“Police State, 2016” — Revisited a Year Later

It’s hard being ignored —especially when you’re a writer, ESPECIALLY when you’re a writer with the gift of prophecy.

As a writer, I realize not everyone is going to read what I write. After struggling to get my work published or posted, I know I must face the indignity of “not being read.” But that’s OK. That’s life. That’s just another occupational hazard that comes with the writing life.

So I do understand that there will always be some people who will completely ignore my writing.

But now things are different. Now I’m really scratching my head.

Last year I wrote something that SHOULD have been read. Yeah, it really was that good. It was so incisive, so right-on, so in keeping with the Zeitgeist that I’m genuinely aghast that it generated so little interest. It should have, though. Someone should have actually read it. I know that didn’t happen because if only a few people had actually read it, things in this country might have changed…if only a little…

(Sigh) If you’ve gotten this far, faithful reader, I can only thank you for your current interest. But I want my words to to inspire you to start taking the appropriate and necessary action NOW. What am I talking about? Two words: Philando Castile.

Last year I wrote “Police State, 2016: ScaliaMania Lives!” and posted it on June 25, 2016 in The Richfield Patch. The accompanying blurb read “Forget every episode of ‘Law& Order’ you’ve ever seen. The Supreme Court just did a major rewrite.” Then I discussed the latest court ruling of Utah V. Streif and how it would undermine our already fragile civil liberties of search and seizure. More importantly, at the end of my blog I elaborated on today’s neighborhood police states.

What’s so chilling and eerily prophetic about it? The timeline. It was posted 12 days BEFORE Philando Castile was shot by police officer Jeronimo Yanez on July 6, 2016. That’s also 355 days BEFORE a jury found this officer NOT GULITY. Surprised? You shouldn’t be, dear reader. Reread the closing excerpt from June 25, 2016:

“…But now, ‘reasonable suspicion’ is nonexistent. With most police officers, there’s only suspicion — backed up and even justified by the courts.

Just look at the deteriorating state of community v. police relations in our country today. It’s worse than it’s ever been. Any time a cop shoots and kills an unarmed, innocent citizen, the cop almost always gets away with murder. In fact, the fatal shooting is never even called murder. It’s called “protecting and serving in the line of duty.” Or a “bad shooting.” Only very rarely does a police officer ever face a court trial with a guilty verdict. Why?

Because of the way the the law is written, that’s why. Because police work is so dangerous and so unpredictably lethal, the courts have traditionally given law enforcement the benefit of the doubt — and our laws have reflected that relentless trust and halo effect given to police officers.

Anytime an unarmed, innocent citizen gets shot and killed by police, law enforcement uses the same old phrases from the NOT GUILTY COP playbook. All the cops have to do is come up with the usual, legally approved phrases, and the juries will always find them innocent:

I thought he had a gun.
The suspect was reaching for my gun.
I feared for my life.

Remember, the laws operate on the tacit assumption that EVERY police officer is always good and just and only trying to protect and serve the public. If any attorney wants to argue that a cop isn’t a good guy, well, there’s got to be malice involved. And good luck in trying to prove that to any jury — it’s almost impossible to do at trial.

Let’s look at it from another angle, though. Suppose there’s something in my back pocket. Might be any number of things. Could be my wallet, car keys, or cough drops. Could even be an iPhone, tube of Chapstick, or roll of Lifesavers. But if a cop decided I was carrying a gun, he could legally shoot me down in cold blood and never serve any jail time — thanks to the way the law is written.

So the most effective way to hold law enforcement more accountable for shooting innocent people is to change the law. Stop automatically giving abusive, trigger-happy, stressed-out, incompetent bullies with badges the benefit of the doubt. Start holding them to a higher standard by actually changing the law.

But now, thanks to this current Supreme Court ruling, a Police State that our forefathers would have dreaded has gotten empowerment instead of admonishment.”

What’s even more troubling, though, is how so many citizens like me ALSO have this gift of prophecy when it comes to cop shootings. We may not be professional psychics, but we sure know what’s going to happen. Forget about any hung jury in the case against Castile’s shooter. We just KNEW Yanez would take the witness stand, start crying he “feared for his life,” then get that NOT GUILTY verdict. We just KNEW. It’s been happening so often across America these days that it’s starting to feel like a production of “Groundhog Day” from hell.

Oddly enough, “USA Today” echoed similar sentiments then shrugged them off in a column from Tuesday, May 16, 2017. The headline read “KNOW YOUR RIGHTS WITH THE LAW — Obey officers’ commands but decline requests. Officers blur that distinction.” Huh? Well, it started out making sense, anyway:

“Most people don’t know how to handle themselves during a police encounter. They know they have constitutional rights, but they also know that they can get into trouble by disobeying an officer. Not knowing where the lines are drawn, the vast majority of people capitulate to whatever the police want.
Some officers get so accustomed to such behavior that they react angrily when someone has the temerity to invoke his rights.”

After examples were given to show how easily police can bully citizens and get away with it, this observation was made:

“Such incidents expose a serious flaw in our legal system. On the streets, the police have all the power and we’re at their mercy.”

How futile resistance and protest are when it comes to holding police accountable for their misconduct!

“…asserting rights is no guarantee against arrest. Some officers make false arrests and conduct illegal searches.”

“Individuals…may file civil lawsuits when there are physical injuries or serious property damage. But government lawyers typically settle such lawsuits with money from the treasury, and officers involved rarely face discipline or other adverse consequences.”

So what are citizens to do?

“Just because law enforcement have us at a serious disadvantage does not mean we should let them walk all over us. The wise course to take during police encounters is to obey commands, but also politely and calmly decline requests.”

Gee, that sounds a lot what civilians are already doing — before police officers shoot them. But remember, the article declares the choice is ours:

“If it isn’t an order, the choice is ours. If you give the police permission to search your home without a warrant, that’s your prerogative. If you decline to give your permission, that’s your prerogative also. Our Constitution is incapable of enforcing itself. It is just words on paper unless we calmly but firmly assert our rights. Use them or lose them.”

Confused? So were other USA readers. Their comments appeared on Thursday, May 18, 2017, under the heading “Even if you know your rights, police don’t care.” That says it all, doesn’t it?

And yet, America’s newspaper still had to uphold the sanctity and absolute authority of our nation’s police. Never mind that there are bad cops along with the good cops. Never mind that for every hero in the squad there are at least two Dirty Harrys and three Barney Fifes. The heroic imagine of law enforcement, however, must live on in our collective consciousness — even though Castile’s shooting was decidedly UNheroic. Remember, news organizations that print, post, and broadcast these stories still rely heavily on various local law enforcement agencies and their reps for information — biased and incomplete though it might be. So, of course, USA Today had to publish pro-cop comments that scolded citizens for not taking enough personal responsibility:

“Citizens need to understand their rights more fully. They also need to understand the limits of their rights. There are times when an officer, acting merely on reasonable suspicion, can lawfully order you to exit your vehicle and can perform a pat-down search for weapons.
Citizens also need to understand that whereas an officer has a duty to inform you of the reason for his contact with you, he has no obligation to stop what he’s doing and discuss his reasonable suspicion with you. The side of the road is not the place to argue such things.”

Whoa. Obligation to stop what he’s doing and discuss his reasonable suspicion with you? The side of the road is not the place to argue such things? Wait a minute.

No one’s demanding oral dissertations from the police. No one really wants to argue with any police officer, whether it’s on the side of the road or by a public venue. No one’s advocating any disrespect for law enforcement officials, either. But every time citizens get stopped or detained by the police, problems arise when they exercise their civil rights and start asking reasonable questions. You know, questions like:

“Officer, am I being arrested?”
“Why am I being arrested?”
“What’s happening? Why are you putting me in handcuffs?”

Because we live a democracy, we believe we have the right to ask such questions and get some answers. A lot of cops don’t — therein lies the big problem.

Until we can all get together and agree on appropriate protocol when it comes to interactions between citizens and police in our democracy, problems will continue. Citizens will become confused, cops will keep shooting and tasering them. And law enforcement will continue to have the upper hand by bullying citizens and intimidating them. Definitely not what our forefathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

In order for real change to take place, both sides need to stop their EITHER/OR thinking. There aren’t just good guys in white hats and bad guys in black hats, there are shades of gray in everyone. When citizens and those who are supposed to protect and serve them can get to that point of recognition, change can begin.

Then we can all come together and actually make sensible and legal decisions. Representatives from the law enforcement community, ACLU, state and local government agencies, state legislators, community organizations like NAACP, AIM, etc. should meet to discuss these problems. Once they identify them, they can come up with viable solutions.

We have to come together. And I don’t mean “come together” as code for everyone has to go along with what the police want and let them keep doing what they’ve been doing. I’m talking about seeking real change and actually changing the way things are done.

Oh, and thanks for reading.