“What about our lives? Who protects us from the people who are supposed to protect us?”
The question is from Tonya Jameson, a black kid who was held at gunpoint by an off-duty cop when he was changing a license plate on a car that he’d bought from the cop’s mother in law.
And he asks a very legitimate question: why should we, the citizens, have to de-escalate our police?
Jameson expresses polite disagreement with the police chief, who explained to him why the officer’s actions were, inevitably, found to be perfectly lawful:
Chief Rausch said that when investigating complaints, it is essential to understand an officer’s mindset to determine the facts. A mindset is not a fact.
Here are the facts that Janish appeared to focus on – the unmarked cab, a black person, the duffel bag and the license plate.
Then here are other facts that he ignored – he knew his mother-in-law was selling the car, it was broad daylight, and I knew her first name, but not her last name. I offered to show him the keys, registration and bill of sale signed by his mother-in-law.
Those are the actual facts. Officer Janish’s mindset was the scenario he created in his head. His fears weren’t facts.
The law cuts a very wide swathe of tolerance for cops’ “mindsets”. Technically, so does all “use of force” law.
But part of cops’ “Mindsets” these days is constant exposure to the idea that violent death awaits around every corner; that every stop could be their last; that their first, last or next contact with the public could end up like this:
Sobering – and dangerous.
If we’re to the point that we The People need to deal with cops more carefully than we do criminals, we’ve got a big problem, here.
When I moved to Minnesota, I actually ended up changing my plates right in front of the last bank Jesse James robbed in Northfield. A helpful older lady noted that usually one changes one’s plates away from the crime scene. :^)
It seems that the legal system is really asking civilians to de-escalate adrenaline-fueled cops. We must remain calm while facing a loaded gun while the trained officers can panic and overreact.
Boom.
Coppers are taught lots of things; offensive driving techniques; combat handgun shooting; tactical lying and intimidation; command presence; observation and evidence gathering.
They are trained to “Protect” themselves and “Preserve” evidence to be used in prosecuting a criminal case against you. Cops are praised for aggressive policing; getting an award from the Lions Club for compassionate service doesn’t get them up the ladder.
We need cops to keep stupid criminals in line so they don’t overrun us (make no mistake, they are of little use against intelligent, well organized crooks). And to deal with stupid, often armed criminals, there needs to be a component of fearlessness and courage in cops. But we do not need the pseudo-merc’s that are being deployed these days.
I always thought that cops were not only supposed to serve and protect, but to uphold the law, not be above it.
Mitch – from the second link, it sounds like the car buyer wasn’t a young man, but a 45 year old woman. Which makes me wonder even more why the officer in question felt he had to draw his weapon.
Had the son in law been anyone else (we won’t even get into him living across the street from the in laws), they would have called the police, the in law, or walked over with no weapon out to ask what was going on. If there was no reasonable threat to the officer, I would think a civil suit would be in order.
But part of cops’ “Mindsets” these days is constant exposure to the idea that violent death awaits around every corner; that every stop could be their last; that their first, last or next contact with the public could end up like this:
And as a result, we all now have to assume the same thing with every encounter we have with the police.