Police Brutality

Some cops who commit the offense do not get caught and feel untouchable which leads them to brag to other officers and friends. The criminal act is never told or publicized because no one will speak out, not even other officers who have witness the acts. They refuse to speak out or they just cannot speak out because they are afraid. According to recent statistics 99% of cop brutality cases that go uninvestigated. You would think that the 1% that does get investigated would receive good news, but that is not true. On the other hand, when they do get caught it resolves them to say something similar to this, “I felt threatened, I felt afraid, the victim struggled with me, and he reached for my gun.” This is the same old story from officers who

shot unarmed people. This is where technology continues to play an important factor because if there were no video, people would surly believe these officer. Technology has been part of the solution, but it still has room to be improved.
This can be seen in the situation in South Africa and even in the United States. First, starting with South Africa, I found an article titled, “South African Police Jailed for Murder of Taxi Driver Mido Macia,” on BBC News. In the article it illustrates how justice was finally served after two years. Within it, the judge had sentenced eight former South African policemen to 15 years in prison for the murder of a Mozambican taxi driver. In February 2013 police pulled over 27-year-old Mr. Macia after he allegedly parked a, vehicle illegally in Daveyton, east of Johannesburg. Following a struggle, they overpowered the driver before handcuffing him to the back of a vehicle. He was later assaulted in his cell and died from head injuries and internal bleeding where he was found in a pool of blood in police custody. The video, apparently recorded by a bystander on a mobile phone, shows a large crowd watching as uniformed policemen tied him to the van, dragging him as they drove away. Public anger grew after the footage was broadcast on television. South Africa's police watchdog - the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) - is examining the video as part of its investigation. The police force was already under intense scrutiny after officers shot dead 34 striking miners last August. Its credibility was also dented when it emerged that the lead detective in the murder case against athlete Oscar Pistorius was himself facing accusations of attempted murder in an unrelated case. The police service said it would give its full support to the IPID. Here you can see the important the camera played a part since most of the evidence was recorded. (BBC News)
Another instance that shows how important cameras or technology are as a whole is incident in Chicago. On October 20, 2014, Officer Jason Van Dyke responded to a call about a teenager breaking into cars and stealing radios. When getting to the scene the officer shot 17-year-old Laquan McDonald, whom authorities say is armed with a knife, 16 times, killing him. In 2015, Chicago City Council voted to pay a $5 million settlement to McDonald's family, who did not sue the city. It did not end there because a freelance journalist files a Freedom of Information Act request for squad car dashcam video of the shooting. After the city denies the request, citing an ongoing investigation, he files a lawsuit. The Cook County judge therefore, ordered Chicago officials to release the video on or before November 25, 2015. On November 24, 2015 the Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez announces she is charging Van Dyke with first-degree murder. Hours later, Chicago police release the video, sparking several days of protests. Lately, this cases has been an up rise in Chicago because in the video it clearly illustrates that the officer did not need to shop the young man so many times. Here again the importance of video is displayed.
Moreover, having growingly issue like this leads people like the Amnesty to say what they say.

For instance I found a statement that was said in this article, “Amnesty: U.S. Doesn't Meet International Standards for Deadly Police Force.” It talks about an issue that the Amnesty International USA has presented about the United States and the District of Columbia, based on how the United States has not yet met the international standards for the use of lethal force by law enforcement officers. According to Steven Hawkins, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA he states, "Police have a fundamental obligation to protect human life”…"Deadly force must be reserved as a method of absolute last resort. The fact that absolutely no state laws conform to this standard is deeply disturbing and raises serious human rights concerns."(Alcindor)In this statement it address how police officers are not respecting the right of citizens and/or human rights. In life, there are no two situations alike and neither are there two officers. In a potentially threatening situation, an officer will quickly tailor a response and apply force, if necessary. Situational awareness is essential and officers are trained to judge when a crisis requires the use of force to regain control of a situation. In most cases, time becomes the key variable in determining when an officer chooses to use force and what amount of force. As seen recently, officers tend to gradually use more unnecessary force and then try to justify it later. When you look at the situation, there is no justification and that is what Steven Hawkins is saying. Throughout the article, Hawkins argues that states across the country must change and create laws dealing with lethal force. His group believes state laws are too broad and that state legislatures and Congress should introduce or amend statutes that authorize the use of lethal force. He later states, “The use of lethal force by law enforcement officers raises serious

human rights concerns, including in regard to the right to life, the right to security of the person, the right to freedom from discrimination and the right to equal protection of the law”. (Alcindor)When Hawkins says, “lethal force,” (Alcindor) he does not just mean gun violence. He is also referring to take down methods. In previous cases like Eric Garner it has presented a national desire for retraining methods for police officers and that is what Hawkins is arguing for because there seems to be lack of effort in improving officers’ techniques. Therefore, it is seen that Hawkins is a fighter for the victims and/or citizens of United States.
In trying to support the United States I looked up numerously, what laws protect the citizen from these brutal attacks since it is a nationally treat proposed in all states from New York to California. I found this law on Policebrutality.com, “When an individual government official, or other person acting under color of law, violates one's civil rights, such a violation may give rise to civil liability, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This statute allows a person to sue that individual -- and perhaps his government-employer in certain circumstances -- for money damages. Additionally, if successful on a civil rights claims, the law allows recovery of attorney's fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.” (Bode & Grenier 1) In the statement above it shows that the nation does have some law against police brutality, but there are still police officers who disregard the law. There is no law against the officers for punishing them for civil rights violations, in my opinion. They tend to get off too easily by either retiring, resigning, fired with no pension, but still you do not hear of many officers going to jail. As citizens, we do not get to brush our crimes under the mat. Should those (officers), who uphold and serve the law be treated differently?
Another focus is how police unions are becoming more like teachers unions. For instance, how some teachers cannot be fired since they are in the union the same is happening with officers. They kill some and get a slap on the risk and are back out on the job. Again with teachers, if they are fired the union can and will sue which will result in the school paying a large suit to the unions then to the family who were harmed by the teacher. When you think about the police within their department it is the same issue because they are a part of these powerful unions. Unions are seen as helpful and yet harming the case for officers they are seen as good and for the people that are suing these officers bad because at the end the officer still wins. According to the New York Times “Police officers not only need to maintain the respect and good will of citizens to do their job effectively, they also depend on that good will in political battles over salary, pensions and benefits, in which they have been far more successful than other public employees in recent years. So, many officers and officials say, it is essential to put out an effective message and not just a reactive one.”(Baker 1) This means at the end of the day they are not just worried about the people they protect but are worried about their means of living. This is not wrong until they are harming the people they are supposed to protect.
Also, the New York Times states that “Unions face inherent contradictions in trying to put a kinder face on broad injustices in American policing”, said Robert J. McGuire, a lawyer who served as New York City’s police commissioner in the 1970s and ’80s. Their obligation to defend accused officers “kind of chills their ability to speak more broadly on the social stuff, on police-community relations,” he said. “You are asking the union leadership to be almost schizophrenic… Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, an independent organization in Washington, said the initial silence by police unions over the South Carolina shooting could also be chalked up to simple shock. But union voices, he predicted, will be heard, if only because the killing plays so powerfully into a notion the police are desperate to refute. You will hear it,” he said. “Because the image of a police officer shooting an unarmed black man and appearing to alter the crime scene fulfills the conspiracy theorists’ worst nightmare, which is that this is what cops do when there’s no camera around.” (Baker 2) Within the police department unions play a big part and can even overtake the commissioner of the department. That is not good. These unions have too much power and that should be stopped.