The verdict is in in the Doug Bahl case. Elizabeth over at Mishka Zena has posted a brief entry about the verdict itself, which sparked reaction across the Deaf blogosphere. Ridor’s chimed in, and now Chris Heuer has posted at DeafDC as well. I posted about the Bahl case back when it first surfaced, last fall. At the time, I was dismayed that we are constantly facing incidents where the police are overly aggressive and contribute significantly to tragic circumstances involving deaf people.

I’m still disturbed. While I’m not going to go so far as to say the “guilty” verdict is a travesty, I do firmly believe Bahl’s civil rights were violated. A lot of the comments at Mishka Zena’s blog range from the stunned to the apoplectic. Quite a few people feel as Ridor does– that hearing people cannot be trusted, and that the system is stacked irrevocably against deaf people.

One point that a couple of people brought up is important, though– we have scant information. Aside from Mishka Zena, there’s been almost no information about this case since last fall. There appears to be nothing in the newspapers, or any media source, about the trial and its outcome. In a way, this is to be expected: in the larger scheme of the judicial system, it’s small potatoes– a “nothing” case. But here in the Deaf-world, it’s a huge case, because it reinforces the belief that authority figures, especially those who are hearing, cannot be trusted, and that no matter what a deaf person does, the system will be against them.

I disagree- while there are many cases and situations where deaf people do not get a fair hearing and justice is not served, this doesn’t automatically mean that EVERY cop, EVERY judge, EVERY authority figure is against deaf people from the start. Many are, but there are hearing people out there that try to be fair, that try to understand. If there weren’t, they wouldn’t be hiring deaf people at all, they wouldn’t be ruling in favor of deaf people at all, they wouldn’t be taking sign language courses at all, or dealing with us at all. For every nine jerks out there, there’s one person that’s willing to listen, willing to be fair. We cannot and should not write off hearing people. We DO need to identify and work with those hearing people that are willing to treat us as human beings, as equals; we do need to work with these allies who are responsible, ethical, and able to help in establishing a level playing field for everyone, regardless of who they are.

Back to the Bahl case. I’m a bit perplexed about the verdict– I can’t say for sure that the verdict was right or wrong, even though I firmly believe there was police misconduct. As Cousin Vinny wondered in the comments section at Mishka Zena’s post,

Is there a transcript somewhere? Was Doug Bahl represented by counsel? Was this a jury trial or judged by a sitting judge? Is an appeal in the works? Hopefully more information will come in about the case, so we as a Deaf community can be better informed when it comes to relations with police.

Vinny’s right– all we know for sure is that there was a “guilty” verdict. Bahl hasn’t really made any public statements, and in fact last fall, said that on the advice of his attorney, he wasn’t going to say anything, although he appreciated all the support he was getting from the community at the time. It’s hard for me to say that the verdict was completely wrong when I have no idea what evidence was submitted, what arguments the lawyers made, what testimony was given, and what kind of lawyer Bahl had. This is true for a lot of trials. This doesn’t mean that we should automatically accept all verdicts. As I mentioned to a colleague last night, sometimes the system works; sometimes it doesn’t. There are times when a decision is hailed as the right one to make, and other times, it’s roundly criticized, or highly divisive. The judicial system is imperfect, just like everything else. Nothing is perfect in life. It’s part of why there’s an appeals system. It’s possible the jury found Bahl guilty according to the letter of the law. But one problem I have is that the spirit of the law should be equally important. So while the trial transcript and evidence may show Bahl to be technically guilty, I believe that the entire incident needs to be taken into consideration, and given the police’s response to and subsequent treatment of Bahl, perhaps the verdict should have been “not guilty.”

Sometimes criminal cases don’t go the way you want them to. But there are still remedies. One of them is filing a civil case, and if Bahl hasn’t done so, I certainly hope he does. From what I understand about the situation so far, his civil rights were certainly violated.

This is where we, as a community, come in. I’ve done a search (admittedly not 100% thorough), and there’s absolutely nothing about the Bahl case since last fall. What are advocacy groups doing about this case? What kind of public relations follow-up is being done? What are organizations of and for the deaf doing about this? If Bahl is pursuing a civil case, then there needs to be a push for media attention– this is one of the few avenues that we have, and certainly attention needs to be drawn to this case. We talk about the need for equal access, for communication, for civil rights, then we’re going to have to fight about it. We can’t just sit back and say, “Well, all hearing people are like that.” That creates a self-perpetuating situation, and a potentially defeatist attitude. We can’t just sit back and say, “Well, the system is set up like that. It’s corrupt, you can’t change it.” If that’s true, then why bother trying to change anything?

In the past, some deaf people have lectured and written about parallels between the Deaf and black communities. It certainly wouldn’t hurt to take a page from the lessons of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s. We need a major PR push. It’s one thing for people like me to sit back and blog about situations like this– it’s a nice way to blow off steam. The same is true for commenters. But what will really work is contacting local and regional media in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region. What will force people to pay attention is commenting on the violation of the right to equal communication– not on blogs and other similar forums, but to newspapers, television reporters, lawyers, advocacy organizations, and civil rights agencies. If we aren’t willing to speak up, then how can we expect change? How can we expect to attract allies?

I understood and respected Mr. Bahl’s need and request for privacy last fall. But at this point, his attorney really needs to marshal public opinion in favor of his case. Even if Doug Bahl himself still remains silent, his attorney certainly shouldn’t sit back quietly. Regardless of the outcome of any civil trial, public perception is crucial for any potential changes to occur on the part of police and law enforcement agencies in general.

There also is a need for better coverage. I know there aren’t any national deaf newspapers anymore, and those newsletters and papers that still exist are limited in circulation, coverage, and publication schedules. But I really wish there had been some way to have someone at the trial, to provide some insight as to what happened. I’m not sure how feasible that is, but it’s something I’d love to have happen.

Of course, this case opens the same old can of worms again: how to deal with law enforcement? Chris Heuer argues that using one’s voice is definitely an option. While that may work for people who have voices that are relatively clear and understandable, it’s not an choice everyone has. It also divides us again into those who can speak, and those who can’t. Also, not everyone who can “speak” is able to articulate enough to be able to be readily comprehensible, let alone use the phone or other similar activities.

Heuer says the reason he was “not pepper-sprayed by the two officers who approached my car and beaten to a bloody pulp” is because of his voice. Funny, I could have sworn Rodney King was hearing, and certainly used his voice with the police. Certainly didn’t save him from getting “beaten to a bloody pulp.” Lucky for him someone just happened to be playing with their video camera at the time.

Quite a few deaf people I know can speak, but their voices sound like they’ve been drinking, because the words come out slurred. What about those of us who speak, but sometimes misunderstand questions, and then say something meaningless or off-point? Such non-sequiturs on my part have in the past led at least one person to think I was on drugs (even when I wasn’t at the time). What happens then? Do police officers then instantly assume they are dealing with someone who’s drunk or high? What about when the police stay back in their cars, use megaphones or speakers, and assume defensive postures? How then is one supposed get their “wallet out, and [hold] it up so the cops could see that I had just reached for my wallet and not for a gun. I then put my wallet on the dashboard, rolled down the window, and put both my hands on the steering wheel”? They won’t see much, since they’ll be dozens of yards back, huddling behind the safety of their patrol car, shouting verbal orders to a deaf driver they’ve pulled over. What happens then…?

Well, this situation happened in Modesto, California, last year. The victim in this case, Dan Tessien, had an officer fire a beanbag shotgun through his car window, and further blasts hit him in the stomach, arms, and legs. While the original Modesto Bee article has been removed from their archives, you can see a copy of the article here, at Deaf News Network. Tessien used his voice while trying to protect himself from this seemingly unprovoked attack. So just being able to produce audible sounds with your vocal cords isn’t a guarantee that speech will save you.

So while I’m happy Chris Heuer managed to get through his encounter with the local Barney Fifes just fine, as he points out, there’s no guarantee of this happening for anyone else. This is where I agree with him; anyone is at risk. What I disagree with is that being able to speak confers some kind of relative safety. For some, it might; for others, it doesn’t matter what you say or do.

How do we change this situation? It’s not just deaf people that face this problem; as I mentioned earlier, there’s Rodney King. Amadou Diallo. It isn’t just black people either; “DWB” doesn’t just stand for “Driving While Black,” it’s also been used to mean “Driving While Brown.” It’s not an issue that has to do solely with audism or miscommunication. It’s a problem that unfortunately affects a much broader segment of our society. This is why it’s important we publicize these cases, the Doug Bahls, the Dan Tessiens, the Errol Shaws. This is why we should join forces with civil rights groups, with other cultural and ethnic groups. We can’t fight and win this one alone; we need to show that deaf people don’t exist in a vaccuum, and that our problems with police officers are part of a larger, broader social ill.