Devil in the Details

Recent claims from institutions like the ACLU and UVM have suggested that Vermont law enforcement is racially biased. They point to data showing that Black and Brown drivers are stopped, searched, and arrested at disproportionately higher rates than white drivers. But are these assertions based on solid data, or are they part of a broader narrative that overlooks the deeper complexity of law enforcement in Vermont? More importantly, is there an irony or hypocrisy in Vermont legislators criticizing law enforcement for simply enforcing the very laws those lawmakers have enacted?

The Data: A Closer Look

It is important to recognize that the data driving these claims of bias often lacks crucial context. The primary argument is based on the fact that minority drivers are stopped and searched more often than white drivers. However, this information alone doesn’t account for several other key factors that could explain these disparities. For instance, Vermont is a state that sees a significant influx of out-of-state vehicles, particularly from neighboring states like New York and Massachusetts, which are known to be sources of drug trafficking into Vermont. Are law enforcement officers targeting these out-of-state vehicles based on license plates and enforcement priorities rather than the race of the driver?

Additionally, most traffic stops result from clear violations, such as speeding or equipment failures, that don’t require officers to visually identify the driver’s race before pulling them over. Radar-based speed traps, for example, leave little room for racial profiling as they rely on objective measures like vehicle speed. Yet, the narrative advanced by organizations like the ACLU fails to emphasize this.

Even more telling is that the laws dictating what constitutes a traffic violation or criminal activity come directly from the state legislature, which in Vermont is overwhelmingly controlled by a Democrat supermajority. These are the very people responsible for crafting the laws that law enforcement officers are required to enforce. If there are any complaints about the disproportionate impact of these laws on minority populations, they should be directed at those lawmakers, not the officers simply carrying out their duties.

Legislators’ Own Role in the System

Herein lies the sharpest irony: Vermont legislators are not only responsible for creating the laws that police enforce, but they already are the civilian oversight they call for. When lawmakers criticize police actions, they are essentially criticizing the enforcement of their own policies. The Vermont state legislature, along with municipal boards and local governments, acts as the civilian oversight body that writes and passes the laws enforced by local and state police.

For instance, Progressive politicians in Burlington have recently pushed for greater civilian oversight, advocating for a new, independent oversight board to monitor police activities. However, these same politicians are the ones who enact the very laws that police enforce. Calling for more civilian oversight without acknowledging that they themselves are the civilian oversight not only confuses the issue but also distracts from the fact that police officers are simply following the mandates given to them by the state.

Governor Phil Scott has expressed frustration over these efforts, noting that proposals to implement more oversight could exacerbate police staffing challenges. The reality is that police officers in Vermont are working under a system of laws crafted by these very lawmakers. If the laws lead to outcomes that some find undesirable, such as racial disparities, then it is the lawmakers who should be held accountable, not the officers tasked with enforcing those laws.

Weak Data, Strong Accusations

The data used to support claims of bias in Vermont law enforcement is not only sparse but also lacks the depth necessary for drawing definitive conclusions. For instance, while some studies highlight that Black drivers are more likely to be stopped for equipment violations like broken taillights, these reports often omit crucial factors such as where these stops occur and whether officers are focusing on areas with high rates of drug trafficking or other criminal activity. Moreover, these studies do not provide information about how drivers behave during stops, which could also influence the outcome.

In one report, Vermont law enforcement agencies were criticized for using “discretionary” stops as a tool of racial profiling. However, this overlooks the fact that police officers are often acting based on broader enforcement strategies dictated by municipal and state policies. Law enforcement doesn’t act in a vacuum—they are bound by the mandates and priorities set by the state and local governments, and their actions are a direct reflection of the rules those bodies have put in place.

Additionally, we need to consider the sheer volume of law enforcement interactions in Vermont. Law enforcement officers handle hundreds of thousands of public interactions annually, from traffic stops to emergency calls. These interactions range from minor traffic violations to serious criminal incidents. The negative interactions, such as those that result in complaints or allegations of misconduct, represent only a tiny fraction of the overall number of contacts police have with the public (Crime Research Group)(ACLU of Vermont).

It is also important to note how the media selectively reports on law enforcement activities. Negative incidents, such as allegations of misconduct or racial bias, often receive extensive coverage, while the vast majority of neutral or positive interactions go unreported. Officers responding to emergencies, assisting motorists, or engaging with communities are rarely featured in the headlines. This imbalance in reporting creates a skewed perception that law enforcement is plagued by bias, when in reality, most of their work involves routine and positive interactions with the public.

Support FYIVT Today – Choose Your Impact! Name Your Own Price to Help Us Keep Fighting for Truth and Transparency. Every Contribution Makes a Difference!

Bias in Reporting?

Another layer of irony is found in the way the media reports on law enforcement. A quick scan of recent headlines in Vermont shows a disproportionate focus on negative stories, such as police misconduct investigations and calls for greater oversight. Positive stories, such as those involving police officers going beyond the call of duty to help the community, rarely make the headlines in major publications like VTDigger or Seven Days. This creates a skewed public perception, where law enforcement is frequently portrayed as biased or ineffective, while the day-to-day positive interactions between officers and the community are left unreported.

For example, VTDigger recently ran a piece highlighting misconduct investigations within the Vermont State Police. While these issues deserve attention, the emphasis on negative events without balancing them with positive law enforcement actions creates a distorted view of the profession (VTDigger).

Conclusion: Questioning the Narrative

Given the limited and incomplete nature of the available data, it is premature to conclude that Vermont law enforcement is inherently biased. The racial disparities in traffic stops and arrests are certainly worth examining, but they require more nuanced, contextual analysis before reaching any definitive judgment. At the same time, it’s important to recognize that Vermont police officers are simply enforcing the laws passed by the legislature. If lawmakers take issue with the results of those laws, it is within their power to change them.

Moreover, it is no wonder that law enforcement agencies across Vermont are struggling to fill open positions, given the constant negative and seemingly unwarranted attacks from media outlets and institutions within the state. Officers are under tremendous pressure from both the public and the politicians who set the rules they are required to enforce. This lack of support, compounded by skewed narratives in the media, further discourages individuals from pursuing careers in law enforcement.

What’s more, the narrative being pushed by some media outlets and advocacy groups may itself be biased. By selectively focusing on negative stories and weak data, these groups risk undermining public trust in law enforcement without offering constructive solutions.

In the end, it is important to critically examine both the data and the motivations behind the accusations of bias. Only by doing so can we move toward a more balanced and informed discussion about law enforcement in Vermont.

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

#fyivt #InformedVoting #VermontPolitics #RuralFreedom

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!