Gary Fullerton, an attorney, and retired Los Angeles Police officer, has some good advice that, unfortunately, is destined to fall on deaf ears.
DON’T PREJUDGE POLICE OFFICERS’ ACTIONS
By Gary Fullerton
Los Angeles Daily News
October 16, 2011
I am continually surprised by the way the news media and the public seem to take joy in criticizing the actions of police officers before it is known exactly what happened in a controversial incident. It seems they think it is possible that law enforcement can be accomplished with no injuries, or no hurt feelings, if officers could just understand the people they come into contact with each day. If only this was possible.
I'm sure the vast majority of officers wished it were so as well. But the fact is that officers come into contact every day with individuals who are feared and loathed by society and who couldn't care less if the officers - or, in some cases, they themselves - live or die.
The fatal confrontation between the Fullerton Police Department and Kelly Thomas in July is a good example of critics condemning the officers (and everyone else involved in the process) before virtually any of the facts are known. As the father of a schizophrenic son myself, I can appreciate the fact that Kelly Thomas was mentally ill and had little or no control of himself at the time of the incident. I know firsthand that when severely mentally ill individuals fail to take their medication, bad things can happen.
Of course, the police should be fully trained in understanding mental illness and the manner in which sufferers can best be handled. But once a severely mentally ill person suffers a psychotic break, he is out of control and almost impossible to handle without the use of force.
I have no personal knowledge of the specific facts of the Thomas case. But I do know that what the public knows of the incident is insufficient to make a judgment.
If the facts prove that the officers used excessive force, they should pay the appropriate price. But if the facts prove that the officers only did what they had to do to overcome the resistance of a severely mentally ill person in extreme rage, then they only did what they had to do to defend themselves. My experience has taught me to not rush to judgment in evaluating a situation until the facts are known. And I suspect that there is much about this incident that few actually know.
The Rodney King incident is another case that garnered worldwide press coverage resulting in a public perception that the officers were guilty even before it went to trial. Even after a jury found that they were innocent, nothing could change the public perception that the officers were guilty. To appease this public perception of guilt, the federal government had to step in and press forward with another criminal trial that resulted in only two of the officers being convicted. Amazing to me, during this federal trial it was determined that the vast majority of baton strikes by the officers (primarily Larry Powell) were lawful. It was only the final few blows that were found to be excessive.
Few know that years before this incident, the use of upper body control holds (chokeholds) were outlawed by the Los Angeles Police Department. The L.A. City Council was warned that without the use of upper body control holds there surely were going to be ugly incidents in which violent suspects were beaten severely by baton strikes because officers had no other practical resources available to control them.
I know personally from my years on the streets of L.A., the upper body control hold was the most effective tool in an officer's arsenal to control violent suspects. In virtually all instances, the control hold was applied and the suspect was taken into custody without injury to anyone. When the control hold was banned, officers had to rely on other tools, such as batons, Tasers, beanbag shotguns and brute force. Reliance on these other tools was not a good thing for the suspects involved. But apparently it was the politically correct thing to do.
Some police critics believe that city councils and police oversight commissions must devise clearer and more stringent policies for the use of lethal force. But these critics may not know that all such policies are based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions, especially the 1989 case of Graham v. Conner.
This ruling stated, "A court must inquire into whether the officers' actions are `objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances known to them at the time. The `reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation."
Because of the multitude of circumstances that may arise, to attempt to produce "clear and concise" policies to better control such situations is mere folly.
There is no doubt that police officers should be trained in the very best way possible. They should understand mental illness and ways to deal with it. Officers should have the very best control devices to deal with the criminals and crazed of society. Officers should be trained to use empathy and understanding in dealing with everyone with whom they come into contact. But not everyone in the world responds to empathy and reason.
Officers have to face reality every day, and that reality is that there are people out there who are either unwilling or unable to control themselves and are a danger to everyone else. The next time you read a story about an officer who is accused of excessive force or misconduct, please remember that you know little or nothing about what really happened. Insist on a complete investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment