As we discuss the role of policing two general things stand out to be as being under discussed.
First. I'm seeing a lot of people complaining about police stopping people for equipment violations and other "minor" things. The argument is used to claim that these laws are an excuse to harass black people. I have absolutely no doubt that there is some degree of Truth to this. Giving someone in power a reason to stop someone else for something potentially inadvertent, seems like a recipe for bad cops to abuse that power. Yet, the police don't make the laws. They enforce them, imperfectly, but their role is limited to enforcement. So far, I haven't heard a great hue and cry for the repeal of "equipment" violations, and I wonder why not. Or how about setting speed limits artificially low, it seems like the same type of thing. I'm wondering if we shouldn't be having a conversation about these kinds of laws and if they help or hurt. Do we want or need the police playing hall monitor on our brake lights or turn signals? Do we want to increase or decrease the opportunities that exist for police interaction with citizens? Should be be looking beyond the police and to the elected officials that make the laws and oversee the police?
Second. We need to decide if the police are EVER justified in using deadly force against a suspect. We need a conversation about what circumstances justify using deadly force. Then, of course, we need to discuss when deadly force is too deadly. Is that follow up shot (or 2, or more) really necessary? Should cops shoot to simply hit the suspect, or shoot until the suspect is no longer a threat? Speaking of threats, isn't a suspect behind the wheel of a vehicle a threat? Isn't an armed suspect a threat? Do all people react the same way and suffer the same effects when hit with a Taser or when shot? Should be base our decisions on the best case or the worst case? Is a suspect actively shooting at cops a significant enough threat for the cops to respond in kind? Is it realistic to train cops to "shoot to wound", "shoot them in the leg?", or "shoot the gun out of their hand?" Are movies and TV shows the best place to get our information about what is reasonable when these situations occur? I'd love to see the "Shoot them in the leg." folks run through a use of force simulation. I'm guessing that there would be "dead bodies" littering the screens or shooting house, and they'd have run through huge amounts of ammunition in the process.
I'm not suggesting that we're having the wrong conversations, or asking the wrong questions, I'm suggesting that we aren't having a complete discussion or asking enough questions.
4 comments:
It's appropriate to occasionally review laws on the books in order to determine if they're doing any good or needed in the first place. A broken tail light might seem a minor issue, but for some reason I'm seeing more cars on the road with no tail lights, only to find that their headlights are on. How is this possible that it should happen at all, much less be so more common? Am I seeing the same cars each time?
Anyway, to have a broken tail light does affect one's attention on the road, as one must now constantly consider that person's driving speed and other such things, when one's attention should not be so diverted from other possibilities. And if it's the brake lights, that's more an issue. One light out may mean the other will follow suit and it is right and proper for a cop to stop a driver over such things. I don't know if one's driving record will reflect warnings issued by a cop, so that a second stop will result in a citation. If not, that would be a reasonable adjustment, but stopping someone for such violations are just and necessary in my opinion. It's your car. Make sure it's in good operating condition.
I don't know what "artificially low" means with regard to setting speed limits. All speed limits are arbitrary and judgement calls by the municipality, county or state. They can be adjusted for any reason, but hopefully for reasons of safety. I drive a particular road every day for work, and for most of the distance I'm on it, it's 35 MPH. Then you hit a stretch where it drops to 30 MPH, then back up again. There's very little residential through any of it, but the change occurs when crossing a border between towns. One town thinks one speed is sufficient and the other another speed. I've driven through similar stretches where the limit is 25.
But yeah, it ain't the cops so much as those who enact the laws cops must enforce.
Of course cops are justified in using lethal force. But we can't have a laws for every possibility. The laws governing such things must allow for the variations each situation brings to the table, and the judgement of the cop must be allowed to a great extent, since he's the one tasked with enforcing the law and thus put at the greatest risk for injury or death. To presume cops must take on a greater risk to their own lives in order to perform the job is ludicrous and as such I have very little problem with the fact that perfection is impossible as regards determining if one is justified, in the heat of the moment, to open fire on a suspect. I also don't think it's a rational move to insist they train to hit a small target (leg or arm) on a suspect rather then the easiest target (the torso) when the cop's life is threatened. The object is to subdue, not submit, and all attention should be on encouraging people to abide the law and not commit crimes. This should be the focus of the "teach our boys 'don't rape'" crowd.
And therein lies my suggestion for conversation. It should be directed and focused on the "obey the law" side of the equation. That's why we have the problems we have now. The focus is on the behavior of cops, not on the behavior of those breaking the law.
I agree that it's reasonable to re evaluate laws on a regular basis.
The issue, it seems to me, is do "equipment" ordinances actually serve a public safety purpose, or are they simply a means to harass people and increase revenue?
There is actually a fair degree of science behind setting speed limits, and it's pretty clear that cities will set limits below what they should be, as a way to increase revenue. I think that the rule of thump is that the speed limit should be the speed that @75% of drivers would drive if there was no posted limit. I've also seen more and more instances of pulling onto a road and not seeing a speed limit sign for miles.
You're correct that it's not just the cops, but also the people who make the laws, oversee the cops, and the government entities that count on the revenue from traffic stops.
I agree that cops are justified in using lethal force (even if that doesn't mean the suspect dies). But the question is when. Clearly we're seeing people who don't believe that an armed suspect resisting arrest should be the target of lethal force. Which raises questions about how much danger a cop must allow himself to be placed in before allowed to use lethal force to defend himself.
Most police/military/firearms trainers teach that the proper technique is to aim for center mass. In the stress of an armed confrontation, you want people aiming for the largest target area. Interestingly enough, center mass on a human offers a fair amount of non lethal targets. The other school of thought is that you keep shooting until the threat is eliminated. In the case of people using drugs, this can take more shots that the ignorant might think. FYI, we could also make a case that the adoption of the 9mm as the standard duty round of cops plays a role in this as well. There are other options that offer more stopping power.
Obviously if folks obey the law, there wouldn't be all sorts of problems. Unfortunately, some folks just don't think they need to obey the law, and things sometimes turn out worse than they bargained for. I'll say this. If more people obeyed the law, and complied with orders from cops (and didn't shoot at cops), then we'd probably see fewer than the small number of incidents we see now, and we'd be able to more accurately asses corrupt behavior by the cops.
I believe all "equipment" ordinances have legitimate safety purposes, with one exception that comes to mind. I never checked to confirm, but I've heard that if you own a tractor-trailer combo and outfit it with additional running lights along the side because you think it looks cool, every damn one of them must work or you can be cited as if it was one of the normally mandated lights. If this is true, it's absurd. But along the top, there are usually one light in each of the front corners and three to five along the top of the rear of the trailer called "clearance" or "marker" lights for which one can be cited if but just one is out. Usually one won't be pulled over for such a minor thing, but a random inspection will result in that one burned out bulb being added to any list of violations.
I question the notion that any law is enacted with revenue generation being it's primary purpose, though once on the books, I don't really begrudge a town, county or state taking advantage of violators providing such donations. If one doesn't wish to donate, one must make sure one's vehicle is not in violation. Doing so will help to affirm or prove false the notion of cops stopping citizens for revenues, ticket quotas or because one is black.
As regards speed limits, I think limits are set below what any study might recommend in order to reduce loss of life, injury and property damage...not to raise revenues. One must allow more time if one believes limits are set too low. Obviously, travel time must be based upon strict adherence to posted limits, not how fast one believes one can get away with driving. Any true desire for revenues can easily be thwarted by abiding rules of the road and insuring vehicle is not in violation.
As to lethal force by cops, it's justified, just as it is for anyone else, if the cop believes his own life or the lives of others are threatened. In addition, resisting arrest is just cause as well and has been for some time, particularly due to the potential that a suspect will go on to do more harm, the extent to which must be assumed is substantial. Unfortunately, it is next to impossible to know just how threatened a cop truly feels or how threatening the suspect may be. For this reason, cops are rightly entitled to extraordinary leeway in making those life or death decisions in the heat of the moment. Yet those decisions are reviewed and, if necessary, punished after the fact. Better training of better people is the most important and effective focus of any reform efforts. But no amount of training can truly prepare one for the stress of battle.
I believe the protocol is to aim for center mass with as many rounds as necessary to stop the attack or flight of the suspect. It runs in conjunction with the other equally important rule...don't die. Personally, I'd prefer stopping power.
Post a Comment