By Jon Huer

Recently a black man was arrested trying to break into his own home; another black man, who happens to be the President of the United States, made a comment, more or less siding with the arrested black man, against the white cop's statement. America listened to both sides and said the cop was right; he merely did his job. Virtually all establishment media said it was a ``local" matter and the president should not have been involved in it.

The factual conclusion is simple enough: The neighbor who called the police did the right thing; The cop did his job; no procedural rules were violated. Matter closed.

But the demand for truth raises too many questions. As a college professor who has been teaching criminology and sociology for the past few decades, I will raise 10 of them myself:

First, was it a ``local" matter or a matter involving all of America? I would say whenever there is a white-cop-black-man conflict, it instantly becomes a national issue. Black and white are still colors that matter in America: Most whites deny it; most blacks agree. Who carries greater credibility? Power that denies or victims that grieve?

Second, did the white cop follow the rules in arresting the suspect? Yes and no. The rules are not mathematics; they must be ``interpreted" every step of the way by the on-the-spot interpreter of the rules, namely, the arresting officer who is the Judge, the Jury and the Executioner in virtually every law enforcement decision. Would the officer have been equally quick to arrest the man if he had been a white man? May be, may be not.

Third, did the neighborhood woman, who reported the ``intruder" to the police, do the right thing? Yes. She was a good citizen and a good neighbor. But would she have called the police if the ``intruder" was a white woman? Maybe, maybe not.

Fourth, if the arresting officer had been black and the arrested man was white, would the same actions have taken place, both in the way the intruder reacted to the cop and the way the cop reacted to the white intruder? Maybe, maybe not.

Fifth, if the neighbor had been black, seeing another black person trying to enter the house, would she have called the cops on the suspect?

Sixth, is the white cop wholly color-blind in his duty as an officer? Is he a cop in a totally-color-blind community and society? Is he a cop totally color-blind in an otherwise color-conscious community and society? If the former, fine; if the latter, how does he remain so color-blind in an otherwise color-conscious community and society?

Seventh, the latter being more likely, how do the rules and procedures for arrest remain color-blind in a color-conscious community and society? How could they have been made so color-blind in the first place?

Eighth, if the arresting cop who is white and the arrested man who is black argue two opposite points ― the white cop for justification and the black man for justice, absent any physical evident to settle the issue ― who is more likely to be telling the truth, justification or justice? Why do all law-enforcement officers rally around the cop? For justice or justification?

Ninth, if this is a local matter, why does it stir the President of the United States to a reaction, critical of the police?

Tenth, perhaps most importantly of all, when Power and Power's laws are on one side of a dispute and their victim-citizens, be they white or black, are on the other, where does the Truth reside and what function do the Facts have in such disputes?

None of the above questions is factual, and only an ironically-inclined and sociologically-aware mind can do a good job of them.

From the beginning to the end, that is, from the time the black man (that he is a professor at Harvard is irrelevant) tried to enter the house and his neighbor called the police, to the time he was arrested, booked and released, every step has its logical explanation. The neighbor did the right thing; the cop did the right thing; and all the rules were followed. End of story.

In reality, each of the steps leaves a crack that requires a measure of sociological irony to complete the full explanation, which culminates into a complex set of social factors like power, law, culture, class, interaction, history, race and racism.

The neighborhood caller is either white or black and lives in a community with a certain set of experiences regarding race and racism in America; she is not a Martian who just came to America yesterday. Nor is the arresting cop a non-human, law-enforcing Robocop; he is an American, experienced and trained with all the nuances of law and law-breaking, race and racism, blacks and whites, justice and injustice. He is no blushing-violet of a law enforcer; as a member of a law-enforcement institution, he carries a rank and is promoted on ``merit," and is keenly aware of precedents, traditions, prejudices, corruptions, interactions ― all the do's and don't's of his department.

No social reality, nor power, is ever neutral; every reality and every power serves a particular master, and the master is almost never the weaker members of society.

Instead of denying any ``wrongdoing" and hiding behind the law's shield, the cop, and all of America, should simply admit that we routinely sin against our more vulnerable brothers among us, and recognize that our own moral frailties and weaknesses exist deeply in our communities and flow freely in our veins. At least this way, the matter could have taught us something.

Jon Huer teaches Criminology at the University of Maryland University College and can be reached at jonhuer@hotmail.com.