by

At their current pace, American police are on track to kill 1,100 people this year, and of those that they have killed so far this year, 161 were unarmed. Though excessive and unlawful force was used in many cases, securing prosecution is difficult as prosecutors are often unsuited to try these cases given that their dependence on law enforcement makes them overtly biased. Such biases have led prosecutors to accuse the families of victims of being motivated by economics, or intentionally putting bad witnesses on the stand. When officers do come before the grand jury, they often have only to say that they feared for their life and they are instantly absolved of any criminal culpability, and often allowed back on the streets, weapon in hand. Even when video footage appears of officers using prohibited strangle holds, nobody is held accountable for the deaths of unarmed civilians. Clearly the system is broken. To address this issue, several things need be done. First and foremost, a separate judicial system needs to be established, one that does not rely on law enforcement, but whose sole purpose is to try law enforcement cases, whether it be civilians accused of assaulting officers, or officers accused of assaulting civilians. These courts would have no bias as they would not rely on law enforcement for other cases. In addition, certain criteria needs to be laid out, establishing if the officers whose conduct is called into question were working in conjunction with the law, that they properly identified themselves, did not escalate the situation and made efforts to de-escalate situations where possible, and had reasonable grounds to fear immediate threats to their life or harm to their person. In addition, officers must make a sincere effort to provide any medical attention that is required, and any officers who subsequently help to alter records or obscure facts must be held to account, as any civilian would be, because nobody who violates the sanctitude of the law can be trusted to represent or protect it in the future. Only when each of these requirements are met, and law enforcement is held accountable, can the law function effectively. Though this may sound complicated, it is a fundamentally easy process so long as an effort is made to do so.

THE COURT SYSTEM

Traditional court systems are simply not objective enough to handle police trials, and so a separate system must be implemented to handle such cases. Criminal courts rely on law enforcement to make cases. Without law enforcement, prosecutors cannot do their jobs. Therefore, it is in prosecutors’ best interests to maintain the legitimacy of law enforcement. If the legitimacy of law enforcement is called into question, prosecutors will be perpetually facing an uphill battle in the courtroom as jurors will see police as no more credible than criminals. This bias takes overt extremes with prosecutors like Robert McCulloch, who, according to Think Progress, once lied about testimony and framed a bystander who was killed in the crossfire on a one-way shootout with a low-level drug dealer as a hardened criminal and publicly referred to the victim as a ‘bum’. It is these kinds of overt biases that make it impossible for a prosecutor to fairly try police officers. Instead, a court system that operates independently of the traditional criminal court system is required. Though most cities thankfully don’t have enough police shootings and instances of police brutality to warrant their own court house, each state tragically does have enough such cases. Therefore, each state must establish a court system that handles these cases exclusively. The courts, though, should be funded by the federal government as it is constitutional rights assured by the federal government that are often violated by police. This will not only free prosecutors and judges from the bonds of bias that tie their interests to the interests of law enforcement, but will, through repeated trials, make them experts in dealing with such cases. Only when removing the inherent biases present in the traditional criminal court system can police who have violated the law truly be held to account for their criminal behaviour.

REASONABLE FEAR

In most cases involving fatalities, police need say nothing more than “I feared for my life” to be acquitted of any wrongdoing. Though this may seem reasonable to some on the surface, it is a claim that must be proven. To accomplish this, several things must be established. First, it must be determined that the officer was acting within the bounds of the law. Once this is established, is must be made clear that the officer in question identified him/herself, and made an attempt at a non-violent resolution or made efforts to de-escalate the situation if possible. If there is a fear for one’s safety or life, this fear must be established as a reasonable fear, and then validated with evidence. This is why body cameras are an essential element of law enforcement. After this, it must also be established that excessive force was not used, and the officer in question sought medical treatment for the person they injured. Each of these requirements must be evaluated carefully under specific guidelines. If any of these criteria are not met, then the officer must be held to account.

LAWFUL ACTIONS: The first requirement of the self-defence is that it was indeed the police who were defending themselves from the civilian, and not the other way around. This means that the stop or conflict must be lawful. For instance, if an officer entraps a suspect, and the suspect can reasonably identify that his or her constitutional rights have been violated, then it is the civilian who is in fact defending themselves, and the officers are not working as representatives of the law as they have stepped outside the bounds of the law. This was demonstrated recently in the case of Devon Guilford, a 17-year-old who was unlawfully stopped by Sgt. Jonathan Frost, and was subsequently shot several times and killed. Frost was driving with headlights which he knew to be excessively bright, and which he himself admits had caused other drivers to flash their brights at him. Guilford did the same, and Frost immediately stopped him. This was a classic case of entrapment where an officer creates a situation that invokes a response, and then makes a stop or arrest for the response they themselves initiated. In this instance, Frost made an unlawful stop; therefore, from that point onward, everything Guilford did was a defense of his civil liberties. Frost, not Guilford, was the aggressor. Therefore, just as a bank robber who shoots a security guard that drew his gun has no right to claim self-defence, neither does Frost as he is the one who was in violation of the law.

Officers must likewise have a lawful warrant to search a premises. In the case of Aiyana Stanley-Jones, the police had no warrant to search the home in which the 7-year-old was sleeping, and so when they ‘accidentally’ shot and killed her, they were engaging in criminally reckless behaviour. Because there was no warrant to enter the home, the police were there unlawfully, and should be charged with nothing short of reckless endangerment. Even if it is only one’s civil rights that are violated, not their life, police should still be held accountable. In the case of Denise Stewart, police were called for a domestic disturbance, and though they had reasonable grounds to knock on Stewart’s door, they clearly had no warrant to arrest her, and no warrant to search her home. Because they had no cause to arrest her, violently pulling her out of her own home and assaulting her was a violation of her rights, and so any actions she, or her family members took, can be considered acts of self-defence. If officers seek to charge civilians with assault, or claim a homicide they committed was justified as a means of self-defence, they must first establish that they were working within the bounds of the law. Otherwise, it is the civilians defending themselves from thugs who are violating their constitutional rights.

IDENTIFICATION: Aside from working within the bounds of the law, officers must also identify themselves, otherwise civilians will not know that the force being used against them is lawful, and may justifiably take fatal actions to defend themselves. In the case of Marvin Louis Guy, police, operating on misinformation, raided Guy’s house. They did not identify themselves, and Guy, as is his right, used lethal force to defend his home, shooting three officers, one of whom died. Guy is now facing the death penalty, but he acted in lawful self-defence. Had an officer used the same force against him, there would be no trial. Situations like these have happened repeatedly, as demonstrated by the case of Cory Maye, who was likewise the victim of a no-knock warrant, and who likewise used lethal force to defend himself against police officers who failed to identify themselves. He was sentenced to death, but after two retrials was released under a plea deal. Ryan Frederick, who had previously been a victim of burglary, also shot and killed a police officer during a no-knock raid where the officer had not identified himself. Henry Magee, also the victim of a no-knock raid, shot and killed an officer who failed to identify himself, leaving Magee to face a capital murder charge, which he eventually beat. This raid was also based on bad information. In each case, civilians faced break-ins, confronted men with weapons, and are not informed of their identity. It is the civilians in such cases who are lawfully defending themselves, as the officers ought to reasonably know that the civilian will perceive their action as a threat without properly identifying themselves, and so officers have no claim to self-defence in such cases as they are the source of the conflict. Officers must identify themselves first.

PEACEFUL RESOLUTIONS: Likewise, officers should be expected to make a sincere attempt at peaceful resolutions, which means only using no-knock warrants when absolutely necessary. The tragic case of Aiyana Stanley-Jones, as mentioned, led to a needless death that was the direct result of the excessive force used in no-knock warrants. Police had scouted the duplex earlier in the day, and could have peacefully arrested their suspect with little risk of violence, but instead waited to serve their warrant at night, leading them into the wrong part of the duplex and costing one young girl her life. Likewise, in Florida, an unarmed pot dealer was shot in the face and killed during a no-knock warrant for ‘approaching’ an officer. Reports are unclear as to whether the officers had even identified themselves by that point, but a witness referred to the shooting as ‘murder’. Regardless of whether or not this was justified, what is clear is that there was no need for a no-knock warrant to be used for a low-level pot dealer with no history of violence. This was excessive force plain and simple, and a man is dead. Capital punishment is not acceptable for selling a plant that is legal in four states, and summary execution should never be acceptable in any circumstance. If these decisions are made by superior officers, and the result is the death of an unarmed civilian, then the superior officer who chose the course of excessive force is complicit and should be held accountable along with the officer who pulled the trigger. These situations create violence. Unless there is a history of violence, or reasonable grounds to assume violence will occur, no-knock warrants should not be used, and those who choose to employ them must be held to account for the violence and death that they ought to have reasonably known might follow.

Officers must also be obligated to make a sincere attempt to de-escalate situations. In the case of Sgt. Frost, who shot and killed the 17-year-old Guilford, there was no attempt on the part of the officer to de-escalate the situation, and in fact, he made a point to escalate the situation several times. He wilfully misrepresented the truth (aka: lied) to Guilford, claiming that his brights weren’t on, when he knew full well that his lights were excessively bright (which he himself admits in the video). The problem with this is that Guilford knew what the truth was, and therefore knew that the officer was lying to him, and was therefore acting unlawfully. Rather than admit this, the officer pushed his agenda, further escalating that situation. The use of force after he had called for back-up, pulling Guilford out of the car, and then tasering him, are all instances of escalation, and none were necessary. Frost first escalated the situation by pulling Guilford over when he knew full well why Guildford flashed his birghts. He worsened the situation by lying, and then initiating a physical assault instead of waiting for backup. At any number of points in the this conflict, the officer could have de-escalated the situation, but instead chose to make matters worse, ultimately shooting and killing Guildford, whose only ‘crime’ was flashing his brights. Though there are instances where officers do not have an opportunity to de-escalate a volatile situation, the must be fairly and reasonably be expected to make an effort to de-escalate situations wherever possible, because killing somebody for flashing their brights is what urban legends claim gangs do, not what police officers are supposed to do.

REASONABLE FEAR: One of the biggest issues with police homicides is that all they need do is claim they feared for their lives, and they are excused for summarily executing jaywalkers, and pot dealers. However, simply saying one feared for one’s life should not be enough; the fear must be reasonable, and must be quantifiable. In the case of Frost and Guilford, for instance, Frost said he feared for his life, not because of an immediate threat, but because he assumed that Guilford was a member of “a sovereign nation militia” and might call to his fellow militia members to ambush and kill Frost. Why Frost thought this is unclear. Frost offered no evidence to validate this fear, there was nothing suggesting that Guilford was a member of a militia, and on top of that, there has never been a recorded incidence of a militia ambushing police over a traffic stop and summarily killing an officer. It has never happened. This ‘fear’ was nothing short of an excuse. There was no reasonable fear here, and if Frost genuinely believed this was going to happen, then he is legitimately suffering from delusional paranoia and frankly is not fit to be a police officer. Additionally, any claim of a reasonable fear must be supported by physical evidence, otherwise police can make up any story to support a claim of reasonable fear. The question of evidence can be assured with body cameras. Likewise, the threat must be immediate. In Frost’s case, there was no immediate threat, just the fear that a militia might show up later. In other instances, civilians who use lethal force to protect themselves are expected to establish a reasonable and immediate fear, and must provide evidence. Police should be expected to do not less, otherwise they are being given a licence to indiscriminately kill anybody they desire.

DEFENDING LIFE vs. PRESERVING AUTHORITY: In many instances of police brutality, officers feign that they feared for their life, when in actuality what they were defending was their authority. This preservation of authority, though, should never be grounds for physical violence. Sandra Bland’s tragic story seems to best encapsulate this particular concern. Bland, who was pulled over for failing to use a signal when changing lanes, which she only did after an officer was tailgating her (making this an unlawful instance of entrapment), refused to put out her cigarette when the officer who pulled her instructed her to do so. This was not an obligation on her part, but it did challenge his authority. This caused the officer to escalate the situation and call for her to exit the vehicle, which he had no authority to do. When she refused, he further took this as a challenge to his authority. At no point did the officer have grounds to arrest Bland, and at no point was he in danger. The only thing that was bruised was his ego, a bruising which he himself caused by throwing himself against the constitutional rights of a woman he had unlawfully pulled over. Bland was arrested and later found dead in her cell. This could have been prevented had the officer not been so adamant about asserting his authority, an authority which he did not have. Therefore, in cases where police escalate situations and use force, it must be determined if the force they used was to protect their safety, or their ego. If it was the later, then they must be held accountable for whatever violence follows as this kind of self-defence is not the self-defence protected by the law.

REASONABLE FORCE: If each of these criteria are met, it must then be established that excessive force was not used; in cases of no-knock warrants, it is important to establish that raids are necessary for the safety of all those involved and meets the seriousness of the crime in question. In instances like those involving Henry Magee, Marvin Louis Guy, Cory Maye, Aiyana Stanley-Jones, and Derek Cruice, police raided homes based on a ‘tip’ from an ‘informant’ (who are often criminals seeking reduced sentences and are therefore biased), or raid neighbours’ homes, or the homes of people who have no history of violence. In such cases, a raid is simply not justified as violently breaking into a home with weapons drawn, when traditional warrants could have been used, led to the death of either civilians, or police officers. Each of these deaths could have been avoided. Before deciding upon the use of a no-knock warrant, police must perform due diligence. If the only evidence they have is an ‘informant’, then a raid should be out of the question. If the information they have is dated, as was the case with Bou Phonesavanh Jr., an infant who was critically wounded by police, the a raid should be out of the question. If there is evidence that there are children in the home, as was the case for both Phonesavanh and Stanely-Jones, then a raid should be out of the question. If the person whose home they wish to search has no criminal history, or no history of violence, then a raid should not be an option. If police are going to initiate a violent situation, they must be sure beforehand that it is reasonable. If it is not, then they are initiating unreasonable force. Just as criminals who engages in a crime that lead to the death of another party are held accountable for that unplanned death, police who engage in uninformed and unreasonable force must be held accountable for the death and/or injuries that are incurred by their reckless actions.

In instances outside of raids, it must likewise be determined that police did not use excessive force, even when they are legitimately required to use force. The most obvious case of excessive force in recent memory is that of Eric Garner. He was accused of selling ‘untaxed’ cigarettes, but what the police actually accused him of was selling loose cigarettes out of a pack that had indeed been taxed. For this, a group of police officers tackled him and brought him to the ground, with one officer employing a choke hold that was prohibited by the police. Where a citation would have sufficed without an arrest, were there even a crime being committed, officers decided to use physical force against a man for an alleged misdemeanor they had no evidence to support. Even had Garner been selling untaxed cigarettes, capital punishment in the way of summary execution is not only an overt instance of excessive force, but is the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment. There are any number of cases when excessive force is used, whether death or serious injury be the result, when legitimate suspects are already subdued, the most famous case being Rodney King, who was severely beaten by several police officers, all of whom were acquitted of any wrongdoing. Though this happened over 20 years ago, this behaviour continues to this day, as demonstrated in the case of Thabo Sefolosha, and other cases, like Officer Eric Casebolt, who pulled out a gun when breaking up a pool party (A POOL PARTY) and assaulted a 14-year-old girl in a bikini, or Ben Fields, who likewise assaulted a teen girl as she sat in her desk at school. Though force may be required in many instances, assaulting people who are already handcuffed or who are complying is excessive, and officers must be held to account for such behaviour as it is nothing short of assault.

MEDICAL ATTENTION: Once police have subdued a suspect with force, justifiable or otherwise, they should be responsible for ensuring that the suspect receives medical attention if needed. In the case of Eric Garner, police were informed of a medical issue when he said he could not breathe. Rather than addressing the medical issue, police continued to assault the man, and continued to choke him, ultimately leading to his death killing him. Had they addressed this medical issue by simply stopping the chokehold, which was already being used contrary to training, Garner would still be alive today. The most infamous case this year where police failed to secure medical treatment is that of Freddie Gray, but this has happened in countless other cases as well. Linwood Lambert, for instance, required medical attention and was picked up by police for talking delusionally, but instead of being taken into the hospital, he was repeatedly tased by police, 20 times according to reports, despite being handcuffed the entire time. He died without receiving medical treatment. Tragically, a lack of medical attention leads to death, but it can also lead to other serious issues, like when Rodney Cotton was given anti-depressants before being put in solitary confinement. The medication induced a six-day erection, which police failed to address, causing permanent damage to Cotton’s penis. In these cases undue harm, including death, was caused because police, who in most instances had these people in custody and in restraints, failed to provide medical care. This denial of care is tantamount to criminal action, and police must be held legally responsible, otherwise future suspects will be treated in a similar manner.

OBLIGATORY CONCLUSION

With the current rise of police brutality, police homicides, and the militarization of the police, civilian citizens have a legitimate and reasonable fear of having their civil liberties violated by police. This must be addressed, otherwise we are living in a police state. The current system is simply not equipped to deal with this issue. A separate court system that is not dependant on law enforcement must be established that handles both cases where officers are accused of using excessive force, and where civilians are tried for assaults against police officers. Once that is accomplished, each case must establish a series of facts. First, that accused officers were acting in a lawful manner, and that they properly identified themselves. It must also be established that officers made attempts to de-escalate situations where possible and used reasonable force. This includes only employing no-knock warrants in instances where they are validated through thorough investigation. If an officer claims that she/he feared for his/her life, this must be proven to be a reasonable fear supported by evidence. This fear of life must also be clearly differentiated from taking exception to having one’s authority challenged. Once this is done, it must also be established that the officer made reasonable attempts to ensure the suspect was provided with proper medical care. Officers who help to hide or misrepresent facts after the fact should be treated as accomplices and likewise tried. Only after all of these concerns are fairly addressed and such cases are assessed outside of a system that is dependent on law enforcement can civilian citizens be assured that their civil liberties and constitutional rights will be protected. Without such a systems, or one comparable, police have a literal licence to kill indiscriminately and no citizen can be assured of their rights.

If you enjoyed this post and would like updates on my latest ramblings, be sure to follow me on Twitter @LiteraryRambler, on Facebook, and add me to your RSS feed.