A retired Lieutenant Colonel from the US Air Force, Mitchell Bell endured losing his son to a police shooting. He writes that this is not the racial incident that so many perceive it to be.
The reaction was common enough even then:
After police in Kenosha, Wis., shot my 21-year-old son to death outside his house ten years ago — and then immediately cleared themselves of all wrongdoing — an African-American man approached me and said: “If they can shoot a white boy like a dog, imagine what we’ve been going through."
Once the worst of the grief had passed, he began to think about the problem in structural terms. What was needed, he decided, was a mandatory outside review of any police shootings. His model was the NTSB's painstaking review of any airline crashes.
And so, together with other families who lost loved ones, I launched a campaign in the Wisconsin legislature calling for a new law that would require outside review of all deaths in police custody. I contacted everybody I could. In the beginning, I contacted the governor’s office, the attorney general and the U.S. attorney for Wisconsin. They didn’t even return my phone calls or letters. I even contacted Oprah, every Associated Press bureau in the nation, every national magazine and national news agency and didn’t hear a word.
But Frank Serpico, the famous retired New York City police detective, helped. He had his own experience taking on police corruption. I set up billboards and a website and took out newspaper ads, including national ads in the New York Times and USA Today, and Serpico allowed me to use his endorsement. “When police take a life, should they investigate themselves?” the ad read....
In April of this year we passed a law that made Wisconsin the first state in the nation to mandate at legislative level that police-related deaths be reviewed by an outside agency. Ten days after it went into effect in May, local police shot a man sleeping on a park bench 15 times. It’s one of the first incidents to be investigated under the new law.
I’m not anti-cop. And I am finding that many police want change as well: The good officers in the state of Wisconsin supported our bill from the inside, and it was endorsed by five police unions.
That sounds to me like a reasoned, and reasonable, place to start.
25 comments:
This just makes so much sense. Of course such deaths should be investigated by an outside agency, in part because the police will be accused of lying to cover up for their own members.
Valerie
This would be a good start. Then, let's limit immunity for the entire justice system.
What the internal police investigative department isn't "external"?
It's far bigger than just a racial incident of course.
I contacted everybody I could. In the beginning, I contacted the governor’s office, the attorney general and the U.S. attorney for Wisconsin. They didn’t even return my phone calls or letters. I even contacted Oprah, every Associated Press bureau in the nation, every national magazine and national news agency and didn’t hear a word.
It's far far bigger than people want to realize.
At the risk of sounding trite, it's a good idea, a good place to start, etc. but it'll never happen.
Because it does make sense.
It is a good place to start...no, scratch that, it should have been the default position from the inception of the police force to have any force-related incidents investigated by an outside agency.
The fact that in all these years it's never been implemented (and something tells me this isn't the first time someone has suggested this very same idea) is as telling as the Steyn article the other day pointing out the lack of dashcams on cruisers.
Very telling indeed.
Well, the right thing to do is to handle the police exactly like the public, because the police are the public and vice versa. They should not have special powers nor special rights.
So if they shoot someone, just as if I shot someone, they should be arrested pending an independent agency's investigation. That agency should issue recommendations to a prosecutor, who should also be fully independent -- which, given the ties between the police and local prosecutors, means from a separate jurisdiction or a higher level of government (e.g., the state instead of the local DA). The prosecutor may prosecute or not, but the recommendations and findings (as well as the prosecutor's decision on whether to prosecute and why) should be public records.
We'll probably end up talking about this as if the facts of this case are what matters, and since we can never really be sure about all the facts, we can't reach certain decisions about reform -- some will believe the shooting was justified, some not, but we have to accept the outcome of the process.
But this isn't about this one shooting. It's about the fact that the police shoot American citizens often, and subject to a completely different process than other citizens who kill American citizens -- one in which their own comrades clear them without them being exposed to independent investigation nor to the usual mechanisms of the law.
Of course people are mad about this, given several hundred repetitions a year.
They should not have special powers nor special rights.
Like what, driving past red lights with the sirens on?
In theory, most police departments already have this sort of thing--their Internal Affairs departments. However, like any other IG functionality, IA works for the MFWIC; it's not truly independent. So much for theory.
I disagree with DL to this extent: it already has happened, in Wisconsin. Spreading it will be difficult, though, yet possible. A lot will depend on Wisconsin (I'll be curious to see how one of the first incidents to be investigated under the new law actually works out.
The rest will depend on us.
Eric Hines
"Well, the right thing to do is to handle the police exactly like the public, because the police are the public and vice versa. They should not have special powers nor special rights."
Equal protection under the law- seems there's already a law for it, it just needs to be adjudicated properly.
"But this isn't about this one shooting. It's about the fact that the police shoot American citizens often, and subject to a completely different process than other citizens who kill American citizens --"
I agree about what you are identifying as the real issue here, but I take issue with your use of the word "often"- and mainly as I see what I consider carelessly used descriptors as a big part of the problem. There are fewer than 400 fatal shootings of people by the police a year (on average), in a country of 320 million people. Some number of those shootings were fully justified and the officer had no other recourse. Some other number of those were at least justified. I don't know how many of those there are, but I'm guessing a majority, or we'd be hearing about all the civil cases. How many of the remaining cases are going to involve police misconduct?
I'm not saying those cases aren't a problem, but to act as if they're a scourge on the populous, or even on the black community is ridiculous. The real scourge on the black community is the 90% of blacks murdered by their own race. Where's the outcry for them?
It makes you wonder if the safety of blacks is the issue, or if it's something else entirely, the way this 'national discussion' goes.
"Often" was used advisedly, given the Steyn piece's statistics on police shootings. When your police alone are committing more homicides than the whole populations of nations of tens of millions of people, it's happening more 'often' than it should.
I don't much care for the tone of "Last Week Tonight," but the guy did bring up a good point in this police episode: SWAT raids are up 1400% over the last decades, and now are over 50,000 a year. It's a big country, sure. But we didn't even have SWAT teams until fairly lately, and they were contained in big cities until very recently. Now we have 100 raids a week, in a country that a few years ago didn't need any at all.
So, I accept that 'often' can be read several ways, but I didn't say it for no cause.
Okay, I've got a retraction to make - I had heard the stats Steyn used on the Michael Medved show, and I generally take himi to be careful with the facts, but he stated it was police fatal shootings, and the FBI numbers Steyn links to look like the numbers Medved was quoting, and those are for fatal shootings ruled justifiable homicide.
The more I look at this stuff, the more I decide we know so little and have this 'discussion' based more on rumors and misunderstanding than anything else.
I think a fair question would be, if the Obama administration and the DOJ under Holder are so concerned about policing of minorities, why aren't there studies with useful numbers, and where are the investigations into cases worthy of them, but which the press hasn't seized on as the victim or officer weren't the right color?
Umnnhhh...OK, let's cut the FBI numbers in half.
200 "justifiable shootings"/year.
Compare to all of Great Britain, Holland, Germany and France put together over the last 10 years, and it's approximately equal.
Sorry, but those statistics are horrifying.
And we're still assuming that they are "justifiable." I know of one instance (in Milwaukee, about 10 years ago) in which that term simply does not apply.
An old friend of mine, retired from the Milwaukee P.D., was apoplectic about the training the new cops received on use of the handguns. He called it "spray and pray"; the TRAINING is to empty the magazine.
So when someone asks, the answer is: 'Officer X acted in accord with his training.'
Oh, yah. That's "justifiable."
The "spray and pray" training to empty the magazine might be a product of the same legal logic that prohibits warning shots: since ANY use of a firearm is use of deadly force, and deadly force is authorized only when you believe yourself in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm, the reasoning goes that if you had the time to deliberately aim a shot somewhere other than the threat, it's evidence that you didn't REALLY believe yourself to be in such immediate danger as to justify lethal force at all. The same logic might apply that if you deliberately hold back the amount of force you apply, you clearly didn't think yourself in as much danger as you claim.
My biggest worry with treating a police shooting the same as a civilian shooting is that if decent cops are convinced that legitimately defending themselves will get them put in front of a jury (and likely get them put in prison right next to the guys they themselves put behind bars -- a potentially lethal situation), a lot of them will simply slow-roll any situation that they expect might require use of deadly force, hoping to arrive after the danger has passed. We already say that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. How much worse would this make it? How many would simply quit?
While that's a legitimate concern, it's the same one every law-abiding citizen faces when they defend themselves. Cops are, or should be, much better trained to handle these situations, so I don't see why this would cause them to fail in their duty or quit the force.
..., the reasoning goes that if you had the time to deliberately aim a shot somewhere other than the threat, it's evidence that you didn't REALLY believe yourself to be in such immediate danger as to justify lethal force at all.
That would be reasonable if and only if the time it takes to pull the trigger 11 times is substantially less than the time it takes to pull it once, while aiming.
Aimed fire is much more deadly than rapid fire. That lesson was taught by the 3rd Infantry Division in WWI, when European armies still didn't think most soldiers could be taught to aim and didn't try. It's why our armies today -- and the Marine Corps especially -- spends so much time teaching warriors who will always be equipped with automatic weapons to put one single shot on target.
Double tap em.
One in the chest. Recoil next into the head.
The Detroit PMCs handle security better than the police or citizen amateur groups. Their difference is that they are out protecting their clients, not trying to grapple with or arrest other humans by making them Obey. When the police attempt to change the world by using Power, they are going to get people who rush them for various reasons (drugs, crazies, fanatics, angry people). Then they have to unload their gun because 1. they can't defend against disarms and strength and 2. they are scared of the foe.
PMCs in Detroit defend the population, they are only scared of losing while failing in their duty. Police are scared to close with the enemy and annihilate them, even while they are taught to Subdue, Overpower, and Command citizens.
How are weaklings that can't even grapple with people 100 pounds heavier than them, going to "subdue" anyone? Who is going to pay attention to their "Command Voice" when all they got backing it are tazers and techno gadgets?
People are afraid of getting shot, just like they are afraid of getting bombed. But that doesn't mean they stop fighting.
The unions protect cops from lawsuits. That's how they buy loyalty. And the more black on white stuff happens, the more power unions have over police, especially the ones that like to do their "job".
You know, I want to agree with you all, but i can't. We aren't Europe, or Australia or Canada. We don't have the same population, the same cultural mores on respect for authority, or the same histories that set particular sub-cultures at odds with our policing forces from the get-go.
If black people today areteaching their kids the police have no right to stop you, and no shooting of any black man is justified, then of course they act in ways that escalate the situation. Any cop will tell you that fatal confrontations escalate way faster than people think- typically seconds, maybe a minute or two tops. For all the problems I think are valid complaints against some policing attitudes and tactics today, I think an at least equal burden has to be placed on the community to be willing partners in the policing of their communities, and that also means being reasonable with police officers.
What's reasonable is just what is in dispute. Well, that and what it means to be part of a community.
Are the police part of the community? Some places they are -- they are drawn from the community, live in it, know the community's members and are known to them in turn. Other places, they are detached: places like Ferguson, apparently, where 2/3rds of the population have produced just 3 officers on the force.
What it means to be reasonable is for the police to live under the same laws as the people they police. So if a bunch of citizens got together, formed a line and held shotguns leveled at everyone else in the street and pushed them out of the way... well, they'd be arrested for brandishing weapons, at least. Leveling a firearm at someone is generally a crime everywhere, unless it is part of a justifiable act of self defense or defense of another. The law has no more right to appeal to lethal force than that. Yet brandishing leveled, deadly firearms against those who present no threat to life (nor even property) is apparently normal practice here -- so much so that the police must have been trained to do what the Army trained its warriors not to do in Iraq or Afghanistan.
These police are a menace. They're not part of the community, and they're objectively hostile and reckless. If the community needs to cooperate with reasonable policing of the community, those who police it needs to be reasonable too (and ideally members of the community!).
The police can use proper force, even lethal force if necessary, to stop looters. To clear a street of peaceful protesters and media in an infantry formation resembling the Redcoats at Lexington is asking... well, for exactly the response the Redcoats got at Lexington.
The Left is not interested in de-escalation.
In war, it only takes one faction to bring an entire dozen of other factions to the cutting table. Where the blood will flow as freely as beer at Octoberfest.
It only takes one faction's Will to Power.
"Any cop will tell you that fatal confrontations escalate way faster than people think- typically seconds, maybe a minute or two tops..."
And an FBI study will tell you that usually the goblins knew what they were going to do, planned it out, and--important here: hit their target 68% of the time, whereas cops hit about 38% of the time.
IOW, cops need a helluvalot more pistol training and practice.
It's funny because I didn't disagree with anything you just said, Grim. I suppose it's that all the talk about who's doing what wrong is on the police currently, and almost no one is really saying anything about the rioters and looters. That gets 15 seconds out of every five minutes of media coverage of this whole Ferguson thing. I can't help but start swimming upstream I guess.
I saw that too, Dad29- quite revealing.
Douglas, I agree with both of your comments, but I don't think your thoughts and Grim's are mutually exclusive.
The community should get its share of the blame, and the media has not done its job well. Those are very good points. However, they don't seem to mitigate the need to change how police are treated.
And, as we can see in the Rick Perry indictment, how prosecutors work, etc. The entire justice system needs to be modified to do its work better and to stop abuses of power.
I've said this before, Douglas, but perhaps it should be said again. I think police work done right is just being a citizen full time -- and being a good citizen is about the most honorable thing you can do as an American. It's inherently an honorable thing to do, if you're doing it right, because honor is sacrifice and you're always ready to sacrifice your time, your energy, to help your neighbors.
Cattle get out of the fence? If your real neighbors are off at work, that's OK: there's a full-time neighbor you can call to help you catch them and get them out of the road. Somebody break into your neighbor's house? There's a full time member of the community to come take a report and serve as a witness in court, so that your neighbor can get their insurance agency to pay their claim. Same if there is a car wreck: here's a full time citizen who's ready to render first aid and serve as a witness to what happened in court.
If there's a crime, all citizens have the power to make an arrest and bring the offender before a magistrate, as well as to testify as to what happened. Even detective work is just citizen work -- which is why there are private detectives, just as bounty hunters are just using the ancient power of citizens' arrest. It's just that few people have time to spend trying to figure out a crime that happened in the past, and we benefit from having forensic resources that cost money (and require training), so we pool our resources and designate someone to get training we all pay for. But it's citizen work.
There's a riot? All citizens should get together and, guided by the officials they have commonly elected to take charge, help restore order. That official is usually the elected sheriff. When I was a boy, my father and the rest of his volunteer fire department (once again, just citizens! though you can call on them any time if you have a fire) were called up to help stop a potential riot in town. They didn't end up doing anything except being present with the water hoses, but you didn't need a professional riot force to do this -- nor lethal weapons.
So as long as the police are just full time good citizens, they're among the most honorable and valuable people in the world. When we professionalize them, though, there's a danger we'll forget this root -- that we'll think of them as a special class, and that it's "their job" and not ours to do these things. That leads to a lazy citizenry that stops doing its duty.
It's even worse, though, if the police come to see themselves as a special class, deserving of special powers and immune to the same laws that they enforce on everyone else. Then you get a menace.
But it doesn't have to be that way. It shouldn't be. There's a very good, very healthy way to do this.
Evil is not interested in doing it the "right" way. That's the issue people like to ignore.
Grim, I know you've said it before, in simpler terms- The titles Peace officer vs. LEO for instance- and it really clarified things for me. What you just wrote though, was excellent. Perhaps post worthy on it's own.
Post a Comment