|
Here are a number of excerpts taken out of a book by the title of
Our Enemies in Blue, written by Kristian Williams. An anarchist, Williams lives in Oregon and was inspired by his local punk
scene to become both politically active as well as aware. The book he wrote contains a great deal of solidly important police
brutality facts that everyone ought to know, especially those who might not always be so "law-abiding". It is not enough simply
hate the police- you must know your enemy.
Let us concentrate on the question of why the state (meaning, the civil
authorities) would let the police claim the means of violence as their own. Police brutality does not just happen; it is allowed
to happen. It is tolerated by the police themselves, those on the street and those in command. It is tolerated by the prosecutors,
who seldom bring charges against violent cops, and by juries, who rarely convict. It is tolerated by the civil authorities,
the mayors, and the city councils, who do not use their influence to challenge police abuses. But why?
The answer
is simple: Police brutality is tolerated because it is what people with power want.
The apparent conflict between
the law and police practices may not be as important as we tend to assume. The two may, at times, be at odds, but this is
of little concern so long as the interests they serve are essentially the same. The police may violate the law, as long as
they do so in the pursuit of ends that people with power generally endorse, and from which such people profit (page 26). This
idea may become clear if we consider police brutality and other illegal tactics in relations to lawful policing: When the
police enforce the law, they do unevenly, in ways that give disproportionate attention to the activities of poor people, people
of color and others near the bottom of the social pyramid. And when the police violate the law, these same people are their
most frequent victims. This is a coincidence too large to overlook. If we put aside, for the moment, all questions of legality,
it must become quite clear that the object of police attention, and the target of police violence, is overwhelmingly the portion
of the population that lacks real power. And this is precisely the point: police activities, legal or illegal, violent or
non-violent, tend to keep people who currently stand at the bottom of the social hierarchy in their place, where they belong-
at the bottom.
Put differently, we might say that the police act to defend the interests and standing of those with
power, those at the top. So long as they serve in this role, they are likely to always be given a free hand in pursuing these
ends and a great deal of leeway in pursuing other ends they identify for themselves. The laws may say otherwise, but law can
be ignored.
In theory police authority is restricted by the state and the federal law, as well as by the policies
of individual departments. In reality, the police often exceed the bounds of their lawful authority, and rarely pay any price
for doing so. The rules are only as good as their enforcement, and they are seldom enforced. The real limits to police power
are established not by the statutes and regulations- since to rule is self-enforcing- but by their leadership and, indirectly,
by the balance of power in society.
So long as the police defend the status quo, so long as their actions promote
the stability of the existing system, their misbehavior is likely to be overlooked. It is when their excesses threaten this
stability that they begin to face meaningful restraints. Laws and policies can be ignored and still provide a cover of plausible
deniability for those in authority. But when misconduct reaches such a level as to prove embarrassing, or as to provoke unrest,
the authorities may have to tighten the reins- for a while. Token prosecutions, minimal reforms, and other half-measures may
give the appearance of change, and may even serve as some check against he worst abuses of authority, but they carefully fail
to affect the underlying causes of brutality. It would be wrong to conclude that the police never change. But it is important
to notice the limits of these changes, to understand the influences that direct them, and to recognize the interests that
they serve. Police brutality is pervasive, systemic, and inherent to the institution. And it's nothing new.
(page 27)
---------------------------------------------------------
POLICE TALK:
Williams also includes a very neat section
about the kind of excuses and lies police will put out there to cover up or justify their deeds. Try watching the news for
those commanders (or whatever title they go by) that speak on podiums to reporters whenever a “big” police
event occurs, especially if it's controversial- I bet you'll hear him use a couple of explanations similar to these:
1.
Denial:
"The professionalism and restraint displayed by the police officers, supervisors, commands on the 'front line'
was nothing short of outstanding"
"America does not have a human-rights problem"
2. Minimization:
"The
injuries were 'of a minor nature'"
"Police use force infrequently"
3. Blame:
"This guy isn't Mr.
Innocent Citizen, either. Not by a long shot"
"They died because they were criminals"
4. Redefinition:
It was "mutual combat"
"Resisting arrest"
"The use of force is necessary to protect yourself:
5.
Unintentionally:
"Officers have no choice but to use deadly force against an assailant who is desperately trying to
kill them"
6. It's over now:
"We're making changes"
"We will change our training; we will do everything
in our power to make sure this never happens again"
7. It's only a few men:
"A small proportion of officers
are disproportionately involved in use-of-force incidents"
"Even if we determine that officers were out of line, it's
an aberration"
8. Counterattack:
"The only thing they understand is physical force and pain"
"People
make complaints to get out of trouble"
9. Competing Victimization:
"The police are in constant danger"
(page 18)
"Liberals are prejudiced against police, as much as many white police are biased against Negroes"
10.
The Hero Defense:
"The police routinely do what the rest of us don't: they risk their lives to keep the peace. For
that selfless bravery, they deserve glory, laud and honor"
"Without the police... anarchy would be rife in this country,
and the civilization now existing on this hemisphere would perish"
"The police create a sense of community that makes
social life possible"
"They alone stand guard at the upstairs door to Hell" (page 19)
|
