The problem I have with your comment is that it equally describes situations like the death of Freddie Gray-- a guy who was a criminal, but also a guy who was shackled hand and foot and locked inside the back of a police van at the time the fatal injuries were inflicted upon him. Or the death of Robert Dziekanski, or any number of other situations where police got away with killing somebody with the most minimal of justifications.
Let me make it clearer then. There are gross violations of people's human rights all over the world every day, many of them absolutely horrific and against entirely innocent men, women and children. In the context of that, as a TV viewer not exposed personally to any of it, am I supposed to get upset that a lifelong criminal got bounced around in the back of a police van and died after resisting arrest? Do I think that's the way police should act?
**** no. If you want to google Robert Dzeikanzski on that other site I think I made my opinion of those cops very clear on multiple occasions. Admittedly, I had more sympathy for a bewildered polish guy than a criminal who ran from police, but in neither case did I or would I defend the cops involved. I don't think they intended to kill these two guys, mind you, but their behaviour was still unprofessional and led to death. In a more obvious case, the Sammy Yatim shooting in Toronto, I had more interest/indignation because it was here in Ontario, and I made my opinion clear of the idiot cop who shot him too. He was not an innocent, but probably had severe mental issues, and the shooting was entirely unnecessary.
For the most part I actually agree with what you're saying here. I don't think police kill people because they're racists, I think they do it because they're not good at their job.
I think it usually happens because of the way they're trained. For example, police training is very, very firm on the concept that if anyone with a weapon of any kind, such as a knife, a bat, a pipe, a pair of scissors, anything that can kill or seriously injure gets within 20 feet, you shoot them. Furthermore, police use of force training focuses on noting the telltale signs of violence in a person, threatening gestures and movements, face, tone, on controlling the situation, and on firearms use. There is some training in unarmed combat, but very little. There is NO training in how to deal with an assailant armed with any sort of weapon because you're supposed to shoot them.
And police are constantly taught and trained to be on edge, to be alert for imminent attack. They are, in other words, taught to be paranoid, and then given a gun. And we're surprised when they occasionally shoot someone we'd rather they not have shot?
I don't think they get away with killing people because the system is racist, I think they get away with killing people because they cover up for each other, destroy evidence whenever possible, and do their level best to make sure that their buddies are never held responsible for anything, and they have a powerful union that will go to the wall to protect them as well.
There is some of that. But it's also that when it comes to a jury of middle class people who consider police their protectors its very easy to put themselves into the police situation - in most cases - and wonder if they'd shoot too. And if they wonder, then they're likely to not convict. That's especially true if the person shot was clearly some sort of criminal or resisting arrest.
Remember, nobody in any job fails to make mistakes. Cops are in jobs where they're going to make mistakes. And that's particularly so when violence is involved. So a lot of people are willing to cut them some slack in most situations. Neither the Sammy Yatim case, nor the Robert Dziekanski case such situations for me. Nor is the Justine Damond case.
Home
Contact
Login
Register