Monopoly on Power and Lethal Force
By: The Mystic | 28Feb2000
"Is that a wallet you're holding, or are you just trying to shoot me?" A few officers of the New York City Police Department and the Los Angeles Police Department have recently demonstrated that they are capable of killing the innocent -- especially racial minorities. This past Friday, NYPD one-upped LAPD in one important detail: In New York City, this behavior is easily forgiven. The four New York City police officers who shot and killed Amadou Diallo -- Kenneth Boss, Sean Carroll, Edward McMellon, Richard Murphy -- were found not guilty of second-degree murder. As much as I hate to acknowledge it, this particular verdict was justified. This shooting of an unarmed man a year ago was not murder. However, it was a huge fuck-up by four professionals who -- by virtue of the fact that their jobs give them a legal monopoly on force -- are supposed to avoid mistakes of this magnitude. Are there no laws against blunders that result in the death of the innocent? Of course there are, but Boss (5 shots), Carrol (16 shots), McMellon (16 shots) and Murphy (4 shots) were also found innocent of manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide and reckless endangerment of bystanders. What the hell? In New York City, killing a black man standing in his own doorway, armed with a wallet is not considered negligence, as long as the persons with fewer synapses firing than bullets are police officers. I'm quite certain that if I -- not a cop -- had made this same mistake under similar circumstances, the jury would have come to a different conclusion. Most of the nineteen rounds that entered Amadou Diallo's body hit him after he had already fallen to the ground from being shot the first time. In New York City, this fact does not demonstrate to a jury that the shooters were reckless, if the persons abusing the potential corpse are cops. In New York City, killing an immigrant from West African Guinea apparently isn't even manslaughter, if the killers are wearing badges. In the late 19th Century, an Idaho attorney named William Borah represented his first client, a white man accused of murdering an immigrant. Borah offered a simple defense, arguing that murder required the death of a human being, but since the victim was Chinese -- not human -- killing him could not be considered murder under the law. A jury of his peers agreed and the killer was let go. I assert that attitudes about the value of human life have not changed greatly in the past hundred years. William Borah later served six terms as the distinguished Republican Senator from Idaho. Maybe there is a future in politics for the attorneys of the four New York police officers. Los Angeles police officers planted evidence, lied under oath to send innocent people to jail, and shot unarmed people. Unfortunately for them, one of their own -- Rafael Perez -- confessed to his and fellow officers' sins, in order to get a lighter sentence. The Police Protection League -- an organization which represents rank-and-file LAPD officers -- has publicly stated that Perez "ruptur[ed] ties between the community and police" by spilling his guts to the prosecutor about the crimes of those who are supposed to uphold the law. Given the evidence that the prosecutor has uncovered validating Perez' stories, no decent police officer in the country concerned with justice would ever have this attitude, let alone have the balls to say it to the press. For stealing cocaine from a police evidence locker, Perez was sentenced to five years. Yet four NYPD officers didn't even get five days. They killed a man because he was suspicious, i.e., he had dark skin -- but not with prior intent (probably). They mistook the ricochet of their own first shots for returned fire, so they shot him some more, even after he was lying on the ground with his life leaking away. Their attorneys successfully spun the story around to make the jury believe that the victim was at fault for what happened to him. Tragedies such as these -- when someone screws up and innocents are maimed or killed -- do not happen only to members of police departments. Tragedies can and do arise when anybody is given a legal monopoly on lethal force, i.e., they are given weapons, are trained to use them and required to carry them as part of their job. There is a mostly unspoken assumption that the people in various law enforcement agencies at all levels of government are innocent until proven otherwise if they actually use the weapons with which they have been entrusted. The system runs smoother for our masters if we never question their actions. Given recent events, I am far less than certain that this assumption -- that those with the power will act responsibly -- is warranted. At best, the massacre at Waco Texas was a tragic comedy of multiplied human errors, yet not one responsible person in the Justice Department, FBI, BATF or Defense Department was even demoted, let alone faced criminal charges. Is it necessary for government to have a near monopoly of lethal force? Given the flimsy facade of civilization, it's probably best that most of us don't carry firearms on a day-to-day basis, although we'd probably be a lot more polite to each other if we all did. What is the extra responsibility that balances this privilege extended to members of law enforcement? Is it that they are required to not kill people except to protect the innocent? No, that's already illegal. Is it that they are required to be extra civil to those who are not armed, because it makes us automatically defensive when someone approaches us who is armed? Don't you wish! Is it that their jobs might require them to go into harm's way? That seems a reasonable tradeoff, except there are other physically dangerous jobs that don't require a weapon. Many police officers in European countries don't usually carry weapons, although they still have the same near monopoly on force. As far as I can tell, there is no particular responsibility that balances this monopoly on lethal force or power. Any person in authority -- with the power to arrest, to handcuff, to fine, to jail, to censor, to remove rights of citizenship -- participates in the monopoly of power. All positions within this monopoly can be, and often are, abused -- even if the abuse doesn't involve lethal force. Every week, there are stories in the news about constitutionally protected freedoms being suspended without cause by someone "in charge". In Denver Colorado, police raided the wrong house and killed an innocent father of nine children, Ismael Mena. As a result of this and related police indiscretions, a citizen's group calling themselves "Justice for Mena" staged a non-violent protest at a downtown mall, handing out leaflets and articulating their concerns with a bullhorn. Police broke up the demonstration, explaining later that "If there's a complaint, the First Amendment doesn't apply." What the fuck? How many recent news stories have there been about a public school administrator who suspended a student from class for exercising his/her constitutionally protected freedom of expression by publishing a web site critical of the school's policies? Once upon a time, education was the primary stronghold of freedom in America. After the New York trial, mayor Rudy Giuliani said, "We have racism in New York, unfortunately; we have racism in America. ...We also have a vicious form of anti-police bias." I assume Guiliani considers complaints about a few incompetent people firing weapons, and attempts to hold them responsible for their mistakes, to be a vicious form of bias. (Guiliani, as a government employee, was just defending other government employees. Does his opinion count?) A police officer's job sometimes requires that s/he put his/her life on the line for citizens. For their service to the community, (it has been argued), shouldn't they be shielded from criticism? Quite the opposite. Anybody who is not a complete wastrel provides service to the community at some level. Nobody should be above the law. Moreover, any person employed at public expense and with lethal force at his/her immediate disposal should be under scrutiny. There are reasons for this so-called bias against police. Appearing to be threatening goes with the gun and the job. Some police officers are awfully surly at times... but then so am I. (Of course, I don't wear a gun to work, so it's a little different.) One of the primary reasons why people don't trust police is because of the existence of the well-known blue wall of silence. Cops are in the habit of sticking up for each other, even when wrong. In a profession where 'wrong' may mean someone was maimed or killed without justification, this is a serious problem. Police officers who feel they are unfairly picked on for the actions of a few bad apples have their own blue wall of silence to blame. Shall we stretch the meaning of the word 'bias' to include simple observation and comprehension? No, we shall not, Mr. Giuliani. I have identified three steps that could be taken to alleviate this growing problem of abuse of authority by those who have the monopoly on lethal and non-lethal force. Granted, they need some refinement to make them workable, but if the public ever decides they've had enough of being more afraid of the police and their own government than they are of criminals, maybe these will be considered in some form.
One For example, if a businessman caught accepting a bribe could be fined $10,000 and spend a year in jail for his actions, a congressperson accepting a bribe under similar circumstances would pay $30,000 and spend three years in lock-up. If a civilian could get six months in jail for criminal assault, a police officer would get eighteen months for beating up a suspect without justification, under similar circumstances. A teacher who seduced a minor student would suffer triple the penalty that a non-government employee would suffer for statutory rape. If lowbrow bullies and sociopaths understood that being a Drug Enforcement or FBI Agent means that they are going to do prison, times three, for breaking the law, they'll be less likely to seek a government paycheck in the first place.
Two If a member of law enforcement is not confident that s/he is able to do the job without harming innocent people, they should never be given a gun and badge. Increasing the cost of incompetence might make them consider a less lethal job in the private sector.
Three A city council made up of persons who understand the First Amendment is unlikely to place a limit on church attendance, as Portland Oregon recently did. A police officer who knows the First Amendment is less likely to tell me I can't pass out pamphlets downtown, just because he disagrees with them. A congressman who has had to demonstrate an understanding of the First Amendment might be less likely to attempt to pass a law requiring that the Ten Commandments be posted in public schools. (But then again, people at that level of government often act as though the Bill of Rights were optional.) Unnecessary high-speed police chases through populated areas are a perfect demonstration of the carelessness of some in their pursuit of justice. The attitude seems to be the old adage:"If you want to make an omelette, you've got to break a few eggs." Most fair-minded people will understand that justice was not served by the verdict in New York. Diallo wasn't murdered, but he did die as the result of the actions of four criminally negligent police officers. These officers are not being held responsible for their carelessness. Shouldn't they be? Given this verdict -- and it was the norm, not the exception, for this kind of case -- is it any wonder that common law-abiding citizens don't trust the police, the courts or authority in general? It seems reasonable to conclude that those with the monopoly on the use of force are being held to a lower standard of behavior than the rest of us. Good public servants could increase their own credibility and trustworthiness in the eyes of the public by demanding a higher standard of behavior. Human beings are not eggs. Also see... |
| Be informed when new content is added. | Email a Link to this page. | Email the SOB who publishes this. |