I am in receipt of the message you left on my blog post last night. I apologize for not responding more quickly, but I really needed to take the day to think my response through. I will only partially respond to you. Giving you a full answer requires roughly five thousand words of an essay that I am still in the process of writing.
I’ll agree with you that neither officer recognized the humanity of Sam DuBose. Their lack of acknowledgement of it doesn’t stem from some Freudian psychological problem dating back to their childhoods, but from the education they both received from an early age, at home, schools, and in the workplace. They were trained to hate Black bodies from an early age. That is why neither recognized Sam’s human rights. I submit to you that it isn’t that Tensing’s attitude changed with some perception on his part that his authority was being challenged but, rather, that he consciously or subconsciously decided to use Sam’s reaction to being asked to unbuckle his seat-belt as the pretext to extinguish his life.
I don’t follow how you deduce that some lack of affection could possible cause Tensing, or anyone else similarly situated, to translate that deficit into killing Black men. Tensing was attracted to his profession, at least in great part, because something in him needed an outlet for the hate he has been trained to experience. His record as a “proactive officer” indicates a propensity to pursue a particular kind of suspect. Tensing asserted his white supremacy to commit a crime on Sam DuBose because his position of power gave him the cover with which to do it. What he did is a modern-day lynching. What his fellow officers did in lying for him, and it wasn’t their first time doing so, is what should result in charges of being an accessory to murder if Tensing is found guilty. See my other post on calling things by their rightful names.
Thank you for writing to me.