Posted: 11/22/2006 8:23:04 AM EDT
This is a great article from the editor in chief of officer.com. Reminded me of many threads on this site.  A story in today’s Washington Post, syndicated through Reuters, sings the praises of “cop watch” activists that photograph and video-record the actions of police, using camera phones and inexpensive disposable cameras. The fruit of these roving reporters’ efforts has made national news recently in two incidents involving everyone’s favorite whipping boy, the Los Angeles Police Department. One video clip showed an officer repeatedly punching a man in the face while he was lying on his back. The other was of an officer using pepper spray on a prisoner already in the cage of a patrol car. And, to no great surprise, both of them looked pretty gruesome and indefensible. Unfortunately, the video clips only tell part of the story. According to LAPD Chief Bill Bratton, both suspects had actively resisted arrest and had continued to resist and be combative after they were apprehended. One had done everything he could to destroy the interior of the patrol car, and had spit in the face of the arresting officer. The man who got punched had refused orders to put his hands behind his back, and was continuing to refuse when the video was recorded. This is a common tactic used in all sorts of media when the purveyors have an agenda of their own. Viewed in the most favorable light, this tactic is called “spin.” When it is analyzed more critically, it often amounts to a technique called “lying.” Some years ago, a prison inmate sued a corrections officer for having struck the prisoner repeatedly on the head, using a heavy aluminum flashlight. Most of us would have to agree that this conduct, without any other information, is excessive and possibly even criminal. What the inmate neglected to mention in his complaint, and was brought out at trial, was that the corrections officer was reacting to the inmate having stabbed him in the shoulder with an improvised ice pick, and at that moment was trying to extract the weapon for another go at some more critical organ. It’s all in the details. At trial, a clip like this would not be permitted as evidence without a foundation being laid, and if the video clip was only a portion of a longer version that showed the events before and/or after the more sensational portion, that would have to be shown as well. The viewing public seldom sees this, because news stories these days have to fit into 20-45 seconds of air time, and a story about what appears to be an excessive use of force is far less interesting when it is revealed to be a reasonable use of force. The Washington Post story notes that Sherman Austin, the founder and head cheerleader of “Cop Watch LA,” which encourages people to make these recordings and promotes the ones he receives, has a “police record” at the tender age of 23. I don’t know of any other details here, mainly because further information about Mr. Austin is conspicuously absent from the Cop Watch LA web site. However, serious criminal conduct is a very common characteristic of the more outspoken critics of the police (I emphasize here: I know nothing about Mr. Austin’s “police record,” so please do not draw any conclusions about him personally), who resent the police for having caught them doing something they believe they should have gotten away with. If others are victimized by their actions, they tend to discount their value and their injury. Chief Bratton said that he would not comment on the conduct of the officers portrayed in the videos until there had been a complete investigation and he had all of the facts. Bratton could have assuaged the outraged populace by condemning the officers, but he’s a better cop than that. He’ll wait for all the evidence to come in. The rest of America should, too. Uses of force are never going to be pretty. In a perfect world, the police would have Star Trek phasers set to “stun,” which would painlessly drop a malefactor in his tracks so he could be held to account for his behavior in a civilized, humane manner. But, except for a few isolated cases where the occasional bad cop is involved, the cops respond to the level of force offered by the suspect with tactics or tools intended to overcome that level of resistance, and no more. And there’s always the option to just stop when the officer says to stop, and to follow his other directions, which very seldom result in any injury to the arrestee. I’d like to hear the question asked of police “victims” more often: “Why didn’t you just do what the officer said, and make your argument about what you did or didn’t do in court?” It’s so obvious, and it makes so much sense. In this imperfect world, I suppose that’s why we don’t do it. |