Police Indifference
The courts have spoken a number of times on the
issue of police training. In doing so,
the judiciary has given direction for law enforcement agencies to follow when
deciding a minimum level of training. As a street cop, the “minimum standard”
might not seem relevant to the general public. Ask yourself, “What
self-respecting law enforcement officer trains to the least acceptable
standard?” The answer is obvious, “A great many.”
Title 42 § 1983 of the United States Code,
Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights, states in part:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress”.
Here is a case in point.
On the morning of November 15, 1982, two District of Columbia police
officers, William Hayes and Ronnie Motley, traveled to Maryland in an attempt
to locate Don Parker, for whom an armed robbery felony warrant was outstanding.
Hayes and Motley intended to interview Betty Parker not suspecting that Don
Parker might be present since the two did not live together. The officers did
not bring with them the arrest warrant because they mistakenly believed that
their arrest authority in Maryland was curtailed.
When the officers went to the door and identified themselves to Betty,
she brought Don Parker to the door. The officers explained the purpose of their
visit and asked Parker to accompany them back to D.C. Parker denied any
wrongdoing and initially refused to leave with the officers because they did
not have in their possession the arrest warrant. Finally, Parker agreed to
return with the officers but asked to be allowed to change his clothes. Parker
was allowed into his bedroom where he escaped through a window.
Once the officers realized they had been duped, they chased Parker
around the neighborhood in their unmarked police car. Parker commandeered an
automobile that had collided with the officer’s car. Operating under the
erroneous assumption that Parker was threatening the driver of the car and that
he was armed, Officer Hayes yelled for Parker to “Freeze!” Parker continued to
turn towards Officer Hayes, and Hayes fired at him four times hitting him
twice. Admittedly, Parker shouldn’t have run towards the police officer.
The Parkers sued the District of Columbia and the two officers involved
in United States District Court for the District of Columbia alleging assault
and battery under state law and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of
the District’s failure adequately to train, discipline, and supervise its
officers in matters of extra-jurisdictional arrest and disarmament. Prior to
trial, the Parkers dropped their state law claims against the individual
officers. The case went to the jury, which found in favor of the District on
the state law claims, but against the District with respect to the section 1983
claims awarding Parker $425,046.67. The District appealed and the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the lower
court’s decision.
The court affirmed that the District of Columbia officers involved in
the Parker fiasco were indifferent to following the dictates of their
training.
In Monell v. New York City Dept.
of Soc. Serv., the Supreme Court held that a municipality is liable under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 only when execution of its policy or custom causes a plaintiff
to suffer constitutional injury. The Court determined that “proof of a single
incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose liability
under Monell, unless proof of the incident includes proof that it was caused by
an existing, unconstitutional municipal policy, which policy can be attributed
to a municipal policymaker.”
The District argued that inadequate training cannot amount to a custom
or policy giving rise to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as required by Monell
and that even if it could, the Parkers’ proof does not support a finding of
such custom or policy. The Court of Appeals disagreed and held that “this case
does not involve a single incident that gives rise to an inference of
inadequate training. It involves a sad series of mishaps linked to a policy of
sorely deficient training, supervision and discipline.”
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s conclusion that “liability
may be imposed on a municipality upon a showing of ‘deliberate indifference’
exhibited by a pattern of inadequate training, supervision, and discipline of
police officers provided that there is a causal connection between such
inadequacies and the risk of harm to others.”
The court also said, “The incidents giving rise to the case at bar
present the requisite ‘fully packed’ scenario. Inadequately trained officers in
terms of both arrest procedure and physical aptitude committed a series of
mistakes resulting in serious injuries to an innocent man. There were no
consequent sanctions or even reprimands. From these facts, a clear pattern of
inadequate police training and discipline emerges.”
This decision brings to mind of two recent cases where the police fired
their guns at people they thought would do them harm.
Michael Brown was unarmed and yet Officer Daren Wilson of the Ferguson
Police shot him dead as Brown was running towards him. He could have shot him
in the leg or shoulder but instead he shot him in the chest and in the head so
that he could kill him. The indifference on the part of the police was that
they left Brown’s body on the road for hours while his mother looked on before
they removed the young man’s body. That inaction on the part of the police was really
unnecessary.
Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old boy in Cleveland was fatally shot
by police officer Tim Loehmann after he saw
the boy brandishing a hand gun that turned out to be a replica toy gun. The officer called to
the playground outside a city recreation center saw the pistol sitting on a
table or bench, and watched the boy grab it and put it in his waistband, An officer fired twice into the boy’s abdomen within seconds after
the boy pulled the fake weapon from his waistband (which shoots nonlethal plastic projectiles) that
was lacking the orange safety indicator usually found on the muzzle from his
waistband but had not pointed it at police. The boy did not make any verbal
threats but grabbed the replica handgun after being told to raise his hands.
Unfortunately, the 911 operator failed to inform the police
that the boy’s gun was probably a fake gun.
As Tamir Rice's
14-year-old sister rushed to her brother's side upon learning he'd been shot,
police officers tackled her, handcuffed her and placed her in a squad car with
the Cleveland officer who shot Tamir. Samaria Rice, was threatened with arrest
herself as she "went charging and yelling at police" because they
wouldn't let her run to her son's aid.
The conduct on the part of those two police offers on the scene is the
epitome of indifference.
Where in these police departments does it say in their training that
bodies of persons killed by the police must be left there they fell and remain
there for hours in view of their parents and friends? Where does it say in
their training that mothers of dying children can’t be next to their dying
child?
“The treatment of the
family is unacceptable,” said Councilman Jeffrey Johnson, who appeared
alongside the family at the news conference. “It just shows the lack of
training when we shackle a grieving sister, threaten a grieving mother and not
even take care of a child lying on the ground.”
The family says
Loehmann and Garmback "refused to provide any medical attention to Tamir
for at least four minutes as he lay on the ground alive and bleeding. Cleveland police Chief Calvin Williams has previously said
that four minutes after Tamir was shot, a detective and FBI agent arrived and
the FBI agent administered first aid. Paramedics arrived three minutes later.
The Cleveland Plain
Dealer reported that the officers are a first-year rookie and a 10-year
department veteran. Both men should have re-acted differently. The paper said
that they police should have tasered the boy instead of shooting him in his
chest. Young boys playing with replica guns are commonplace in America and
police are expected to approach them safely if an investigation is warranted,
not shoot them dead within two seconds after they leave the squad car.
The
officer who shot the boy was Officer
Tim Loehmann (the rookie) who later said that he believed the boy had a real
firearm. The officer's father has said his son had no other choice. His father
neglect to mention that police supervisors in the Independence Police
Department decided that Loehmann lacked the maturity needed to work in their
department. Loehmann resigned in December 2012 after meeting with his
supervisors about their concerns. Apparently,
he displayed a pattern of a
lack of discretion and not following instructions. He had been with the Independence police
force for only six months. He later joined the Cleveland police which obviously either didn’t do a pre-employment
search or did but didn’t care that such an officer wanted to join their police
force. Now they may be regretting having
hired him.
The U.S. Justice Department released findings recently from a
nearly two-year investigation of Cleveland police, which found its officers use
excessive and unnecessary force far too often.
When
a call came in about a boy waving a handgun, which he said was probably a fake
gun, the 911 responder twice asked whether the boy was black or white before
dispatching officers. Was it racism that prompted that question?
The Cleveland case is similar to one last year in northern
California. In that case, prosecutors didn't file criminal charges against a
sheriff's deputy who shot and killed a 13-year-old boy carrying a pellet gun
the officer mistook for an assault rifle.
On July 17, 2014, Eric Garner died in
the Tompkinsville
neighborhood of Staten Island, New York, after a police officer put him
in an apparent chokehold for about 19 seconds—a tactic banned by the New
York City Police Department (NYPD).
Garner was initially approached by
Officer Justin Damico on suspicion of selling "loosies", single cigarettes from packs without tax stamps. Garner expressed to the police
that he was tired of being harassed and that he was not selling cigarettes.
Officers on the
scene made the move to arrest Garner. Officer Daniel Pantaleo, also on scene,
put his arms around the much taller Garner's neck, applying an apparent
choke hold shown in a video recording of the event, which has since gone viral.
While lying face down on the sidewalk surrounded by four officers, Garner is
heard repeating "I can't breathe" 11 times.
Whisper it in my ear
that none of the officers heard the suffocated man crying out, “I can’t
breath.” They were indifferent to his pleas.
According to Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, an ambulance was immediately
called to the scene and Garner was transported to Richmond University Medical Center. He went into cardiac arrest
while he was in the vehicle and was pronounced dead approximately one hour
later at the hospital
After the incident,
city medical examiners concluded that Garner was killed by neck compression
from the apparent choke hold, along with "the compression of his chest and
prone positioning during physical restraint by police". Contributing
factors included bronchial asthma, heart disease, obesity, and hypertensive
cardiovascular disease.
Did the police
department neglect to inform its officers that neck holds and compressions against the chest will bring about death by suffocation? If they did, then were
these officers in the Eric Garner incident completely ignorant of the mandate
or alternatively, indifferent to the serious consequences that will take place
for the person they are applying such force upon?
I don’t think I am
being facetious when I suggest that signs should be posted on the streets that
read; WARNING: DANGEROUS POLICE OFFICERS ROAMING THE STREETS. Hey. Some of those officers are as dangerous
as gun-carrying criminals. Run from them
if you can but if you are too close to them to escape, then lay flat on your
belly with hands behind your back and cry out in a whimpering voice, “Please don’t shoot me.” With luck, the officer
may not shoot you. But don’t twitch because if you do, your luck will run out.
No comments:
Post a Comment