In the last few weeks we’ve had news a sad, tragic series of murders by police.
There was veteran EJ Bradford, who was wrongfully mistaken as a “suspect” and shot three times in the back by officers in an Alabama mall.
Emantic Bradford Jr, the 21-year-old African American man who was killed by a police officer on Thanksgiving at a mall in Alabama, was shot three times from behind, according to an independent autopsy released by a civil rights attorney on Monday.
His father told the Guardian the report showed his son was murdered.
According to the report, Dr Roger A Mitchell observed gunshot wounds to the right side of Bradford Jr’s body, in his head, neck and lower back. The report states: “The cause of death is gunshot wound of the head. Manner of death is homicide.”
[…]
Initially, Hoover police identified Bradford as the suspect. They later said he was not the suspect, but had “brandished” a gun. Police backed off that claim too. A week after the shooting, a suspect was arrested in Georgia.
And then there was “hero” security guard Jemel Roberson, who had actually already subdued the actual suspect when police arrived—and killed the security guard.
A black security guard at a bar in the Chicago suburbs was killed by the police as he apparently tried to detain a man he believed to be involved in a shooting, the authorities said Monday.
[...]
Witnesses told the police that a fight had broken out and someone had started shooting. After the authorities responded, a police officer shot the guard, Jemel Roberson, 26, who had a gun, Ms. Ansari said. Mr. Roberson died at the hospital.
Witnesses said that people in the crowd had yelled to arriving police officers that Mr. Roberson, who was wearing gear that read “Security,” was a guard. Ms. Ansari confirmed that Mr. Roberson worked for the bar.
These cases are about as clear-cut as possible. These men were absolutely, 100 percent innocent of any wrongdoing. They were safe and the situation was well in hand, until police arrived and murdered them.
People should be up in arms. People should be outraged. People should be demanding a change, and they should be demanding that action be taken. Somehow, that doesn’t seem to be happening. Instead, these are being treated a “isolated incidents,” as unhappy accidents, but they aren’t. They’re part of a much larger pattern, and if there wasn’t something deeply wrong within the heart of America, we would be moving heaven and earth to dig ourselves out from under the tapestry of trauma.
In addition to Bradford and Roberson, there was the case of the Dallas police officer who went to the wrong floor in her apartment building, apparently forced her way in to what she thought was her apartment, and killed youth pastor Botham Jean, who was watching football in his own apartment when the officer wrongfully believed that she was interrupting a burglary in progress.
On September 6, a white Dallas police officer shot and killed her black neighbor inside his own Dallas apartment, reigniting, once again, the debate around police racism and brutality in the U.S. In the police affidavit, which is based almost entirely off the cop’s account, 30-year-old Amber Guyger claims that she mistook 26-year-old Botham Jean’s apartment for her own and thought Jean was an intruder, leading her to shoot him twice. Witness accounts, however, contradict that narrative: Neighbors say they heard Guyger knocking on Jean’s door and demanding to be let in before the shooting. Today, Jean’s family, friends, and community members continue to mourn and rally to demand answers about how such a tragedy occurred.
Yes, it is notable that all of these killers are white and all of the dead are young black men. This is not a coincidence. Something is going on that makes these officers literally trigger-happy when they’re in the midst of confronting a young black man.
You have cases such as John Crawford III, who was carrying an unpacked air rifle he’d picked up from the shelf at Walmart while he was shopping in Ohio (which is an open-carry state), and after someone called the police and falsely claimed he was “pointing a rifle” at customers, police arrived and treated the situation as if he were an “active shooter” and killed him instantly.
The Justice Department says it won't bring federal charges against a white police officer who killed a black shopper carrying an air rifle in a Walmart in Beavercreek, Ohio, in 2014.
The case involved a 22-year-old Fairfield man, John Crawford III, who had taken a BB/pellet gun off a store shelf. A 911 caller reported that a man was pointing a gun at customers, and police charged into the store. Store surveillance video shows that Officer Sean Williams shot Crawford.
In a joint statement Tuesday, the DOJ Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Southern Ohio said evidence from their investigation was “insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Officer Williams violated [Crawford’s] federal civil rights.”
No charges were filed against the officers, and no charges were filed against the 911 caller whose lies resulted in the killing of an innocent man.
As much as we hear from NRA and their supporters who argue for the sanctity of the Second Amendment, who argue that we should be putting armed guards in our schools, who say that teachers should be open-carrying, we never hear them say anything about cases where the “good guy with a gun” happens to be black and gets shot down by police, even when they happen to be in an open-carry state. Apparently if you’re black and you have a gun, you can’t be a “good guy.”
In any scenario, two legally armed men being killed by cops while trying to save civilian lives would be a rallying cry for the NRA. But it isn’t. And you know why: Bradford Jr. and Roberson are Black. And the rhetoric that galvanizes groups like the NRA doesn’t apply to Black people.
If you’ve followed the rhetorical gymnastics of the NRA then you know that its way to avoid responsibility for the disgusting amount of gun deaths in America is to suggest that the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun; that fewer guns don’t stop crime, more guns do. And guns in the hands of more civilians would accomplish what Bradford and Roberson achieved: stopping gun crimes as they are happening.
In theory, using that logic, the NRA should be outraged by the deaths of two legally armed men fulfilling their civic responsibilities as gun owners in accordance with NRA beliefs. But the NRA isn’t really about gun rights for the sake of gun rights. The NRA is about gun rights as medicine for the disease of non-whiteness. The NRA doesn’t want all people to have guns; the NRA wants white people to have guns to use against non-white people.
Perhaps the difference is that we no longer have an African-American president. I strongly hope that isn’t the case, but it’s possible that it is. Having a black man as president humanized these situations, like those of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. We somehow were able to easily view their innate human worth, yet now with what’s-his-name occupying the White House, we seem to have lost a step on the empathy scale. Perhaps several steps.
Both the Martin and Brown cases were contentious even though both were unarmed and underage, there were still multiple interpretations for just about everything. When Trayvon was killed, police didn’t even arrest the shooter until after the family demanded that the 911 tape be released. Only after that happened and we could hear would-be neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman defy the directions of the 911 dispatcher and curse at the young man walking home from 7-Eleven that he had determined was some kind of neighborhood burglar and jumped out of his car to pursuit did police or prosecutors respond.
The nation was immediately split. There were those who felt Martin was tragically murdered by this crazed man and other who felt the little black thug got what he deserved. Eventually, an online campaign of “sleuths” argued that Martin was a violent drug addict and that his trip to 7-Eleven was intended to create a concoction called “sizzurp” made from cold medicine, candy, and soda. This image stuck when Florida prosecutors eventually caved to pressure and conducted a show trial that they apparently had no intention of winning. It didn’t matter that Zimmerman had ignored the 911 dispatcher, and it didn’t matter that he was carrying a weapon when that was strictly forbidden under the neighborhood watch rules. All that mattered was that he was losing a fight with a teenager, and therefore under Florida’s “stand your ground” law he had the authority to shoot, even if he and his attorneys never actually invoked that option.
It took until the very end of the trial, while the prosecutor was giving his final statement, that it finally dawned on me what had really happened. Martin’s girlfriend Rachel Jeantel, after days of being hammered on the stand by Zimmerman’s defense team, was eventually allowed to fully answer a question without being badgered during an interview with Huffpo Live where she stated that it was her belief that Martin threw the first punch, but that he did so because Zimmerman had grabbed him.
Host: If Trayvon swung first, what do you think Zimmerman did to make him swing?
RJ: I think Zimmerman was a wannabe cop. He's said (in his mind) "Oh, I got cha'"
Host: You think he pulled his gun out?
RJ: No, I believe he trying ta...(slaps hands together)
Host : Grab him?
RJ : GRAB HIM. kay? "I Got You. You're comin' wit me" And that's a teenager. You did not say you're an officer. It's black, all black, the area was black. "Who are you, why are you touching me?"
It’s at this point that Martin physically fighting back makes sense. It also explains why Zimmerman apparently wasn’t fighting back and was only laying there taking punches — his hands were already busy holding on. To Martin, he’s a kid alone in the dark with this “creepy guy” who has been following him, chasing him, until he works up the courage to ask “What’s you’re problem, man?” and then the guy grabs him. If Zimmerman touched Martin first—which is assault—then the one “standing their ground” was Martin, not Zimmerman. Under this so-called self defense law, Martin had the right to defend himself up to and including using deadly force. From that point, the struggle moves forward moves in one direction—which happens to be toward Martin’s home — and eventually they take a tumble with Martin on top, struggling to get free of Zimmerman’s grip, punching down at him. It was “ground and pound,” as some of the neighbors who looked outside at the commotion described it on the stand. Then the fateful moment happens: Martin stands up.
How do I know that Martin stood up?
Three reasons: the first is that during his initial interview with police, Zimmerman described the exact moment that he pulled his gun and fired, and actually physically mimicked where his hands were and how he was holding the gun. [At 4:38 in the video linked.]
During the interview he specifically says that he extended his right hand far enough that he wouldn’t hit his own left hand which he was holding it up in front of him. You can tell that he almost fully extends his right arm as his left arm pulls back. This tell us that while he was lying on his back with Martin above, Martin was far enough away for him to extend his arm while holding a gun in it, which would means he’s also too far away to be able to punch Zimmerman, who is on the ground.
The second reason is that according to his trial and during his initial walk-through with police, Zimmerman said he kept his holster in the small of his back, while his defense attorneys eventually claimed it was on his hip. If what he said to police and later indicated in court is correct, then the gun was under him while Martin was sitting on his stomach and legs. [Fun test: Get a close friend to sit on your legs and push down on your chest while you lie on the ground, and see if you can get something out of your back pocket while they do that. The first thing you’ll discover is that their knee and leg are in your way.] How exactly did he pull the gun out unless Martin had already stood up and gotten off of him? if Martin was still sitting on him like he described, this. move. is. impossible.
Besides the fact that Martin couldn’t have tried to “grab” the gun if it was under him and there wasn’t any of Martin’s DNA on the gun, only Zimmerman’s, his own expert witness explained how Zimmerman managed the incredible magic trick of getting the gun that was under him to materialize in his right hand with a highly technical and authoritative “somehow.”
Item No. 3 is this crime scene photo [trigger warning] that the prosecutor commented on and caught my attention. During his final statements, the thing that he highlighted without any context was that drawstring on the right side of Trayvon’s hoodie had been pulled almost entirely out. Surveillance video from the 7-Eleven just before the shooting shows that Trayvon’s drawstrings were even before the fight, which means it was pulled out by someone, either Martin, the paramedics, or Zimmerman, before this final photo was taken.
The only scenario that makes sense is that Zimmerman was holding onto Martin’s hoodie with his left hand as Martin stood up to get away, then while Martin rose Zimmerman was able to pull out his gun out and fire.
This is not the case that prosecutors presented. In fact, they really didn’t seem to have any coherent theory of the case. Consequently, they lost due to reasonable doubt—and deservedly so.
The case of 18-year-old Michael Brown has similar problems.
Brown had gone to the local liquor store to get some cigarillos, which are small, flavored cigarettes that people who smoke marijuana like to use after hollowing them out and re-using the wrapping paper, turning it into something called a “blunt.” Michael didn’t try to steal the cigarillos, as shown in the surveillance video. He had placed something on the counter and was attempting to offer that object in trade. According to the film Stranger Fruit by Jason Pollack (which I contributed some material to), the object was a small bag of marijuana, which Brown had also brought the previous evening. After he placed the bag on the counter on the day of the shooting, there was a struggle and some cigarillo packages where knocked on the floor. He left the bag, picked up two or three packages (which sell for about $1.35 each) and tried to leave. The owner blocked his exit and shoved him back from the door, that’s when Brown shoved him back and left, after which one of the customers—not the owner—called the police.
A few minutes later Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson encountered officer Darren Wilson while walking down the middle of the street. According to Johnson, Wilson cursed at them and told them to “get on the fucking sidewalk,” then drove a way. Wilson claimed he was entirely polite and reasonable.
Wilson: Wilson stopped a couple feet in front of Johnson, who was in front. As Johnson came around the driver's side mirror, Wilson said, "Why don't you guys walk on the sidewalk." Johnson said they were almost to their destination, and Wilson said, "Well, what's wrong with the sidewalk?” Brown then replied, “[Obscenity] what you have to say.”
See original document
Johnson: As Wilson pulled alongside them, he rolled his window down and said, “Get the [obscenity] on the sidewalk.” “I was the one that was talking when the police officer said ‘Get the on the sidewalk,’ Johnson said. “I told the police officer we was just a minute away from our destination, I live in Canfield, and we'll be off the street closely.” They stayed in the street.
See original document
A few seconds later he stopped, allegedly recognizing Brown as the suspect in the liquor store “robbery” (although he later gave two different versions of that story). He then called for back-up before switching gears, backing up, and blocked their path in the street. He parked so close to them that when he tried to open his door, it bumped into Brown and closed again. This really got him mad and is when the struggle started. According to Johnson, Wilson reached through his window and grabbed Brown while according to Wilson, Brown started punching him through the window (as shown by the graphic created by the Washington Post below, based on Wilson’s testimony).
Which one is correct?
Well, the physical evidence from Wilson’s injuries isn’t consistent with a “Hulk Hogan”-size person pummeling him in the head with his fist. As I’ve previously written, all of Wilson’s injuries are on the wrong side of his face, even if in his testimony he did say that Brown still had the cigarillos in his right hand as the fight started, and despite the WaPo graphic showing he punched him with the left hand. Even with that correction, he doesn’t have bruises on the left side of his face, as would be consistent with someone punching him through his car window. Wilson’s bruises are on his right cheek.
And the back of his neck...
He doesn't have a split lip. He's doesn't have a black eye. That's not consistent with someone the size and strength of "Hulk Hogan" throwing haymakers at your head from outside a car window. As you can see from this frontal view, there is no injury to the left side of Wilson's face.
Occam’s Razor cuts toward Johnson being more correct than Wilson and that rather than Brown punching him through the window, he was being slammed into his own headrest. It’s possible he was hit with Brown’s left hand, but his injuries are more likely because Wilson was holding onto Brown’s t-shirt while he tried to push and pull to get away, which slammed Wilson’s head and cheek into the head-rest behind him.
Wilson testified that he couldn’t reach his pepper spray, so he pulled his service weapon (which was on his right hip). At that point, perspectives vary. Wilson says that Brown tried to take the gun away from him, which is ironic because that wouldn’t have been possible if Wilson hadn’t un-holstered it in the first place, or had simply let go of Brown so he could open his car door. Johnson says that Brown didn’t reach into the car—but clearly he did, because when the gun went off he was hit in the thumb and there was blood splatter on Wilson’s uniform and on the inside and outside of the car door.
When the gun fired Brown ran approximately 135 feet until Wilson, who was in pursuit on foot, fired again. Wilson says that he never fired at Brown’s back and that Brown never raised his hands in surrender. The autopsy information (shown on the right with each wound marked and numbered) indicates that this isn’t the case.
Many people have looked to the FBI report to argue that they “proved” that Brown never raised his hands in surrender as he was being shot. Citing the FBI report , they’ve said that “Hand’s Up, Don’t Shoot” was built on a lie. That also isn’t the case.
This is what the FBI forensic report said:
Given the mobility of the arm, it is impossible to determine the position of the body relative to the shooter at the time the arm wounds were inflicted. Therefore, the autopsy results do not indicate whether Brown was facing Wilson or had his back to him. They do not indicate whether Brown sustained those two arm wounds while his hands were up, down, or by his waistband. The private forensic pathologist opined that he would expect a re-entry wound across Brown’s stomach if Brown’s hand was at his waistband at the time Wilson fired. However, as mentioned, there is no way to know the exact position of Brown’s arm relative to his waistband at the time the bullets struck. Therefore, these gunshot wounds neither corroborate nor discredit Wilson’s account or the account of any other witness. However, the concentration of bullet wounds on Brown’s right side is consistent with Wilson’s description that he focused on Brown’s right arm while shooting.
Because of the mobility of someone’s arm, the FBI refused to say whether Brown’s arms were up or down. They punted on that question, and consequently couldn’t find that Wilson violated Brown’s civil rights by firing. So the case was dropped, and understandably so.
There are of course multiple possibilities, but all possibilities are not equally likely. The FBI chose the fact that several witnesses had said that Brown was “shot in the back” as an argument to discredit them, because Brown wasn’t wounded in the back. But as noted by forensic pathologist Dr. Cyrill Wecht, he was wounded in the back of his right arm near the bicep (wound No. 3 in the diagram). Notably, they also said the wounds couldn’t corroborate Wilson’s version of events, either.
[Technically, Wecht makes a mistake here where he says Brown is 6’ 4” and Wilson is only 6” tall. Wilson was also 6’ 4” tall, the same height as Brown, but that fact was not included in the preliminary report that Wecht is talking about.]
Wilson said he didn’t fire at Brown’s back, and that Brown didn’t raise his arms. But that leaves us with the question: How did he hit him in the back of his right bicep? If someone is facing you, that shot is literally impossible unless they have their arm raised, with an elbow over their head. None of the witnesses, including Wilson, say that Brown ever raised his elbow over his head—so Wilson’s account has to be discounted and the most likely scenario is that Brown sustained this wound while he was facing and running away. [Fun test No. 2: Look in a mirror and try to put your arm in a position where you can see the back of your own right bicep. After you stop laughing at your own ridiculous poses, come on back and continue reading.] The witnesses were wrong but not totally wrong. He wasn’t hit in the back—he was hit in the back of the arm.
Everyone agrees that Brown stopped and turned, but they disagree on what happened next. Several witnesses say that he raised his hands. Wilson says he didn’t. Wound No. 2 to the forearm could potentially resolve this question. Again according to Wecht, it is an upward wound on his inner forearm. If someone is facing you, how do you shoot them in the forearm in a way where the wound is traveling upward? Usually gravity works the other way, if they have their hands at their sides.
That is unless your hand is up at about the height of your shoulder, with palm facing forward.
If the bullet was traveling upward, entering nearer the hand and moving toward the elbow, there’s only way that shot is possible: his hands were raised. [Fun test No. 3: Draw a three-inch line on the left side of your right forearm going upward, then go to a mirror and try to put your arm in a position where you can see straight down that line. What you’ll find is that you have your hand up, palm facing forward.] Another element of proof that this is where his hand was placed is the fact that when your hand is in that position, your shoulder is directly behind it, and Brown has two possible a re-entry wounds in his upper right bicep (wound No. 4) and upper right chest (wound No. 5] that is exactly along that line.
Again, the FBI decided not to make any determination on the position of Brown’s arms, and they also didn’t observe the body until several months later. Meanwhile, Wecht was responding to the autopsy that was done by the family fairly soon after the shooting, so he had details such as to the direction of the bullets, which the FBI didn’t address. In fact, they didn’t bring that subject up at all.
In both the Martin and Brown cases, there were arguments to be made that they “deserved” what happened to them. I went through the details just to show how extensive these arguments became, and how so many were so deeply invested in them. Martin fought back and clearly injured Zimmerman. Brown fought with Wilson, then later allegedly “charged” him.
How are we to contrast this with EJ Bradford (who was shot in the back); with Jemel Roberson (who was wearing a hat and jacket that clearly said “Security”); or with Botham Jean, who was just sitting in his own living room watching a football game?
None of these guys attacked the police, none of these guys fought back, none of these guys ran away. And all of these guys are still dead. The Martin and Brown cases literally set our nation on fire, and now we can’t seem to even get a damp match going with three back-to-back cases that are all even worse than what happened to Martin or Brown.
There is no liquor store video for EJ Bradford. There are no “sizzurp” claims for Botham Jean. The classic “oh they were just thugs who really deserved it” argument is just nonexistent. They don’t even have to bother anymore, it’s just understood: black guys are inherently “dangerous,” they’re inherently a threat, and they deserve to die.
Some, like one local African-American police officer I once discussed this subject with, claim that all of these are “isolated incidents,” that it’s not a reflection of day-to-day police work, that the media is merely hyping these issues for their own reasons.
It’s hard to fully evaluate what is going on because no one official agency tracks how many times police kill people and what the detailed circumstances of those deaths actually are. At least they didn’t until this coming January, when the FBI has announced that they will now be publishing a searchable database of this information.
The federal government is launching a national database that will track when law enforcement officers use deadly force, providing more transparency about police shootings that have inflamed tensions in cities around the country.
For years, the public has debated whether law enforcement have become too trigger-happy — especially in dealing with African-Americans and minorities — but basic information about police shootings and use of force has been elusive.
[...]
The FBI national database, announced recently and being launched in January, will catalog incidents in which a death or serious bodily injury occurs, or when officers discharge a firearm at or in the direction of someone. It also will track gender, age, ethnicity and other demographic information.
This is generally good news. But there are several catches, the first of which is that the FBI is currently dependent upon voluntary reports from local police forces for this information, and their woeful lack of thoroughness has forced other organizations to track the data themselves using publicly available information.
Some organizations have attempted to track the data themselves. The Washington Post, for example, does track the number people shot and killed by police each year. In 2017, continuing a trend, nearly 1,000 people were shot and killed by police across the nation. The Police Violence Report also tracks deaths by police, though it goes beyond shootings and includes physical force, tasers, and police vehicles, among others. The Guardian, too, tracks how many people are killed by police each year in the U.S.
Current data from the FBI Uniform Crime Report indicates that during any particular year, there were about 770 Justifiable Homicides by police and citizens, which is the information they are receiving from local police departments.
Law enforcement reported 770 justifiable homicides in 2015. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 442 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 328 people during the commission of crimes. (See Expanded Homicide Data Tables 14 and 15.)
These are the cases we’re likely to see detailed in this new FBI database. However, the Guardian and WaPo public sources total averaged around 1,000 to 1,100 police shootings per year, not just 700.
Further, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has taken the methods used by the WaPo and Guardian and then have gone back and individually surveyed local police departments—and they’ve discovered that there’s still much more to be found.
Between June 1, 2015, and March 31, 2016, media reviews identified 1,348 potential arrest-related deaths. During this period, the number of deaths consistently ranged from 87 to 156 arrest-related deaths per month, with an average of 135 deaths per month. To confirm and collect more information about the 379 deaths identified through open sources from June to August 2015, BJS conducted a survey of law enforcement agencies and ME/C offices.
The survey findings identified 425 arrest-related deaths during this 3-month period—12% more than the number of deaths identified through the open source review. Extrapolated to a full calendar year, an estimated 1,900 arrest-related deaths occurred in 2015. Nearly two-third (64%) of the deaths that occurred from June to August 2015 were homicides, about a fifth (18%) were suicides, and another tenth (11%) were accidents.
So the FBI says there were 770 “justified” shootings, but the WaPo and Guardian say there were about 1,000 — both “justified” and not — and then the BJS says that there were really about 1,900 —largely because they were including deaths which happened after the initial arrest. One such case involved Sandra Bland, who allegedly committed suicide while in custody after being wrongfully arrested over an “illegal” lane change. Of that 1,900 the BJS says that unlike Bland’s suicide or accidents, 64% of them where homicides — which is still about 1,200 people per year. The new database will help somewhat, and frankly it’s about time, since producing a report like this has only been required by federal law under the Death In Custody Reporting Act since 2013.
IN GENERAL.—For each fiscal year after the expiration of the period specified in subsection (c)(1) in which a State receives funds for a program referred to in subsection (c)(2), the State shall report to the Attorney General, on a quarterly basis and pursuant to guidelines established by the Attorney General, information regarding the death of any person who is detained, under arrest, or is in the process of being arrested, is en route to be incarcerated, or is incarcerated at a municipal or county jail, State prison, State-run boot camp prison, boot camp prison that is contracted out by the State, any State or local contract facility, or other local or State correctional facility (including any juvenile facility).
It’s possible that simply implementing this could make a significant difference as we bring these killings out of the shadows and into the light.
At least 40 fewer people would have died in officer-involved shootings between 2000 and 2015, we estimate, if the 10 police departments in our study that had the highest death rates had required officers to report every time they drew a weapon.
While we found that the requirement for reports after gun draws were associated with lower death rates, we should note that this association does not demonstrate a causal relationship. We would need more precise data than we have to show that the policy actually causes a reduction in death rates.
We hypothesize that the reporting requirement could cause reduced fatalities in two ways:
- Officers get the message that their agency is committed to avoiding unnecessary use of force.
- Knowing they’ll have to fill out paperwork may, at times, cause officers to hesitate to point their guns.
That second hypothesis raises a question: If officers think twice before pointing guns, are their lives in more danger? We checked.
In a separate statistical analysis we found no relationship between this policy and the rate of police officers killed. Additionally, Deputy Chief Patrick Daley of the Norwich Police Department in Connecticut said officers there did not object to the reporting requirement when the department added it around 2009. “It’s good practice, and it’s been well-received,” Daley said.
So that’s something for which yet again we can say, “Thanks, Obama.”
Much of this has been rationalized over the years as necessary for officer safety. If officers don’t defend themselves with deadly force, the argument goes, then we’ll have more officers killed in the line of duty. Well, there is already a database of that and what it tells us is that in most years, the greatest number of police who die each year happen to be due to traffic accidents and heart attacks not murder by a criminal suspect. Usually between 30 to 45 police officers are murdered by suspects every year. (The year 2016 was an exception due to the Dallas police shooting, which brought that year’s total to 62.) But does it make any sense that 1,200 people have to die every year to protect 30 to 40 people? Forty-five officers dead from gunfire is 45 too many, but then 1,200 people dead due to law enforcement is about 1,200 too damn many as well.
1,200 people every year is equal to a Sept 11 every 3 years, and it’s been 18 years since 9/11. This country went to war because of all the people lost that day, but we can’t lift even a finger over the loss of six times that many people in the same time period? Even if you assume that the 700 “justified” killings are truly in fact justified — that still leaves about 500 killings per year that therefore aren’t justified, but also aren’t being prosecuted.
Officers clearly have a right to defend themselves, and they have a right to come home safe at night. However that isn’t an absolute right, and it’s not without any limit. There are federal standards for police use of force.
One of the other issues that came up during the Ferguson grand jury was the fact that the instructions the jury received on police use of force didn’t comply with Supreme Court case law.
Before Wilson testified to the grand jury on September 16, prosecutors gave grand jurors an outdated statute that said police officers can shoot a suspect that's simply fleeing. This statute was deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1985; the court ruled that a fleeing suspect must, at least in a police officer's reasonable view, pose a dangerous threat to someone or have committed a violent felony to justify a shooting.
Prosecutors, who had full control of the evidence presented to the grand jury, took more than two months to correct their mistake, O'Donnell said. The prosecutors on November 21 — just three days before the grand jury reached a decision — gave the correct standards to the grand jury. But as O'Donnell explained, the prosecutors didn't specify what exactly was wrong with the outdated statute — and they didn't even clearly say, after they were asked, to the grand jurors that Supreme Court rulings do indeed override Missouri law.
The case they’re talking about is Tennesee v. Garner, where the Supreme Court found:
A Tennessee statute provides that if, after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest." Acting under the authority of this statute, a Memphis police officer shot and killed appellee-respondent Garner's son as, after being told to halt, the son fled over a fence at night in the backyard of a house he was suspected of burglarizing. The officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" the suspect was unarmed and thinking that he was 17 or 18 years old and of slight build. The father subsequently brought an action in Federal District Court, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for asserted violations of his son's constitutional rights. The District Court held that the statute and the officer's actions were constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]
As Sam Sinyangwe points out above, at least 13 U.S. states like Missouri have not updated their laws to reflect this decision, which is 33 years old. It seems reasonable that that should be corrected with a federal law that says police who injure or harm a suspect must have “probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” Police should be held accountable consistently, they should liable to suffer civil and criminal penalties for assault, or if the subject dies, murder.
The states aren't going to make this modification, Congress has to do it.
That would do even more to bring down the rate of police killings than anything already attempted. We should have some consistent approach to this, and we should have some bare minimum standard and expectation for every state in the nation. They have the right to defend themselves, but only when there is probable cause they they and others around them are in legitimate danger.