Kids Corner

Current Events

America Cannot Breathe:
Not Until The Police Are Held Accountable

JASBIR KAUR BAWA

 

 

 

Last week I was dismayed, but sadly not all that shocked, to hear that a grand jury on Staten Island in New York City, USA, announced that they would not deliver an indictment of Officer Daniel Pantaleo for the killing of Eric Garner, an unarmed man suspected only of selling loose cigarettes.

When Mr. Garner was choked to death -- [in a choke-hold which is expressly against the policy demarcated for NY police-officers] -- on July 17, 2014, it was caught on video in broad daylight. We saw a struggle. We saw Officer Pantaleo choke him. We heard his final words, "I can't breathe."

The medical examiner ruled the death a homicide -- yet last week, a grand jury indicated that it did not find sufficient reason to indict.

While the case of Eric Garner's killing without a doubt reflects on the need for improved law enforcement practices, it also calls into question our legal system, and demonstrates the need for reforms throughout the entire legal process.

When a grand jury considers whether to indict a suspect, they are held to a standard of "probable cause," which is the same standard to which an officer is held when making an arrest. This is far lower than the "reasonable doubt" standard that must be met to secure a conviction at trial, and is generally considered a relatively low standard -- particularly when looking at the nature of many arrests.

Yet, just like the grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, the grand jurors in Staten Island again returned a decision of no indictment.

Another black man is dead, and the man who killed him will not be held accountable.

Why is this continuing to happen? Is it a reflection of the close relationship between district attorneys' offices and local police, and thus a conflict of interest when the DA is asked to prosecute an officer?

Is it a reflection of a legal framework which is unduly deferential to the actions of police?

Or is it a reflection of a general, pervasive racism in society?

Is it an illustration that America believes black lives do not actually matter?

We need to take a long, hard look at our criminal justice system and implement reforms necessary to ensure that it truly is just.

Reforms must be multi-layered and comprehensive. The Howard University School of Law community recommends that every Mayor and City Council establish an independent police accountability review board made up of diverse people of all ages, race, gender, sexual preference, education levels and expertise who are willing to work together to monitor the relationships between people of color and law enforcement officers.

Appointing independent prosecutors when police are suspected of a crime is also another way.

Another would be passage of the End Racial Profiling Act at the national level, and prohibiting the criminalization of entire groups of people based entirely on their race, religion, gender identity, or national origin.

But we also need our government and our courts to take into account race, rather than ignoring it, when viewing laws and policies that impact our communities differently, in order to ensure that "equal protection under the law" is not just a platitude, but a practice.

As a Sikh-American, as a mother, as a person of color, as a member of Howard Law School's community, and simply as a human being, I am horrified and dismayed by recent events -- by the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and so many others. Last week's grand jury announcement sent the message that our justice system does not value all lives equally. If we are a country truly governed by the rule of law, this law must be applied and enforced fairly and justly.

Let these miscarriages of justice bring forth an era of change, and not just an era of hope.

 

The author is Assistant Professor at The Howard University School of Law, Washington, DC, USA.

[Courtesy: Huffington Post. Edited for sikhchic.com]

December 8, 2014

 

Conversation about this article

1: Bant Singh (New York City, USA), December 08, 2014, 6:30 PM.

Jasbir Kaur ji: Thank you for this article. There have been intense and emotional debates over the past few weeks in my house and I'm sure in other households across America over the tragic shooting death of men of color by our law enforcement officers. I would appreciate your or other contributors' legal expertise in this matter. 1) I've heard the expression "You can indict a ham sandwich many times." Meaning, it's really easy to indict someone. Yet in case after case such as the Eric Garner one, we see this is not possible. Why? Is it the prosecutor's fault or machination for not providing enough evidence to the grand jury? Or overwhelming a bunch of civilians with too much evidence and making them do the detective work? Or not providing the grand jury the appropriate charge to consider? 2) I've also heard that the prosecutors don't push for a grand jury if they feel the case is too difficult to prove at trial? If true, how is that justice, when the forum where a person's guilt or innocence is decided (i.e., during trial) is not even available to one of the parties? In my opinion it's not up to the prosecutor to decided what case is or is not presented to the grand jury. 3) There have been instances where the grand jury refused to indict a person but the latter was charged under the federal law and sent to prison. This is mind-boggling if true where for the same crime the person is not even tried on the one hand and on the other he can be found guilty and sent to prison. 4) What is the role of a special prosecutor? And when is a special prosecutor activated? To my Sikh-American brothers and sisters, I say this from experience: if you have an opportunity to serve on a jury or a grand jury, please don't opt out. I was fortunate enough to have been selected on a jury for a civil trial and it was an experience I will never forget.

2: Beant Singh (Chicago, Illinois, USA), December 08, 2014, 11:11 PM.

If Mr. Garner had not resisted arrest, the officers would not have had to use force to subdue him. There is absolutely no evidence that suggests that this incident was racially motivated. The senior officer on the scene was a black female. Her name is Sergeant Kizzy Adoni. Moreover, the jury selection process is very scrutinous. Both the prosecution and the defense interview potential jurors before they are approved. Two days after the death of Mike Brown, a 20 year old white man named Dillon Taylor was shot and killed by police in Salt Lake City, Utah. Mr. Taylor was unarmed and was walking away from the officer when he was shot. The officer was not indicted. However, there was hardly any media coverage of this incident because it's not a juicy story. It doesn't have the racial undertones of the Mike Brown case or the Eric Garner case.

3: Gurinder Singh (Stockton, California, USA), December 09, 2014, 8:07 AM.

There is a saying that one should not meddle with the police. Eric should not have resisted arrest. This case seems to be at the very least of police high-handedness.

4: Lucky Singh (Brampton, Ontario, Canada), December 10, 2014, 6:05 AM.

When sitting in the safety of your homes, it's quite easy to judge a police officer's actions. You have all the time in the world to pick at what was done right or what was done wrong. The man was resisting arrest and his body failed him. A choke shouldn't cause an individual to die. Individuals need to realize to not resist arrest, because police officers have to use more force in order affect that arrest. If he just complied he would be alive today. I do feel for his family; may he rest in peace.

Comment on "America Cannot Breathe:
Not Until The Police Are Held Accountable"









To help us distinguish between comments submitted by individuals and those automatically entered by software robots, please complete the following.

Please note: your email address will not be shown on the site, this is for contact and follow-up purposes only. All information will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Policy. Sikhchic reserves the right to edit or remove content at any time.