I took some
heat from my fellow libertarian friends last week over my post: “What do the facts
and reality have to do with it?” I concluded that the
Ferguson Mo. grand jury correctly determined from all the evidence presented
that there was insufficient probable cause to indict white police officer Darren
Wilson for any crime stemming from the shooting death of black teenager Michael
Brown.
Wilson shot
Brown in self defense. That was the reality of the matter. But there are lots
of folks, including those who looted and burned several buildings and businesses
after the decision, who weren’t interested in the facts and the reality of what
happened and why it happened.
They wanted
Wilson indicted for murder. They wanted him put on trial. And I suspect that
even if he were eventually acquitted at a trial because the case against him surely
could not have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, there would have been
just as much if not more looting and burning from the angry mob.
Now, my
instincts are just like many of my libertarian colleagues. I don’t trust cops. I’m
skeptical of their motives. I think that generally speaking today’s cops too often
tend to use excessive force in the line of duty. Cops are far less likely to
use restraint nowadays. They tend to exhibit an attitude of do violence first
and ask questions later. Some of them think their badge is a license to do unjustified
harm.
But I try
hard to never allow my instincts to override my better judgment when confronted
with the facts and reality of a situation. Reality always rules over emotion.
What is the reality? It’s always a
mistake to draw conclusions from a kneejerk response to an event like the
shooting in Ferguson Mo.
Today I saw
the video
of the NY City police confrontation last July with Eric Garner, a black man who
was resisting arrest for selling loose cigarettes on the street. Police officer
Daniel Pantaleo along with several other cops took Garner down to the sidewalk with
a choke hold. Pantaleo continued choking Garner even after he said he
couldn’t breathe.
In short, Pantaleo
choked Garner to death. The coroner ruled the death a homicide. Choke holds are
specifically designated as against police department policy. Pantaleo testified
that he didn’t intend to kill Garner. A grand jury found no cause to indict Pantaleo
for any crime.
In fairness
to this cop I will accept his testimony as true. He probably didn’t intend to
kill Garner or do him great bodily harm. However, he was clearly using
excessive force to affect the arrest. At a minimum then, this cop should have
been indicted on a charge of negligent homicide, if not involuntary
manslaughter.
This case is
far more compelling on the issue of whether an indictment was proper than the
facts presented in the Ferguson Mo. case. Panatela had no good reason to put
Garner in a continuing choke hold. That is the reality of the matter. But as
far as the NY City grand jury was concerned:
What do the
facts and the reality have to do with it?
"Pantaleo testified that he didn’t intend to kill Garner."
ReplyDeleteThis is the crux of the police problem. The police don't see the consequences of their extremely violent actions as anything they should be held accountable for. They put somebody in a choke hold, they smashed into to somebody's house unannounced, they sprayed somebody with hazardous chemicals or high voltage, etc., etc., etc. They (and you, apparently) think that simply because they're following the orders of some authority that they shouldn't be held personally accountable for their violence.
Intent becomes irrelevant when there is no expectation of accountability.