Though there always truth in calling for every individual to take personal responsibility for his or her own actions & choices, and I believe that America is in the midst of an epidemic of blaming others for one's problems, I believe this argument is a red herring in the larger debate about police conduct and accountability.
We hold police to a higher standard by definition. There are different levels of reaction to a dangerous situation. The most basic is to protect one's self at all costs - even if that means spraying bullets at bystanders as well as an attacker. We do not accept this level of reaction even from the general public. The next level is to make sure only the person creating the threat is engaged, such as a store clerk shooting a robber in self defense while customers are in the store. There is no concern at this level for how badly the wrongdoer is harmed. This is still below the minimum level of reaction that the law expects from everyone. The next level is to use appropriate force in dealing with the wrongdoer - in other words, it is not acceptable for a person to shoot another in response to a slap on the face. This is the bare minimum expected from our citizens. (Think through the legal standards for the defenses of self-defense or defense of another person.) The higher level is the use of appropriate force to stop the danger WITH THE CALCULATION OF HOW TO USE THE LEAST FORCE AND CAUSE THE LEAST HARM. This is what we expect as a society from our trained fighters - whether they are martial arts experts who beat the tar out of a guy in a bar fight, or security or police officers. Or at least, that's what we're supposed to expect out of police officers. I will submit that this standard is slipping out of use thanks to pressure our police who don't want to be held to so high a duty. Why do we hold our trained fighters to a higher standard? Because they are CAPABLE through training and experience to control their responses. They are armed with additional killing tools and abilities, and in exchange we require higher responsibility in handling those tools. This is a matter of civic trust. We fund, train, give special dispensations to do violence, and arm to the teeth our police - a situation perfect for allowing them to become the unstoppable brute squad that puts terror into the heart of every citizen. But we also give them a special trust - we require that they do not become that brute squad, and instead do everything in their power to work for justice, civic peace, and protection of ALL the people. That means protection, to their best ability, of suspects, people in custody, and those in the middle of violence or unrest. When we place the blame on a person who reacts angrily to a police officer for "putting a child nearby in harm's way," we are giving excuses to a police officer for how he/she reacts. An innocent in the way is an innocent in the way. It is the officer's duty, period, to not harm that innocent. Sometimes, inevitably, even the best officers and training will not be enough to avoid an accident. But that hasn't been the pattern shown by recent evidence in Minneapolis. There aren't that many mere "accidents." I'd like to remind everyone of another "accident" where officers got off scott free. In May, 1985 in Philadelphia, hundreds of officers massed to arrest 7 militant members of MOVE on weapons violations and other serious charges. They evacuated area residents. So far, so good. Then, they pumped 10,000 rounds of ammunition into the area. When that wasn't enough to get the suspects to surrender, they dropped a tear gas bomb through the roof. The house caught fire, and police decided to let it go. 63 homes were burned to the ground, leaving 250 people homeless and 11 MOVE members dead, including 5 children. These cops had a legitimate reason to arrest several suspects, but somewhere along the way the let themselves lose sight of their responsibility. In their excitement to "get the bad guys" apparently at all cost, they first lost sight of the mandate to minimize harm (such as not burning down whole blocks of homes, especially when there might be people still in the area). They lost sight of using appropriate force - unless you will argue that burning everyone to death in the area is somehow in line with getting 7 people to leave a building. This tragedy wasn't the fault of the MOVE members for having kids in the house. It was the fault of the police and city leadership for planning the attack, and for approving escalations rather than taking a breath and thinking through where they had made mistakes & what would be the wise next step. It was also the fault of the police on the ground who didn't get a clue that the situation was out of hand, and ask themselves & their leadership if continuing in this vein was exercising good judgment. Even in this extreme example, NONE of the responsible parties was ever indicted. That says something about the lack of accountability that the government and the public has allowed our police. We can put a stop to that lack of accountability. We have the ability to demand that our armed and trained protectors must be MORE, not less, responsible for using force than the general public. There will always be people who are aggressive toward officers, or who "get in their face," but our standards must reflect how OFFICERS REACT, which is entirely different than asking civilians to take more responsibility for their actions in general. Folks, call your city council people & the mayor. Ask them to support federal mediation. We aren't Philadelphia, yet, but we seem to be going down that path. We can stop it. Peace, Roxana Orrell Central >Message: 6 >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:33:34 EDT >Subject: Re: [Mpls] "police bashing",racism & democracy >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <snip> >When do we take responsibility for our own lives and actions? > >If I am going to get confrontational with a police officer I should take >control of my own actions. If I endanger someone else and or have my actions >cause others to be in harms way, I am to blame. In the heat of passion or >otherwise, I am still the one to blame. <snip> >A police officer accused of intentionally pepper spraying a child is to be >punished - if he or she were to go searching through a crowd passing by >people one by one until they found the child and without provocation "maced" >the child. If the child is in the hands of someone who is acting out of rage >and this is directed at the police person - then the fault lies squarely on >the person who chose to endanger the child, knowingly or not! > >And when we in a frenzied state of mind take words of a person who is swelled >with rage and follow them, then we are at fault for taking hearsay as our >basis for truth. Or did I miss something in the translation of last month's >"riot" being caused by public outrage that police "shot an innocent boy". >Who put the child in harms way? Who cited a bullet piercing this innocent >child's flesh and mortal wounds being inflicted to further frenzy the crowds >of people? Or was it something else? Will that person stand up and take >credit for causing the frenzy? > >Who is to blame when an adult when instructed to stop by a police officer >after being chased for a weapons possession turns and points this weapon at >an armed police officer, who then fires upon someone who is perceived to be a >dangerous suspect to begin with? Is someone else to blame for his actions? >Did you put that gun in his hand? > >If you want to bring in outside federal mediation we must first be willing to >take responsibility for our actions and faults. No negotiation, no >settlement and no resolution is binding until we approach the table in >earnest - without reservation. >God Bless, >Valdis Rozentals >Saint Anthony West _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
