This is about the Amadou Diallo case, and whether it is fair to describe the cops involved as "trigger happy." I've read that characterization on SI (and elsewhere) a number of times and there is never a demur.
I am not a scholar of the case. If I have the facts wrong, will somebody please tell me in what way?
First, though, i acknowledge that it is probable that in some poor, predominantly black neighborhoods, cops are likely operating under a higher than usual level of stress and experiencing a higher level of fear regarding their own safety, than they generally do in friendlier environs. Taxi drivers feel fear in some neighborhoods, so do firefighters, so do the mothers and fathers of the children who must walk to school on those streets.
I'm assuming, btw, that the characterization 'trigger happy' is intended to imply that the cops who shot poor Diallo have a somewhat positive attitude toward shooting people, or at least are irresponsible, even casual, about gun use, and prone to violation of accepted departmental gun use protocols.
Here is what I understand about what happened.
The cops were called to a particular address where they were expecting to confront a possibly armed and dangerous criminal of a description close to Diallo's. They weren't on a routine patrol, they went there to arrest this specific dangerous person who looked like Diallo.
When the cops arrived, the innocent Diallo happened to be leaving that very building. He was ordered by the cops to freeze, or raise his hands, but he was a recent immigrant to the US, and evidently didn't understand the command. Instead of doing as he was told, and not imagining how such a move might appear to the cops who were aiming their guns at him, he reached into his pocket to take out his wallet. (America is unusual in not requiring its citizens to carry identification papers at all times.)
The cops didn't know this was the innocent Amadou Diallo. They thought he was the person they expected to find there, a person who might well be expected to draw a gun rather than identification papers if he went for something in his jacket pocket. One of the cops, his perception affected, presumably, by this tense, not to mention life-threatening, situation, seeing Amadou draw something long and black from his pocket shouted "he's got a gun," and shot at Diallo.
The other cops, understandably electrified, believed, incorrectly, that a certain scenario (one not farfetched given the circumstances) was unfolding; and in that belief, also shot at Amadou. (These guns spit out bullets very fast-- 41 bullets take mere seconds to be released.)
Amadou Diallo was now lying there with 19 bullets in his body, and all he had done was to be very, very unlucky about where he was at that moment, and not know what to do when a cop points a gun at you and tells you to put up your hands.
These cops all have histories on the force. I looked on the net to see if I had missed, in the papers, any indication that any of those cops had a history of complaints against them for racism, of improper use of weapons, of accusations of brutality. I didn't find anything like that on any of the cops. Does anyone know whether it is the case? Have any of them been accused of racism or brutality, or been 'trigger happy,' in the past?
There was a trial before a jury one third of whom were black citizens. The vote was unanimous for acquittal.
My questions for everyone are these:
Is my account of what happened inaccurate?
Does anyone know something I don't about the documented histories of these cops?
Does anyone think it isn't true that the cops were there for the purpose that was claimed, but were looking for trouble, somehow?
Assuming no one thinks that, does anyone believe that current police protocols should call for actions different than those that these officers took in these circumstances; and if so, how would the protocols be worded to prevent such tragedies in the future without expecting cops to place their own lives at too great a risk?
Does anyone assert that if they had been in that situation they would have intuited that Amadou Diallo wasn't the dangerous individual whom they expected to find there? Or that they would have waited a few seconds longer to be sure the item being taken out of the jacket when orders were disobeyed was a gun rather than some other object? Or that when the officer who shouted that it was a gun did so, that they would have waited long enough to double check his perception, knowing that the situation was so emotionally charged a mistake might be made, especially if the person who didn't follow orders turned out to be, by some chance, a foreigner unfamiliar with our customs?
Does anyone think they wouldn't have been scared to die that day?
Can anyone explain to me why those cops should live the rest of their lives being called 'trigger happy?' |
