It is all the rage to say we should defund the police which, some say, doesn't actually mean defund the police, but reform how policing is done.  I could potentially be in favor of reforming some aspects of policing, but frankly, if you think it is a good idea to teach police to shoot people in the leg instead of center mass, you are disqualified from having an informed opinion.  If you want to know why, let me take you shooting sometime and I'll show you.  But, this isn't about shooting people in the leg, it's about choke holds being banned.  The reason I am qualified, in part, to comment on choke holds is because I practice Jiu Jitsu.  I am a purple belt and an instructor.  I have competed at a high level (for old guys) and have been choked out a handful of times in training myself.  I have also choked others out.  By that I mean the person being choked took a short nap (it literally feels like a nap).  I continue to practice and teach Jiu Jitsu 5-6 days a week.  Jiu Jitsu practitioners use submission holds including choke holds to either make their opponent submit or go unconscious.  

There are different kinds of chokes, there are air chokes and blood chokes.  Air chokes are used, but blood chokes are more common.  Blood chokes block the flow of blood to the brain by pinching the carotid artery on each side of the neck.  Within seconds (if applied correctly) a person will literally fall asleep or loose consciousness.  Once the choke is released a person will regain consciousness in a matter of seconds with ZERO negative side effects if the person is remotely healthy.  

Now to the matter at hand.  I watched the incident where two officers struggled with Rayshard Brooks before he took a stun gun, fled, fired the stun gun at one of the police officers, and ended up getting shot by one of the police officers.  What I saw was multiple opportunities (at least two) for one of the police officers to apply a choke hold during the struggle prior to Mr. Brooks fleeing with the taser and getting shot.  I have no idea what the rules of engagement are for police officers in Atlanta, so this not a critique on those officers.  I don't know whether choke holds were allowed or taught as part of their training.  What I do know, is that if they were allowed and if the officers had been appropriately trained, they might have been able to save that man's life using a choke hold.  It is worth mentioning that  the knee on the back of the neck of George Floyd was not really a choke hold and that is not the kind of thing I am addressing here.  Yes, I am aware that it led to his death and the tactic was used in a horrible way, but it wasn't really a choke hold.   A choke hold (properly applied) doesn't take almost 9 minutes to be effective.  The best example and most likely to be useful for law enforcement is what is commonly called the "rear naked choke" (seen above).  This choke can be applied standing as well as on the ground.
​

If we take away these kinds of holds as a tool from law enforcement officers, what options are they left with once an encounter turns violent?  They can beat a person into submission (that sounds horrible), they can tase people (they might still need to resort to other forms of violence and tasers aren't always a good option), they might be able to use pepper spray (that might end up harming them as much as the people they are arresting), or they could shoot them.  Am I missing another option?  I think those are the main ones.  Frankly, choke holds are a lot less violent than many of the other options.  I recognize that there have been a few (very few) times that these choke holds have led to death, but we ought to also ask how many times a choke hold has saved or could have saved someone's life if it was used properly.

The answer isn't to defund the police or take away the tools they have.  The answer is two-fold.  First, understand that regardless of how well trained they are there will be times where violence is required, authority is abused,  and the outcome is tragic.  However, this seems to be uncommon (contrary to popular belief).  Second, make sure that law enforcement is trained really well to use the tools they have to save lives rather than take away tools and limit their options costing more lives and damage.  There are other things that can be discussed regarding reform, but taking away choke holds is a feel good move that will result in making policing more dangerous for the police and the community!

Update (9-22-20):  BLM has begun changing their web site because support for the group has dropped significantly as people began to learn more about the group.  So, if you go to the web site and do not find what I claim is on their web site, understand that is because they have decided to scrub their site.

Before you read the rest of the post, please keep in mind that most of this was written before the death of Rayshard Brooks (or at least before I became aware of it) and in no way is a comment about his death.  Nor is it a reaction to the killing of George Floyd.  It is a response to the many Christians and Christian leaders who have demanded that we must not only use the words "Black Lives Matter," but support the movement and if we don't we are living contrary to the teachings of Scripture.

​Black lives do, indeed, matter.  If only it was as simple as that one statement.  Unfortunately, it isn't about that one phrase.  Let me explain why I can't support the Black Lives Matter Movement.  This isn't going to be the classical "All Lives Matter" retort.  That is a platitude which will only create continued division and lacks any real power to move the conversation forward.  It is worth saying again, this has nothing to do with whether or not black lives matter; they certainly do matter.  Unfortunately, people often use the same words, but they are not using the same dictionary.  

Black Lives Matter is an organization as much as it is a slogan.  It is also a brilliant marketing strategy that has been very successful in shaping the national conversation and had a huge impact within the church.  However, like virtually everything else in this world we live in, the language is loaded.  When you say, "black lives matter" you might be saying a lot more than you intend to say.  Let's take a look at what the Black Lives Matter (BLM) web site says about their own movement.  

• According to the BLM website, "We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence."  Honestly, that is so full of loaded language it is hard to even distinguish what exactly they mean.  Whatever it means, it is clearly based on critical theory which Christians should reject because it runs contrary to Scripture.  "Cisgender privilege" is one way of identifying those who identify as their birth sex as oppressors who have had systemic privilege and have intentionally or unintentionally used that privilege at the expense of others.  What "trans-antagonistic violence" means is also in question.  Is that real physical violence?  If so, let me be clear, I am against that and would literally fight physically to protect any person from violence.  However, it seems more likely that my own position (that people's gender identity should be consistent with their birth sex) would be considered a form of violence.  My belief is based on psychological, sociological, scientific, and religious reasoning.  I cannot and will not support this statement as a Christian.
• According to the BLM website, "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."  Much of this I can agree with and support.  I certainly support families and the concept of working together in community to raise the next generation.  Nevertheless, the first phrase is problematic.  "Western-prescribed nuclear family structure..." likely is a reference to homes with a mom, dad, and kids that belong to those two parents.  This isn't a "Wester-prescribed" thing, this is a natural order thing.  Further, and this is important, it brushes aside a severe problem that exists in many black communities where 75% of children are growing up without a dad.  People who are incarcerated have one thing in common more than any other thing, the absence of a dad.  
• According to the BLM website, "We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."  Once again, I find myself at odds with this statement and I find it harmful.  This rejects the thought or idea that is clearly expressed in Scripture and in nature, that there is an intended design related to human sexuality and gender identity.  I, and the church in general, love all people, but I am also committed to both seeing how the natural world operates and what Scripture says about sexuality.  My goal here is not to provide an argument for a Biblical worldview, but simply to express why Christians ought not support a movement that actively promotes this ideology.  
• The general language that is used both on the BLM web site and that which has taken over the public narrative is also troubling in many ways.  One example is the language suggests that you are either pro-black or "anti-black."  This sounds good on a surface level, but for the Christian it creates a problem.  The Christian should recognize race and ethnicity, the Bible does, but the Christian must also recognize that regardless of race or ethnicity we are all created in the image of God.  The color of our skin is not remotely close to the most important thing about a person.  In Christ there is neither Jew or Gentile, slave or free, man or woman (Gal. 3).  That doesn't mean these things are unimportant, but that they are not ultimately determinative of our identity.  For the Christian it is about being created in the image of God and redeemed by the blood of Jesus making us brothers and sisters in Christ.  I am pro-black in that I see the importance of each and every black person and I recognize the dignity of every human being.  That is not to say I am "color blind."  I see color and it does impact a person's experience in this world.  However, I don't see color as destiny.
• According the the BLM website under #whatmatters2020 they are also working in the area of environmentalism.  I too am concerned about taking care of the creation which God has entrusted to us, but there are many political and moral ideas that accompany environmentalism that I cannot support and do not find consistent with Scripture.  Instead, I prefer to talk about stewardship of creation.
• According to the BLM website they also support a form of universal health care.  While I do believe healthcare should be provided to the greatest extent possible, I also believe that universal healthcare systems fail to do what they promise they can do.  This is not a question of religious conviction, this is a question of best practices.  I could easily overlook something like this for the sake of the greater cause.  In this case there are too many other issues that prevent me from doing that.  It seems to me that this should be an ancillary issue.  It distracts from the greater concern.

Frankly, I could go on and on.  I could talk about language, tactics, etc.  I believe black lives matter and I don't have an issue with people who want to focus on saving or improving the lives of black people.  In fact, I think that is an honorable cause that should be taken up.  I love what Star Parker is doing with her organization, Urban Cure, you should check it out.  There are a variety of law enforcement reform ideas I can and will support among other things.  I would take the BLM movement more seriously if those who espouse, "Black Lives Matter" addressed abortion, fatherless homes, promotion of educational options for highly impacted areas (charter schools, vouchers, etc.) and the like.  I will not use the words "Black Lives Matter" because of all the baggage those words carry with them that are inconsistent with what Scripture teaches.  Furthermore, the ideas more broadly contradict what I believe will actually promote the flourishing of my black brothers and sisters along with everyone else.  Certainly, there are aspects of the movement that are good, but there are too many things I cannot and will not support.  I will do what I can to fight against injustice wherever it is found, love mercy, and walk humbly with my Lord.  I will attempt to use more nuanced language that doesn't carry the kind of freight "Black Lives Matter" carries.  

Some might be tempted to think that the phrase doesn't have to carry all of that extra freight, but we may not have that choice.  I don't have another option for a pithy phrase that will communicate that the lives of black people matter without all that other stuff tagging along for the ride.  For now, I'll have to use more words, more nuance, and hopefully build more bridges.  No matter what you think about recent events, the racial divide in our culture is real.  As a Christian, I want to build bridges that bring all ethnicities together, shoulder to shoulder as we kneel before Jesus who is the King of kings and Lord of lords.  That includes saying the right things that promote goodness, truth, and unity, not just placating one another by using a phrase that creates some kind of false unity or false solidarity.  Real unity and togetherness requires much more.  I'm still figuring a lot of it out myself, I don't have all the answers, but I am quite certain hearts and minds need to be redeemed, so that's where I will start.