For the second time in two weeks, a grand jury failed to serve an indictment against police officers involved in the death of an unarmed African-American man. On July 17, 2014, Eric Garner, a 43 year old African-American male who had been previously arrested and charged with selling untaxed cigarettes among other charges, was approached by a plain-clothes New York police officer in front of a private business in Garner's neighborhood on Staten Island, New York City. On being approached, Garner became hostile, swatting at the arms of officers attempting to subdue him and demanding that they leave him alone. One officer, Daniel Pantaleo, got behind Garner and attempted to subdue him by applying a chokehold around Garner's neck. Together with the other officers on scene, Pantaleo managed to force Garner onto the ground, face down, enabling other officers to force his arms behind his back to apply handcuffs, while Garner pleaded to the officers that he could not breath. Garner's asphyxiation at the hands of Pantaleo, aggravating an underlying asthmatic respiratory condition and heart problems complicated by obesity, induced cardiac arrest, leading to Garner's death. The entire incident, moreover, was video taped and the video was publicized online (see "(Full) Black Man KILLED After NYPD Cop Puts Him in a CHOKEHOLD For Breaking Up a FIGHT," at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ka4oKu1jo).
One issue appears critical in regard to this incident: the New York Police Department has apparently maintained a policy since 1993 banning the use of chokeholds by officers attempting to subdue suspects resisting arrest. Under the particular circumstances of the incidents, it seems likely that Officer Pantaleo evaluated the situation, including the physical size of Mr. Garner, at 6'3'' and 350 lbs., and concluded that some measure to incapacitate Mr. Garner would be required if he was going to be apprehended without bringing physical harm to either his fellow officers or Garner. On its face, it seems improbable that Pantaleo was attempting to create a set of circumstances in which Garner might suffer cardiac arrest. On the other hand, whether or not Pantaleo's intentions were innocuous, the fact remains that he employed a incapacitation technique that was prohibited by the New York Police Department, I presume, for the very reason that its use might lead to precisely the sort of situation in which asphyxiation of a suspect under a chokehold might lead to the suspect's death, as it did here. At the very least, Officer Pantaleo must face departmental reprimand, if not outright dismissal, for grossly violating operating instructions mandated by the New York Police Department and, as a result, contributing to the death of a suspect in his custody.
On the other hand, a violation of departmental operating instructions is not equivalent to a criminal violation, subject to indictment and prosecution. If, to some extent, police officers deserve some greater deference against criminal prosecution for their actions if their actions lead to the involuntary death of a suspect, then the grand jury should have attached some significance on the fact that the use of a chokehold violated departmental procedures intended to protect the lives of unarmed suspects subdued by officers. It would seem that the grand jury must have concluded that any effort to subdue Mr. Garner would have endangered his life in view of his underlying health conditions, even if Pantaleo and his colleagues had strictly followed departmental procedures. As such, the critical consideration for the grand jury was the fact that Mr. Garner was asthmatic and suffered from various precipitating conditions for heart disease. Had the onus been placed on Officer Pantaleo's use of a prohibited incapacitation technique, then, I presume, it would have been much more likely that he would have been indicted for involuntary manslaughter, against which New York prosecutors would have been compelled to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Office Pantaleo inadvertently and negligently created circumstances in which Mr. Garner's life would have been placed in danger.
Again, however, the larger issue here, as in the case of Michael Brown's death in Ferguson, Missouri, concerns the particular methodologies used by law enforcement authorities in interacting with minority communities. A broader reconsideration of the organization and operations of police forces, as they relate to African-American, Hispanic, and other communities is needed here. That is to say, if, at a facial level, grand juries in St. Louis and New York City made the right calls in adjudicating the circumstances involved in the deaths of two African-American suspects, then it reveals the extent to which the larger problem evident in the relationships between majority White police forces and majority Black neighborhood communities transcends individual incidents. It demands revolutionary change that will, first, transform the resources that police forces can utilize to interact with non-White communities in enforcing law and, second, transform the nature of democratic control utilized by local communities over police departments to ensure that the use of police power will continuously support and advance the interests of community as a whole, not to the exclusion of low income or racially defined groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment