I readily admit that I'm having trouble grasping the significance, if any, of the recent spate of events where police have beaten or killed people who seemed not to represent a direct and obvious threat to the officers. Of course, I can't say I know for sure the precise circumstances in those situations. What seems to be the industry standard is to put the officer(s) involved on paid administrative leave, pending an internal investigation - with the preponderance of the investigations resulting in exoneration of those officer(s). Not always, but most of the time.
Police are granted special powers over the rest of us, in order that they may carry out their duties to "serve and protect" the people in their jurisdiction. They literally can become judge, jury, and executioner if they deem the situation to require that response. The job they do is difficult and very dangerous - officers lose their lives in the line of duty all too often. The assumption we make is that most of those we select to wield this power are going to be reluctant to exercise that extreme power, reserving it only for those situations that place them (and others) in serious, imminent, and obvious danger. Officers may have only very limited time to consider their course of action in a given situation and it's reasonable that mistakes (fatal ones!) can be made. As with any particular grouping of people, there will be some who are willing to abuse this power granted to them. Again, we assume that the selection process should weed out most of those who would disgrace the trust placed in them, and that if someone reveals such a trait, they would be removed from that duty. An officer who makes too many mistakes in judgment under pressure is not worthy of the responsibility.
Recently, it seems the frequency of such abuse is increasing - or is it? Has the frequency of police abuse of power actually been increasing, or is it just being exaggerated by social media? I wish I knew, but law enforcement agencies seem reluctant to make public any information about the frequency of officer-involved killings and beatings. See here, here, and here, to offer just a few examples of this apparent universal wish to keep secret the information by which we might be able to ascertain any trends in death (and abuse) by cops.
I can't claim the sites I've cited are completely objective - I would posit that absolute, total objectivity doesn't exist in anyone, actually, so it's absurd to use that as a means of dismissing such concerns. I know all the arguments by police apologists and am willing to grant that in some cases, those arguments have some merit. But in many cases, those arguments seem pretty thin to me. Why be so secretive if there's nothing to hide? If it was a mistake, surely they would want to admit that, right? Well, no, we humans often are reluctant to own our errors. And our jobs may depend on not coming clean!
Yesterday, Jon Stewart made a key point in his rant about the Ferguson police shooting of an unarmed black man: can we not hold our police officers to a higher standard than that of a street gang? Ignoring all of the divisive discussion about widespread racial profiling by police (which I deem to be an undeniable fact), the simple reality of many of these police shootings is that even the suspicion of a minor crime on the part of the victim is being used to justify the immediate use of deadly force (or massive beatings). Is it not reasonable to expect that police officers might risk their own lives to avoid the needless taking of another's life? Isn't that what we should expect from those charged with the awesome life and death responsibility to serve and protect us!
As events unfold on the media, we often hear the officer's version of the story as being forced to shoot (or beat) in self-defense, when citizen videos may contradict the officer's version. Not always, of course - some citizen videos confirm what the officer said after the fact, but if that's the norm, then why are police reluctant to wear body cameras, and when they do wear them, why not disclose the video to the public in every case? The fact they prefer to maintain secrecy seems indicative of a cover-up. What's the point of wearing a body camera if the footage is kept purely internal?
My question to the police is a simple one: if the main objective of the legal system you're sworn to uphold is justice for all, then why is exoneration of police officers your main concern in these events? Shouldn't you be seeking to have external investigations in such cases, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest associated with your internal investigations? Are you not remorseful over the taking of another human's life? Or has your typical experience with much less than the best side of humanity resulted in dehumanizing others, to the point where you no longer care about whether they live or die?
We need a system for independent investigations, with full access to all the information available, including body cameras, dashboard cameras, etc. Yes, bad apples exist and they disgrace the many officers who do their duty honorably (and at great personal risk). Should we not be concerned to find those bad apples and remove them from the ranks of those entrusted with such a huge responsibility?
Will It Ever Snow Again?
1 day ago
3 comments:
Very well written with penetrating questions that need to be asked. One issue I didn't see mentioned was the harassment of those who videotape the police. This includes both the media and private citizens.
Lisa MacArthur
Riverside RI
Good point, Lisa! I agree. Despite several judicial rulings that it's entirely legal to do so, some police are incensed by being videotaped. Again, if they're doing no wrong, why would they have a problem with being videotaped? This seems like an implicit admission of wrongdoing!
Not only an implicit admission of wrongdoing, but an obvious attempt at covering it up at the same time which is also an illegal action. Bad move. Let them videotape. If their actions are proper, the videotape can only help.
As for police shootings and anything else controversial the police should welcome an open and independent investigation in cases like these, and in fact, insist upon it.
It builds trust, it also makes the public aware of problems that may hamper their ability to get things done, and if there is a bad apple, the bad apple takes the blame instead of the whole police department.
Besides, you can't fix a problem unless you've properly identified it.
An independent and open inquiry is the best way to identify these problems and hopefully address them.
Lisa MacArthur
Riverside RI
Post a Comment