What’s to be done

BY ED FELIEN

Hundreds of people gathered at the J.J. Hill Montessori School Thursday, July 7, to honor the life and protest the death of Philando Castile.  He worked in the cafeteria at the school and was loved and missed by staff and students. He was in a car that was stopped in Falcon Heights for a faulty taillight. He was told to identify himself; he was reaching for his billfold; the arresting officer shot him four times and killed him.
If Philando Castile were white, would the police have shot and killed him as he was reaching for his billfold?  Probably not. White police are not afraid of white citizens.  They believe their job is to protect the interests of white people from the threat of black people and Latinos.  Mexicans? “They’re rapists,” says Donald Trump.
At the rally at the school, St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman said, “This is not acceptable.  We need to stand together as a community and bring justice to this community. We will not stand for a three-month or six-month investigation. Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Governor Dayton said earlier, “I can’t say how shocked I am and deeply, deeply offended that this would happen to somebody in Minnesota. No one should be shot in Minnesota for a taillight being out of function. No one should be killed in Minnesota while seated in their car.”
President Obama said he was deeply troubled by the shooting. These shootings “are symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year, and the resulting lack of trust that exists between law enforcement and too many of the communities they serve.”
His Task Force on 21st Century Policing says, “Decades of research and practice support the premise that people are more likely to obey the law when they believe that those who are enforcing it have the legitimate authority to tell them what to do. But the public confers legitimacy only on those they believe are acting in procedurally just ways. Procedurally just behavior is based on four central principles: 1. Treating people with dignity and respect; 2. Giving individuals “voice” during encounters; 3. Being neutral and transparent in decision making; 4. Conveying trustworthy motives.”
The police did not treat Philando Castile or Jamar Clark or Terrance Franklin “with dignity and respect.”  They did not give them “voice” during their encounter.  They were not neutral in their decision making.  They did not “convey trustworthy motives.”
There are three things that must be done immediately to stop this war on young black men:
First, all police departments must have serious diversity training.  Police officers must come to understand that people of color are part of the community they are sworn to protect.
Second, police departments must stop training officers according to the academically bankrupt theories of police work by Lewinsky at Mankato University.  His theories have been sufficiently debunked by the New York Times and the Department of Justice.  He conditions officers to shoot first (especially if the suspect fits a racial and cultural profile different from white and middle class and is, therefore, threatening).
Third, police investigators must stop treating their buddies in blue different from other homicide suspects.  If a civilian shoots and kills someone they are immediately questioned.  They are certainly entitled to a lawyer, but they are kept in police custody until they have given a statement.  Police involved in a homicide are allowed 48 hours to get their stories straight.  They get to talk to their buddies and figure out the best story to tell.  These collaborations lead to fantastical stories that are completely unbelievable, as in the Terrance Franklin homicide.
In a letter to Peter Wagenius, senior policy aide to Mayor Hodges, I asked about the MPD policy of allowing police officers involved in a homicide 48 hours to make a statement.
Greta Bergstrom, communications director for the city, responded: Appreciate your reaching out regarding the a perceived “48-rule” and/or why the MPD has a policy of allowing police officers involved in a homicide 48 hours to make a statement.  There is no “48-hour rule.”  There are, however, provisions in the collective bargaining agreement relating to “critical incidents” and how statements are to be handled.
EF: May I then conclude that since there is no 48-hour rule, this special treatment of the officers involved in the homicides of Jamar Clark and Terrance Franklin (an exception to the regular procedures for interrogating homicide suspects and an exception to the “Equal protection under the law” provision of the Constitution) was done solely at the discretion of the Chief?
GB: The Department followed the collective bargaining agreement and the MPD policy and procedure manual. The Department did not provide special treatment or apply any exceptions.
EF:  I am assuming that the operative clause in the contract between the Federation and the city that governs the timing of the report is: “each involved officer shall complete a police report as soon as practical, but in all instances, prior to the expiration of administrative leave, unless relieved of the obligation to do so by the ranking investigator, the Chief or his/her designee.” It seems by this wording that the Chief is the ultimate authority for the practice of allowing officers 48 hours to make a report.
GB:  There exists no “48-hour rule.” Chief Harteau makes decisions on administrative leave.
So, it seems we may conclude, there is no written policy of granting to police officers 48 hours before they are required to make a statement after killing someone, it’s just the continued practice of the Chief.
There is a fourth thing that could be done immediately, if the mayor and City Council had the will to do it.  If there is a violation of anyone’s civil rights in the City of Minneapolis, the Civil Rights Commission has the power to investigate, subpoena witnesses and award damages.  Whether a city department or a private business, everyone in Minneapolis is subject to the Minneapolis Civil Rights Ordinance.  No one is above the law, except the Minneapolis Police.  The Police Federation lobbied a weak City Council to get them exempted from the ordinance.  They are above the law.  If there is to be equity, if there is to be justice, then this must change.
The Trump candidacy has inflamed and strengthened racist elements in our police departments and justified the right-wing militias that would love to “restore order” and “Make America Great [White] Again.”
Those of us who believe in a pluralistic society must demand serious social rehabilitation of our police.
The Falcon Heights police officer will claim he believed Philando Castile was reaching for a gun, but former Minneapolis Police Chief Tony Bouza said, in talking about the Jamar Clark killing, “The law requires that officers can only use deadly force when deadly force is being used against them or someone in the area is using deadly force.”  The test is not whether the officer thought Castile was reaching for a gun, but whether in fact Castile was about to use a gun against the officer.
Ochen Kaylan, in a letter to the Star Tribune on July 8, disagrees.  The Minnesota statute that covers the use of deadly force by police says deadly force is justified “only when necessary to protect the peace officer from apparent death or great bodily harm.”  Kaylan says,  “The statute does not require that the police officer’s assessment of the danger be reasonable, or even rational.  It only requires that the officer claim that he, himself, believed he was in danger … There is no check or balance for reasonableness in Minnesota Statute 609.066. And until it’s changed to hold police officers accountable for killing people based on unreasonable or irrational fear, we will continue to see these police killings of black men go unchecked.”
Please ask your legislators to change this law that allows police officers to kill black men because they are afraid of them.
Beyonce’, on her website, said in reaction to the killing:  “We all have the power to channel our anger and frustration into action. We must use our voices to contact the politicians and legislators in our districts and demand social and judicial changes.”