One of the most important stories of 2001 that received little year end reflection is the finding of a New York Police Department panel that officers Kenneth Boss, Sean Carroll, Richard Murphy and Edward McMellon acted with in reason when they shot Amadou Diallo and are not at fault for his death. A two year internal investigation laid most of the blame on poor tactics that led to the officers putting themselves in the position to fear for their lives and kill the unarmed African immigrant. The New York Post quotes a source familiar with the findings as saying, “Everyone believes, in the minds of the officers, that once they thought Mr. Diallo pulled a gun, that it was reasonable for them to think they were going to be fired upon or were being fired upon once the shooting started.”
The finding only added fuel to the fire. The outrage over the killing and the indignation of those who support the police officers continues today. The debate usually regresses to emotional arguments about crime, police brutality, safety and racism. More balanced discussions center on whether or not the police acted reasonably. Government supporters claim that the circumstances of Diallo’s death are reasonable and acceptable. They say that government representatives must be able to do their jobs; the representatives thought they were in danger and made a tragic, but reasonable and acceptable mistake. Diallo’s champions counter saying they understand that employees must have flexibility to do their jobs, but Amadou was not armed nor were the employee’s lives in danger, and the forty one shots and nineteen hits add aggravation to an already suspect incident. The counter is that the government reps reacted to the threat of lethal danger in accordance with their training and they really thought that they were in danger. Diallo’s advocates counter with a repeat of their original statement. The two sides find themselves reiterating their positions because the idea of what is reasonable changes from moment to moment and person to person. There must be a measurable standard and not vague ideas.
Is there a proper perspective to see the ramifications of Mr. Amadou Diallo’s death? Can we set aside the concept of race and properly understand who must be held accountable for the tragedy? The answer is to look at Amadou’s death through the critical lens of human rights and the idea of a liberal democracy.
First we must forget the social status, education level, skin color, sex, or any other distinguishing characteristics of Mr. Diallo and replace his name with citizen. This paper defines citizen as any person living on the planet earth. It must also be understood that it is the right of a citizen that all governing bodies recognize his or her human rights. Secondly we must define the rights to which all people are entitled. Third we must remember who pulled the triggers.
Before I go further I would like to explain that I used the terms government employees and representatives to emphasis who direct police. Law enforcement is an arm of the government, and in fact be it a soldier or a police officer, sheriff or ranger they are the only members of society sanctioned to use lethal violence at their personal discretion, albeit with strict guidelines. It is crucial this point be remembered when examining government’s and police’s relationship to citizenry. From here forward I will use traditional terms to refer to law enforcement officers.
In the United States the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and Bill of Rights embody the rights of citizens. These documents outline the supremacy of the people and the individual over government. In an attempt to ensure liberty and justice for all, our founding political ancestors based the creation of our republic on the assumption that power corrupts and governments need restraining to ensure the liberty of those governed. When penning the declaration of independence Thomas Jefferson stated the people’s relationship to government,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Or more plainly stated by President Lincoln, “of the people, for the people, by the people.” The right of the people to abolish it, and or institute new Government is the ultimate restraint. This right subjugates government to the people, and not the people to government. Here is where we see the first hint of constitutional restraint on the government taking the life of a citizen.
Of course the before mentioned words are from the Declaration of Independence not the constitution. But the Constitution and Bill of Rights go on to clearly control the power of the state to take the life of a citizen. The founding political ancestors developed restraints on the actions of government by instituting separation of powers. Each branch: judicial, legislative, and executive have specific responsibilities limiting their power to those areas, while at the same time each branch has the ability to oversee, and restrain the actions of the other branches. This system of responsibilities, checks and balances are outlined in fine detail in the Constitution of the United States. This is an attempt by the framers to ensure the orderly execution of the will of the people by government. The Bill of Rights attempts to ensure the government does not trespass the human rights of individual citizens while executing the will of the people. This was of utmost importance to the political founding mothers and fathers. The colonist did not fight the Revolutionary War because they believed the English government to be intolerable and evil. The colonial leadership loved mother England and wanted to remain loyal subjects. The tyranny of King George and the inflexibility of the British Parliament forced the colonist to succession. Thus when writing the constitution many states demanded written government recognition of specific freedoms. The Bill of Rights reflects the desire of the citizen’s in the New Republic to be free from the whims of government and the tyranny of the majority.
The fifth amendment of the constitution explicitly addresses the taking of a citizen’s life.
Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The amendment clearly states that the standard for when the government can reasonably take the life of an innocent citizen is never. Instead current discussions should center on the question of what are the appropriate actions to take to find responsibility for the citizen’s death and what can be done to ensure a similar incident does not happen again? This is not to say that the police officers should be denied their right to due process when suspected of abusing their power or engaging in criminal activity. Law enforcement officer’s rights must be vigorously protected just like any other citizen. However the state must never be given the benefit of the doubt. The state must always be held under suspicion. As I stated before, our government was founded on the assumption that power corrupts and governments need restraining to ensure the liberty of those governed. This principal must be stringently applied when the government takes the life of a citizen. While saying this, it must be understood that responsibility may not always fall on those who committed the act. Responsibility could fall on inadequate or faulty training, irresponsible leadership, bad tactics or standard operating procedures. There may or may not be criminal responsibility, but someone must be held accountable because the government took an innocent citizen’s life. The citizen cannot be held as responsible. The reason we have the protections outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to safeguard citizens from government abuse. If the government is allowed to use the broad standard of mistaken circumstances as a reason to take innocent citizen’s lives, how will we be able to distinguish between mistake and abuse? The government must always be held responsible for its actions mistaken or intentional. This is the only way to guard against abuse. The right to life is the most basic right, for without life there is nothing else. The taking of a citizen’s life is the ultimate act government can commit against a citizen. If we allow government to deprive an innocent citizen of their life where does it end? If it is acceptable to kill one innocent person is it acceptable to kill two or three? How about ten?
Lastly, the government’s power and law enforcement’s authority flow directly from the people as in you and I. If we must be on guard against those to which we have given the authority to use violence to protect us, then we might as well retain the full authority or retain some right to use violence against police to protect ourselves from them if the occasion arises. If citizens cannot rely on the government to keep them safe and take ultimate responsibility when mistakes arise, confidence in the government is lost.
Chaos will justly reign.
Citizens have the right to demand redress as outlined in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights if he or she believes the state is not working in their best interest. Obviously the government can either ignore or acquiesce to citizen’s demands. If the government continues to act in ways damaging to the citizen the citizen has no recourse but to act. The action to be taken is determined by the citizen’s conscious. The range of issues and appropriate action vary, but none is more important than safeguarding one’s life and the life of those we love. When a government demonstrates valuing the lives of one group of citizens more than another group the government creates mortal enemies and puts the states existence in jeopardy. Once the oppressed citizen has exhausted all legal remedies to the infringement of his or her
unalienable rights and the wrongs continue, the state has forfeited its moral authority to demand adherence to its laws by the oppressed person. The state must either change policy or having no morale argument will rely on coercion and violence to maintain order and respect. This is the principle behind civil disobedience. Some people disobey non-violently, while others choose violence.
Thus far the consequence of Diallo’s death is that the officers must undergo retraining before regaining their guns and shields. The elected official to whom the police were accountable at the time of the shooting is now an international hero. This is not a remedy to insure citizen safety. The government has shirked its responsibility. The people must act. What is the next step?
