The major issue is the lack of a mechanism
to charge police with the crime of abuse.
Efforts to paint the problems in Ferguson or New York as race seem to me to be besides the point. Like occupying forces in Iraq/Afghanistan, the American police have a legal system that protects them. Our judicial system is obviously not up to the task of trying cops who commit crimes against citizens. Lawyers are all too happy to protect cops in a system where the courts and prosecutors are not set up to try cops.
The problem is not limited to issues that raise the spectre of race. I recently read about an attorney in Boston who got Richard Schneiderhan, a state cop, off after the cop was recorded passing information that protected Wh
itey Bulger, the notorious Mafioso whose activities included infiltration of the police and even the FBVI. I have no doubt that Schneiderhan‘s attorney would say he was just doing his job.
itey Bulger, the notorious Mafioso whose activities included infiltration of the police and even the FBVI. I have no doubt that Schneiderhan‘s attorney would say he was just doing his job. “Just doing my job” was the defense used by the Nazis. The Nuremberg Court found that the Nazi defense was wrong because these well meaning Germans were serving a broken system. The Boston lawyer, being would argue that he was just following in the tradition of John Adams who, under the British system of law, defended British soldiers accused of carrying out what would come to be known as the Boston Massacre. Adams was acting out of principle. I am not convinced that is true of the lawyers acting for Officer Wilson in Ferguson, Officer Pantaleo in New York, or Schneiderhan in Boston.
Officer Pantaleo’s career may be a good example. Twice he has been charged with serious offenses. One was for performing a strip search in public and the other was for false arrest. These cases, however, were civil cases. Someone, presumably the individuals involved, paid attorneys to brings the case while, again presumably, Officer Pantaleo was denuded by attorneys from his union. The American system, at least when it comes to police abuse, is broken and needs to be replaced.
I have my own relevant experience. Some months ago I was falsely arrested by an officer in charge of three men in police uniforms. These men refused to identify themselves or the agency that they represented. They also refused to allow me to use my cell phone to call the Seattle police, informing me that they, not the Seattle police , had authority over this office building in downtown Seattle.
It turns out that these men were part of a secret American police agency formed after 9/11. Unlike the Seattle police, this federal agency has no mechanism for filing a complaint. Neither the General Services Manager for the building, the US Marshal’s office, the Seattle Police or my Congressman could find out who these “police” were.
Eventually I discovered that they were a TSA agency used to protect public buildings. I spent several thousand dollars on a high profile lawyer but all she could do was get the federal court to dismiss the charges against me. Anne Bremner was able to do that because the “crime scene” had a public videotape machine. The videotape showed me being very reasonable and refuted the “police” charges that I had been disruptive.
When I asked about the crime of false arrest, I was told that no prosecutor would take such a case.
Obviously, I did not die from my encounter with this secret police group. Nonetheless, the group still exists. Its website proudly list its duties .. none of which includes protecting the US Constitution or any citizen’s rights. It is headed by a former head of security for the US Army, he too has no publically available email.
So, I have two simple suggestions.
1. Under his waning authority as President, Mr. Obama could create an office responsible for complaints against police abuse. This office would enforce federal laws and bring suits against individual police or police agencies that violate our constitutional rights.
2. Pressure should be put on lawyers who misuse the law to protect cops. A simple way to do this is to create a website that list their names.
Lawyers have an ethical duty to represent their clients. In the case of someone charged with wrongdoing, including cops, this means getting their client off if possible. Lawyers who do that are just doing their job. The real fault is not with lawyers who defend bad cops but police agencies who fail to properly hire, train, supervise, and discipline their officers. The breakdown has occurred in the part of the system that’s responsible for correcting behavioral failures. There are no consequences for anyone in the system. If police misbehavior results in a lawsuit and legal judgment, taxpayers or an insurance company get stuck with the bill. No one goes to jail, no one gets fired or demoted, so there’s no reason for anyone to change their behavior. The author of this article is right, it’s not fundamentally a race problem (although many police departments, including those in St. Louis and New York, do have race problems), it’s a systemic problem. And there seems to be no avenue by which ordinary citizens can have any influence on this problem. That’s why people are taking to the streets and demonstrating; they have no other recourse.
Roger
I think you are “coping out.” The mantra that it is the system and not its participants is all too easy.
Lawyer “ethics” is a form of newspeak. When you say “ethics” you do not mean what others mean an abstract standard. To lawyers. “ethics” refers to a written set of rules, laws written and policed by the legal profession .
A good comparison might be to the laws of the church. The Roman Catholic Church has church law. That church law regulates the behavior of observant Catholics. Would you argue that church law is “ethical?”
I have no doubt that the attorney mentioned in my piece considered his behavior “ethical”, in the sense that you used the term. The attorney knew he could not loose his license.
However, I strongly suspect that officer Schneiderhan never considered his own behavior ethical.
Put another way this attorney helped a bad cop undermine the law. The attorney had a choice. He could have refused the case.
Even serial killers are entitled to attorneys, and should have attorneys, so the system functions properly. Refusing to represent a client just because he’s guilty is a cop-out. Attorneys don’t just defend their clients. They also get their clients to cooperate with the legal system and accept the results.