Police actions need review
http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20160116/OPINION02/160119643/0/NEWS03
Last month, State Police and a DEA agent used a battering ram to break down the door of a drug suspect in Burlington and then shot him 13 times. We have just learned that a) only one officer involved in the shooting was wearing a body camera which apparently did not capture what happened once police were inside the victim’s apartment, and b) the investigation of the raid and shooting is being led by the Vermont State Police.
What this means, of course, is that we will never know what really happened that day. It is difficult to believe that with all of the technology available to police, there may not even be an accurate video recording of this tragedy. What’s worse, this raid and shooting will be investigated by the same police agency that organized and executed the raid. Does anyone expect that the investigation will be objective, transparent and result in any accountability whatsoever for the officers involved?
This is a perfect illustration of the fallacy of having police agencies investigate the actions of their officers. We can expect that whatever factual review takes place of the Burlington shooting it will be shrouded in secrecy and result in total exoneration for all of the officers involved. This should surprise no one, particularly as the DEA (America’s secret police agency) participated in the raid, which was triggered by allegations of drug dealing.
The tragedy and mystery surrounding this shooting illustrates two key points. First, this is yet another example of our failed drug enforcement policy, which has cost billions of dollars with little public benefit. We need to divert the excessive funding enjoyed by the DEA and the Vermont Drug Task Force toward prevention and rehabilitation instead. Otherwise, we will continue to throw hard-earned tax dollars down the drain without decreasing the quality or volume of drugs in Vermont.
Secondly, we need to establish civilian review boards to investigate — and hold accountable — state and local law enforcement involved when a civilian is killed or where police use excessive or deadly force. We would not tolerate any other government agency investigating itself, so why should police departments be treated any differently?
This is an area where the Legislature must get involved. Civilian review boards in Burlington and Brattleboro work to hold police accountable without interfering with day-to-day law enforcement operations. It is well past time that Vermonters embrace the idea of citizen review boards to ensure accountability and transparency when (at the very least) someone dies or is injured at the hands of police.
Filed under: General Problems
I was raised to see the policeman as a friend. At the time and place that I was born, I suppose that this was true. Not anymore. I see the term “Peace Officer” is no longer used in most cases. The term has been replaced by the more ubiquitous, “Law Enforcement Officer”. It’s a semantic trick that most people are not consciously aware of. The “Police” no are charged with “Keeping the Peace”. No, now they are Enforcers, a Brute Squad if you will. They serve the interests of enforcing the mandates of the State, of the oligarchy that presumes to rule over us. They are the State’s Enforcement Caste and are “more equal” pertaining to the principle of Rights than we, the mere mundanes, are. They are all members of a Punitive Priesthood and are privileged members of society because of the most unholy order to which they belong. So long as we keep silent and allow this, our silence will be construed as consent. So long as we allow ourselves to be divided along lines of race, religion, sexual preference and the like, we will find the enforcer’s boot ever more weightily pressing upon our collective neck.
We outnumber our oppressors by the hundreds to one. At some point, we have to withdraw our consent before it is too late, as the chains will be manifold and everyone of them fixed. The withdrawal of our consent is a rather easy process in principle. We simply and collectively have to simply say, ‘NO!” I’m not advocating violence as a first measure, but rather as attributed to several figures who lived the 19th century, I hold the way to deal with this as the options still remain are, “First by the soapbox, and failing that, then by the ballot box, then by the jury box and failing all the previous, then and only then by the cartridge box.” If we wait too long, the last option shall be the only and I desire that no more blood be split, as can be avoided, by acting sooner rather than later.
I understand that there are supposed to be official ways to deal with a faulty law enforcement system, but first the judicial and legislative system would need to agree that they are at fault. Laws need to be enforced against the enforcers and their mistakes need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Punishments for an officer of the law should be more extreme because they are the people who know the laws that they are breaking in the first place. The grand jury system should not be allowed in cases of cops shooting suspects, or even cops shooting innocent bystanders. These crazy cops need to realize that they are in the US not Iraq.
So obviously if a person is just suspected of being a drug dealer the police have the right to use deadly force. Why don’t we just publicly burn the constitution on the White House lawn? Every day we all see posts or news reports of citizens or suspects rights being violated and it’s really getting old. Our law enforcement agencies are getting away with murder, theft, extortion and many other crimes that anyone one of us would be imprisoned for. The worst part of all this is that the judicial system is helping them. I am just wondering at what time in recent history did our legal rights change from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent?