No indictment of Linfoot or Stephens, No big surprise; here’s why….

Tommy McClain & puppy
People continue to email us asking “why weren’t Linfoot or Stephens charged in the death of Tommy McClain”?

Here are some clarifying points made buy sociologist Alex S. Vitale* in a recent article. It should be noted that Vitale only speaks about “criminal” prosecutions. The civil court system is currently the only area of justice where officers might be held somewhat accountable.

There are major legal, institutional and social impediments to prosecuting police. Thousands of officers are involved in shootings every year, resulting in about 400 deaths annually. However, successful criminal prosecution of a police officer for killing someone in the line of duty, if no corruption is alleged, is extremely rare. Even when officers are convicted, the charges are often minimal. For example, Coleman Brackney, a Bella Vista, Oklahoma, police officer who was convicted of misdemeanor negligent homicide in 2010 after shooting an unarmed teen to death while in custody in his cruiser, went on to rejoin the police and was recently appointed chief of police in Sulphur Springs, Oklahoma.

Structural barriers

There are significant structural barriers to successful police indictment or prosecution. For one, investigations are usually conducted by a combination of police detectives and investigators from the prosecutors’ office (that’s exactly what Police Chief Andrew Mills cobbled together, instead calling in the state Attorney Generals office). Prosecutors tend to take a greater role when there is a reason to believe that the shooting might not be justified. However, they must rely on the cooperation of the police to gather necessary evidence, including witness statements from the officer involved and other officers at the scene. In some cases they are the only living witnesses to the event.

The close collaboration between police and prosecutors, which is an asset in homicide investigations, becomes a hindrance in police shooting cases. (Locally that would be Wayne Cox former EPD officer) In most cases, the prosecutors’ reliance on the cooperation of police creates a fundamental conflict of interest. As a result, prosecutors are often reluctant to aggressively pursue these cases.

Moreover, the local elected district attorneys often want to avoid being seen as inhibiting police power. Even in communities where distrust of police is common, no prosecutor ever got thrown out of office for defending the police. At its core, the public sees the DA’s office as a defender of law and order and expects these officials to uphold them.(The local DA’s office is still reeling from the bungled over reach of charging Douglas and Zanotti in the Cheri Lynn Moore “execution”.)

The American public and its representatives need to realize that there are better ways to prevent crime and serve the community than licensing excessive police force.

Legal hurdles

There are huge legal hurdles to overcome. State laws that authorize police use of force, which are backed up by Supreme Court precedent, give police significant latitude in using deadly force. In the 1989 case Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court ruled that officers may use force to effect a lawful arrest or if they reasonably believe that the person represents a serious physical threat to the officer or others. This means that police may use force over any resistance to arrest and that if the resistance escalates, officers may escalate their force. The court also said that the totality of circumstances must be judged with an understanding of the split-second nature of police decision-making.

In judging the reasonableness of the officer’s actions, the jury may consider factors such as the alleged perpetrator’s size and previous actions as well as the officer’s training and guidance. All this creates numerous avenues for justifying police action based on the officer’s reasonable understanding of the situation rather than a more objective post hoc assessment.

Juror mindset creates yet another challenge to successful indictments and prosecutions. Grand juries and criminal court juries consist of local residents. Even in periods of heightened concern about police misconduct, most citizens retain a strong bias in favor of police. Popular culture and political discourse are suffused with commentaries about both the central importance of police in maintaining the basic structural integrity of society and the dangerous nature of their work. In addition, the legal standard for judging police misconduct calls on jurors to put themselves in the officers’ shoes, further strengthening the tendency to identify with the police.

Internal administrative accountability is sorely lacking. In “Jammed Up: Bad Cops, Police Misconduct and the New York City Police Department,” Robert Kane and Michael White show that police rarely face internal disciplinary charges for use of force. Recent reports from Philadelphia and Seattle show that even when officers are subject to discipline, the majority of such cases end up being overturned by arbitrators or courts as a result of extensive due process protections for police officers.

Instead, states should create a police prosecutor’s office, or blue desk, that is more removed from local politics. While relying on state attorneys general has its own challenges, the outcomes are likely to be viewed as more legitimate. These blue desks could become repositories of expertise on police prosecutions. Even if tied to state politics, they might be better able to insulate themselves from accusations of overly aggressive prosecutions as well as charges of not supporting the police.

Laws on the use of force need reform. Police shootings were much more common in the 1970s when regulations about the use of force were even looser. In response to public outcries and rioting in the 1960s and ’70s, local police began to tighten up regulations and offer training to officers, resulting in significant reductions in shootings. The 1984 Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Garner institutionalized some of these changes nationally, including making it unlawful for police to shoot a fleeing suspect. Since then, however, the courts have mostly expanded police authorization to use force.

Finally, the U.S. needs to dial back the dramatic expansion of police power over the last 40 years. For example, the growing prevalence of paramilitary SWAT teams and the ongoing war on drugs have significantly contributed to excessive use of force. In part this happened through the combined direct enforcement practices of these two types of policing. But they also contributed indirectly to a larger ethos of militarized patrolling that equates policing with the use of force and a war footing. The public and its representatives need to realize that there are better ways to prevent crime and serve the community than licensing excessive police force.

 

*Alex S. Vitale is an associate professor of sociology at Brooklyn College and author of “City of Disorder: How the Quality of Life Campaign Transformed New York Politics.” He is also a senior policy adviser to the Police Reform Organizing Project and serves on the New York State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “No indictment of Linfoot or Stephens, No big surprise; here’s why….

  1. Just more “DRIVVLE” from your POS rag. Why don’t you try printing something worth a shit to read?

    Like

  2. Only thing missing is that cops typically have hugely expensive attorneys representing them, paid for by union dues. Money can buy our legal system.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. There is no substitute for protest.

    Hopefully, any reforms secured in Ferguson will have some national impact.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Here is the link to the original article.

    http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/11/ferguson-police-misconductdarrenwilsongrandjury.html

    The author makes good points on the structural barriers and thank you for mentioning for uninformed readers like myself who the local players are.

    Graham v. Connor – there was no dissent in this Supreme Court decision – so I don’t think there will be any political force to over turn this anytime soon.

    “most citizens retain a strong bias in favor of police”

    This is quite clear from the tandem choices us progressives where given a couple of weeks ago – to protest outside Sgt. Steven’s calous promotion and the micro housing presentation. One was attended, the other, sadly not.

    “the growing prevalence of paramilitary SWAT teams and the ongoing war on drugs have significantly contributed to excessive use of force.”

    this is something that we can work on locally through our local elected officials it seems.

    I still think, an important first step is for local communities and some umbrella organizations to find a way to help us classify and track national police killings. We should then compare these with international stardards. That’s one way we are going to begin to change minds. imho.

    Because it’s clear, as insecure as we all feel – even the TE staff (I’m thinking of that post on telling the police to focus on victim-based crimes)- people are going to place their trust in the police, meaning those concerned about unjust police force will not have much, if any leverage to demand accountability outside of civil lawsuits. Something that is important for the families involved, but in no way will make the police force more accountable.

    Right now, there is no real accountability and this is wrong.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. There has been much negativity as a result of Ferguson. I literally think it was orchestrated to announce at night to encourage rioting. That became the story. However the family of Michael Brown have been quiet and respectful and have been pushing for a federal solution to insure all officers have cameras. If that happens then that will be a good thing from this tragedy and one that will effect many other investigations and prevent other tragedies. I really wish in the McClain murder there would have been cameras.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Why hasn’t this blog railed against former EPD Sargent Adam Laird????

    Laird? Larry?! You there?!!?!!?

    Like

    • You mean the guy that was hated by the right wing cabal of thug police, because he got promoted by Garr Neilsen, that he was framed and set up by his so called Brutus buddies? You mean the guy who was charged with a crime by an incompetent DA who never had an expert look at the only evidence in the case until a week before trial, and then before you can say EPD killer cops they dismissed the case? You mean the guy who Murl tried to can illegally before Mills got here because the Old Guard didn’t know what he would do? So the guy that didn’t do anything wrong? The guy that in your hateful desire and fervor, you were willing to believe a gang-banger? Yes tell me how much his lawsuit is going to cost the city for his despicable treatment that he suffered under the right wing cabal of racist killer cops.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. For another relevant look at the obvious conflict of interest in the Grand Jury type system and the DA/Police ‘Investigation’ of this shooting, read this article at Daily Kos about the flawed Grand Jury process and how it was so manipulated and distorted in the Michael Brown case.
    The parallels are there plain to see between Ferguson, Mo. and Eureka in the way the two cities/counties handled a police shooting.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/28/1347938/-In-officer-Darren-Wilson-s-defense

    In the comments there is considerable back and forth between lawyers who argue as to the ability to shield the police officer from criminal and maybe civil legal endangerment. Or not.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. no criminal charges because an officer shot in the line of duty. Linnfoot – McElroy
    Harkness-Stephens
    line of duty was to arrest a wanted criminal on a felony warrant.
    This suspect was such a danger. That a well thought out plain was put in to play. but instead they diverted their duty. And and sought out this kid in his own front yard. They must have thought Tommy Mcclain was more dangerous than the wanted felon they were after.

    Like

  9. Or was it cuz they thought Tommy MCcLain with Duncan divine

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s