Meanwhile, sit tight, baby; A Note On the Death of Shantel Davis
Earlier, I posted a few rants which gathered a few public and private comments. It was suggested that "assumptions are incorrect", and that we should wait for all of the facts before "jumping to conclusions" in the death of Shantel Davis. In some circumstances, I would agree with this approach. However, I don't believe in absolutes, though, paradoxically, I take a hard line when it comes to police violence. I never claimed it wasn't complicated. So, began to write a response which grew and grew into the following:
It would be more correct to say that assumptions are not facts, and this is true. However, the facts, as they were, can never be disclosed in an honest, logical manner for two reasons; in cases like these, facts are inherently subjective. Also, one of the people who could have given one accounting of facts is dead, after being shot in the chest at more than point blank range.
I find it interesting that we're asked to wait until we have all of the facts. With regards to police killings, the desire to wait for all of the facts indicates a contradiction, a double standard, that has yet to be acknowledged or reconciled with. We're asked to apply an "innocent until proven guilty" rationale to this particular situation, and with respect to the cop who shot Shantel Davis. Yet, this woman, while possibly guilty of multiple traffic infractions, did not have a chance to prove herself innocent of anything. More to the point, she was killed - not just stripped of her freedom, stripped of her life! - before she could possibly defend herself in the public discourse or, in a court of law. We're asked to afford the officer who killed her the benefit of the doubt, when clearly, he did not offer the same benefit to this woman. Nor did the plain clothes officers who began to pursue her in the beginning. We're asked to put emotions aside and let cooler heads prevail, while many of us can not even conceive of a cooler head while staring at the evidence of our imminent deaths, literally piling up before us, at the hands of the police.
To review the information laid out in the newspapers to date, I see that this case is very similar to that of Kenneth Harding. Kenneth Harding, a young black man, was riding the public transportation system in San Francisco California. Police boarded the train and asked to see everyone's proof of payment. Allegedly, Harding did not have this, and jumped off of the stopped train and ran away. The cost of a ticket for failing to pay the MUNI (SF's public transportation system) can range from 200 to 400 dollars per infraction. At the time, the officers who boarded the train knew nothing about Harding except that he was a black man and he was running away. The officers decided to pursue Harding, and eventually shot and killed him as he ran away (that means they shot him in the back). He was then left to die on the sidewalk in front of numerous witnesses, with no one allowed to help him.
Because Harding was dead, and therefore could not speak for himself, the press and the police moved swiftly to indict him reminding us, again and again that he was wanted in Washington for questioning related to a murder, that he had been convicted of a crime before. The police department then constructed a number of mind-bending stories as to how Harding died and why they fired at him. They claimed that they had found the gun he had used (which turned out not to be the case); they claimed that he turned and shot at them as he ran (a near impossibility); they claimed that he shot himself, and that is how he died)...
In the unfolding case of Shantel Davis, this woman appeared to be breaking a few minor laws which lead plain-clothes detectives pursuing her (apparently, her erratic driving caught their attention). After a baffling pursuit, Davis wrecked the car and apparently still tried to get away. It is unclear whether the cops ever identified themselves, if they had a warrant for her arrest, if they called an ambulance once the car she was driving hit the minivan, or if they tried any other means to disable the vehicle. What is abundantly clear is that Davis was shot at beyond point-blank range once in the chest, then ordered out of the car where she fell face down on the street and bled to death. She was officially pronounced at the hospital.
Upon her death, the police, using the time-honored tradition of trying the victim in the media, whipped out her rap-sheet and made sure that we all knew what she had been suspected of, what she was going to court for and that she matched the description of a suspect in a carjacking days before. We're asked to suspend our disbelief and assume that the police had all of this information, which is why they had to act the way that they did.
This is a useful technique for the police and the media, for it implicates the victim quickly in past and future crimes. It appeals to the public's vigilance. A rhetorical and emotional question is asked of us; Who wouldn't want to get rid of a person who poses a threat? Beware of being on the wrong side of this answer. We're asked to simply trust that the police did society a solid. "They saved us hella money on trial and jailing, and now we know that some people just do what has to be done. They're protecting us." But, who protects the victims?
In both of these cases, and countless others, no attempt was made to either de-escalate the situation or to locate other means to bring thiem into custody (if that was even warranted). Shoot first and ask questions later; Kill 'em all and let gawd sort 'em out, that's the message here. While perseverating about the death of Shantel Davis, (and yes, making assumptions), and in reviewing the paltry reports from the mainstream media, I note that a number of critical questions were and are never asked:
Why was this woman (reportedly) driving erratically?
What attempts were made to get her to slow down or stop?
Which section of the penal code were the cops, who were pursuing her, enforcing?Did the cops begin pursuing her before or after they'd learned of her arrest history?Did the cops begin pursuing her before or after they'd learned of the earlier carjacking?
What kind of information does a cop get about a suspect?
Is it strictly jacket/sheet info (police generated statistics), or does it contain personal histories?
Are the police trained to uncover an antecedent before reacting to a situation, or making a conclusion?
If not, then how exactly do they draw conclusions about who is safe, who is not?What are the methods of pursuit?
Is there a point when cops should stop and pursue other leads or avenues?
Is it a requirement for cops to stop everything they're doing to pursue somebody during a non-emergency?
How is an emergency defined?Who defines an emergency?
At the point of contact with a suspect, who's life is more important; that of the person who, according to the constitution (anywayzzz) is assumed innocent until proven guilty, and thus, a citizen worthy of protection (by the police), or is the police officer's life more important?
What was going on with the cops involved in the shooting?
Had they ever fired their weapon before?
How much sleep did they get?
Do they eat regularly?
DO they communicate with their family or friends about the job?
What do their family members think of them?
What kind of grades did they get in school?
What kind of relationships did they have with current or former partners?
DO they have unregistered weapons?
Did they ever smoke marijuana?
Was the cop who shot her in danger of death?
If so, how did he calculate this danger?
How did he know?
In the history of car chases, how many suspects end up dead?
Are there studies available to the public which break down race, gender and class of the alleged suspect?
What is the process for investigating these incidents, particularly the ones that end in death?
How was/is the family notified?
Does the police department keep in contact with the families for reasons other than to collect evidence and statements?
What do we do with all of the information?
I opened Pagan Spain recently and the first line to catch my attention was this, "How did one live after the death of the hope for freedom?"
So I wonder, can we reconcile with the constant contradictions that attempt to cement us into a place of doubt and submission? When are facts useful? When are assumptions warranted? Why are we constantly asked to trust the cops?
Most importantly, when will they stop shooting Black People?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303734204577468891002847530.html
