pairs of Satan shoes, because:

They won’t be stuck with too much unsold inventory. It is totally a gimmick, and not a very good one at that. And the price is ridiculous!*

CHAPTER 4: MSCHF’S TRIUMPH.

• As with their Jesus shoes, MSCHF’s Satan shoes are gone in less than 60 seconds.

CHAPTER 5: BY THE WAY…

Here’s the Bible passages referenced on the shoes:

¹ᴊᴇsᴜs sʜᴏᴇs➔ᴍᴀᴛᴛʜᴇᴡ 14:25: "ᴀɴᴅ ɪɴ ᴛʜᴇ ғᴏᴜʀᴛʜ ᴡᴀᴛᴄʜ ᴏғ ᴛʜᴇ ɴɪɢʜᴛ ᴊᴇsᴜs ᴡᴇɴᴛ ᴜɴᴛᴏ ᴛʜᴇᴍ, ᴡᴀʟᴋɪɴɢ ᴏɴ ᴛʜᴇ sᴇᴀ."

²sᴀᴛᴀɴ sʜᴏᴇs➔ʟᴜᴋᴇ 10:18: "ᴀɴᴅ (ᴊᴇsᴜs) sᴀɪᴅ ᴜɴᴛᴏ ᴛʜᴇᴍ, ɪ ʙᴇʜᴇʟᴅ sᴀᴛᴀɴ ᴀs ʟɪɢʜᴛɴɪɴɢ ғᴀʟʟ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴇᴀᴠᴇɴ."

➤Please note that the verse on the Satan shoes is about the DESTRUCTION of Satan.

Jesus wins.

It’s not even from the Satanic Bible or something; it’s from the Christians' own holy book.

Shouldn’t Christians approve, then, theoretically? (Or at least not call it “devil worship,” for Christ’s sake.)

*Professor Hoch, are you kidding me?! Where did you get your marketing degree — in an old box of Freakies Cereal?!

This is marketing genius. This is what Capitalism's all about. The folks at MSCHF are brilliant. I can't wait to see what they come up with next.

TBP

Hello, reader! Have you been alive the last few years? Then you probably know the impact Evangelical Christianity has on American politics, and particularly the phenomenon of Donald Trump.

What you might not know, however, is that the "nones" — Americans not affiliated with any particular religion — are quietly becoming the largest so-called "religious demographic" in the United States. Almost one-fourth of Americans now call themselves things like irreligious, secular, humanist, freethinkers, skeptics, unbelievers, atheist, agnostic or "spiritual but not religious," and our numbers continue to grow.

Obviously, the Republicans aren’t very interested in our demographic. But you know what? The Democrats aren’t courting us, either! Many "nones" are politically independent, but most of us do lean left — the vast majority vote for Democrats, when they vote.¹

If Trump’s to be dethroned in November, we need every single vote we can get. We know this. To that end, the Democrats are out there encouraging people to vote — young first-time voters, the elderly, African-Americans. Outside of relatively small groups like Secular Democrats of America, though, we aren’t seeing much action aimed our way. Why do the Democrats seem to be overlooking the vast, untapped potential of the "nones?"

As an atheist myself, I'll answer that question with two questions:

• How SHOULD the Democrats market themselves to non-religious Americans? And,
• What sort of role do non-religious Americans play in responding to that messaging — active or passive?

This is a real question. I realize this task is an important one. But it’s an awkward one, as well.

THE CATS WHO CAN'T BE HERDED

First: The "nones" are not a monolith. By definition, we aren’t joiners. Irreligious people come from all backgrounds, ethnic groups, and economic classes. Not all are "pro-science," feminist, pacifist, or socialist. Some are hostile to religion; some are fascinated by it; some do not give a single fuck about the subject.

In fact, there’s little philosophical alignment between these groups, or even within them. The issue of how to define a "nonbelief," and whether atheism even IS a “belief,” is too contentious a discussion to touch on here. (Let’s save that for another time.) I’ll point out, though, that none of the "nones" above require official conversion or allegiance.² They don’t have governing bodies. And they won’t damn you to eternal hellfire for doctrinal impurity. (They WILL cancel you, though. And believe me, that can FEEL like being in hell.)

Let’s face it: The GOP has an advantage in its demographic homogeneity. Being largely White and Christian simplifies the messaging. In contrast, Democrats suck at messaging … but they also have a harder job: The need to appeal to a wide spectrum of potential voters — that is, "everyone else."

This year’s electorate is the most diverse in history, and the "nones" are among the most diverse groups of this diverse electorate. The issues are complex. The messages are hard to fit on bumper stickers.

NOT AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE

Newsflash! No OVERT atheist has ever been elected POTUS.³ This is likely to be the case until today’s youth become old enough to vote en masse. As The Friendly Atheist Hemant Mehta explains, atheism is still relatively taboo in American politics, even at the local level.✶ Several states still have laws (albeit unenforceable) banning atheists from running for office.

For good or ill, by various definitions, America still regards itself as “a Christian nation.” While Christian practice is in decline, America is still far more religious than other western nations, and still overwhelmingly culturally Christian.

I’m sympathetic to the arguments that "Under God" should never have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance, nor "In God We Trust" to our currency. I realize we have lots of Evangelical overreach to address, such as the teaching of "Intelligent Design" and "Abstinence-Only" in public schools.

But the issue is so much bigger. Christian Nationalism is real, and an absolute threat to American democracy as well as to world peace. If you’re perturbed when someone responds “Bless you” to a sneeze, your priorities are seriously out of whack. We must stop Christian extremism, but being antagonistic to Christians in general is not a path that will get us there.

The Democrats absolutely must amplify a message of inclusion. They absolutely must counteract the toxic xenophobia of Trumpism with a renewed commitment to America as a place of liberty and justice for all. But they will never get into office at all if they brazenly reach out to "the ungodly" or rebrand themselves as “The UnChristian Party.”✶

America is a secular nation, not an atheist nation. The distinction is of critical importance.

If Trumpist messaging makes use of racist dog-whistling, maybe our side needs some secret codes of our own. Maybe we shouldn’t wait to hear, “Yo! Atheists!” before we engage. Maybe we need to recognize ourselves, or claim inclusion, when we hear the Democrats’ appeal for justice and peace.

“CHRISTIAN" = GOOD

Another time, I’ll discuss many reasons why calling people "fake Christians" is problematic. But here’s a big one: Almost all of us —Christians and non-Christians, liberal and conservative — use "Christian" as a synonym for "good." (Example: "Denying people healthcare and putting kids in cages sure isn’t very Christian!")

There IS some value in Jesus-shaming cruel GOP policies. The fact is, many Christians — including most liberal Protestants and Roman Catholics — ARE our liberal allies. It really isn’t true that "Christians support Trump," just a certain subset of Christians. There’s a huge difference between the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. And don’t forget believers of all the other religions who oppose Trumpism too. We write off "believers" at our own peril.

Fellow atheists, this is why we HAVE to be okay with Biden and Harris' references to their faiths (Catholic and Baptist, respectively). We HAVE to be okay with hearing Democrats say, "God bless America." It’s a good thing to honor the Jesus of the Beatitudes, who healed the sick and fed the poor. (Don’t believe Jesus existed? Fine! It doesn’t matter! Stories! Metaphor! It’s fine!!!)

As long as "Christian" and "good" are related concepts (even at a subconscious level), it’s unhelpful to demand an appeal to "the opposite,” whatever that would even be. (America’s not a Christian nation … America is an unChristian nation … See what a mess this messaging becomes? All these concepts must be discussed at length, not shrunk into campaign slogans.)

Some nonbelievers are turning the narrative upside-down. The Satanic Temple, for example, is doing important advocacy work for the preservation of Democracy and the First Amendment. (Hail Satan!)

But not everyone will take the time to find out what members of The Satanic Temple actually believe. And not all of us are comfortable in the role of devil’s advocate. Lots of us, myself included, prefer instead to find allies in “conventional society.” There needs to be room for all of us.

As a general rule, people like to be seen as “good.” And political parties like to appeal to "good people."

ATHEIST = BAD

Some realities just suck. Americans' views of atheists is one of them.

Numerous polls show wide public distrust of atheists. We are seen as less moral than religious people (this is undeserved). We are also seen as arrogant (this is probably deserved, actually).

Statistics show that in the US, atheists tend to be better-educated and less likely to be incarcerated, addicted or divorced than Christians are. Unfortunately, many atheists take these ideas and run with them, condemning all Christians as ignorant, uneducated, intolerant and "mentally ill” — 
generalizations that are as untrue as they are unproductive. At the same time, the bias against atheism runs so deep it’s subconscious: even atheists distrust other atheists.

In other parts of the world, particularly in Islamic nations, nonbelievers face literal persecution, including imprisonment and execution. Things are much better for us in the United States, but we still face real discrimination in family law and employment, for example.

As a result, despite complaints about "in-your-face" atheists, a whole lot of us remain in the closet. It’s incredibly common for us to hide our lack of belief, or loss of belief, from friends and family. There are even secret atheists among the clergy — not because they’re conniving people, but because they are afraid. Coming out as atheist often involves great loss. As a result, we don’t even know how many atheists there really are in America.

WHY THO?

Well. If atheists distrust other atheists, if we feel the need to hide, then how in the hell can we expect a big ol' shout out from the Democratic Party? (Recall that the purpose of a political campaign is to get elected.)

Meanwhile, some atheists in the Twitterverse gripe every damn time a Democrat dares to mention a deity.✶

I, too, call BS on politicians whose "hopes and prayers" replace funding and policy. But if you take offense at "Thank God" or "Blessings!,” or if you’re among the few who actually WERE offended by the many times Barack Obama said "Merry Christmas,” then goddamn it: Relax! You really are not helping.

As has been said again and again, the 2020 election will be the most consequential of our lives. None of us negatively affected by Trumpism can afford to stand along the back wall of the gym, being coy, hoping the Democrats will ask us to dance. Nor can we reject suiters who don’t have cool hair or who aren’t very eloquent.

We have one chance. For Christ’s sake, people, let’s not blow it.

━━━━━━━

¹ In the US, atheists are liberals more often than not. But atheism here is often a reaction against the Conservative Christianity of the post-Reagan era. A connection between atheism and liberal politics is not assumed in other parts of the world.

² Obviously, there are organizations of “nones" (The Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Humanist Association, American Atheists, and many more), with missions and membership requirements. But I’m referring to the classifications themselves: atheists, agnostics, etc. These aren’t groups you join, they’re things you are.

³ I’d bet a billion donuts that Trump believes in no power higher than himself. Despite his constant ignorant blasphemies, though, Trump knows who his supporters are. Still confused as to how Evangelicals can continue to support someone as blatantly evil as Trump? I explain here.

◃───────────▹

✶ AN ADDENDUM

Since this is my first “real piece” on Medium, I’ve been encouraged by some of the positive comments I’ve received over the past week. I was also honored that Sarah Levin, owner and founder at Secular Strategies, took time to read it and comment.

Ms. Levin pointed me to some very promising data on Americans' religious/political bias. A December 2018 poll conducted by Lake Research Partners for the American Humanist Association and the Center for Freethought Equality found that “being non-religious or atheist need not be considered an impediment to a candidate’s electoral success.” You can find the full report, Atheism Is No Longer a Political Taboo, here.

My search for additional information on the report led me to the American Humanist Association website, where I became an online-only member for a very nominal fee, and so can you.

I was also led to the Center for Freethought Equality website. Here you can find a list of more than 70 elected officials who identify with the atheist and secular community, as well as much more polling data on politics and secularism in the US. [Grr. For some reason, links to the CFE site don’t work. Give it a Google!]

Much more is to come!

— Tee, тнe вαвy нυмαɴiѕт