Citizens Can Slash Cop Killings By Undermining The Blue Wall

WASHINGTON - Aug. 31, 2016 - PRLog -- A recent decision by the Chicago Police Department showing how unlawful killings by police can be cut by undermining what has been called the "blue wall" of police silence, and a simple legal proceeding in Washington DC many years ago illustrating how citizens can play a major role, can point the way towards reducing police-citizen tensions and riots, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who helped reform how DC's police department deals with domestic violence.

        When Laquan McDonald was fatally shot in Chicago by Officer Jason Van Dyke, more than half a dozen fellow officers on the scene at the time swore that McDonald was advancing towards Van Dyke with a knife; a claim which, if true, would probably justify the shooting.

        But now that a videotape clearly shows the McDonald was walking away from Van Dyke at the time of the shooting, and that the officers were therefore lying, Chicago Police Supt. Eddie Johnson is seeking to fire seven of them for allegedly lying in their accounts of what happened during the fatal shooting.

        This could be groundbreaking, says Banzhaf, because police officers have a very strong incentive to cover up the wrongdoing of fellow officers which they happen to witness in order to avoid the ostracism, and very strong disapproval of their fellow officers for being a "rat."

        This practice is so well known that it has been given its own name: the "blue wall of silence."

        This strong disapproval can, in some cases, be so serious that the officer's life is actually put in danger, as was dramatized in the fact-based movie "Serpico."

        On the other hand, the officers witnessing even a felonious killing usually have little reason not to lie, because perjury by police is only very rarely prosecuted, even when videotapes or other irrefutable evidence shows beyond any reasonable doubt that they were lying.  Indeed, police committing perjury for a wide variety of purposes is so prevalent that it also has its own name: testilying.

        If Johnson is successful in firing the officers who lied, and if the precedent is carried forward, it will for the first time provide a very strong incentive for cops to stop lying about unlawful killings, beatings, and other serious wrongdoings by their fellow officers, thereby reducing these most egregious forms of police misconduct which have recently triggered riots in many major cities.

        If officers even consider unlawfully killing a suspect, they will know that other officers on the scene - and in many of the most controversial police shootings, there were other officers present - will be risking their own careers and pensions if they try to aid in the cover up by fabricating stories to change cold blooded murder into a righteous ["legally justified'] shooting.

        Citizens concerned about wrongful police shootings can try taking several steps to insure that this kind of policy is in effect and actually followed in their own cities, says Banzhaf.  For one thing, they can press their city government to enact an ordinance requiring such disciplinary actions.

        Also, to avoid the all-too-natural tendency of police departments investigating their own to fail to conduct an investigation which is truly vigorous, or even to join in the cover up, the ordinance could provide for the automatic appointment of a special prosecutor - not beholden to the police - to conduct the investigation, and/or provide for the payment of attorney's fees if a private lawyer hired on behalf of a victim uncovers lying by fellow officers as part of an unlawful coverup.

        Alternatively, before the next election, voters can seek pledges from mayoral candidates to adopt and very strictly enforce such a policy, says Banzhaf.

        Still another option would be for citizen groups to do what Banzhaf's law students did successfully many years ago.  At that time, in the District as well as elsewhere, police arriving at the scene of domestic violence would usually not make an arrest, even if the same evidence (e.g., blood, bruising, etc.) would warrant an immediate arrest if the altercation had occurred on a street corner, in a bar, etc.

        But, to change that policy, the law students filed a legal petition - technically called a "petition for rulemaking" - with the police department.

        The students asked the Department to adopt a rule requiring officers to make an arrest at the scene of apparent domestic violence if there is probable cause, applying the same standards as if the altercation were between two strangers and had occurred outside a residence rather than inside it.  They cited evidence that this new policy would result in a lower rate of recidivism.

        They said the new practice would therefore reduce domestic abuse not only by reducing the number of repeat incidents, but also by discouraging other bullies from physically abusing their significant others, and then counting on the police not to arrest them.  Faced with the threat of arrest, even if the victim did not complain, perpetrators would be less likely to commit abuse, the students successfully argued.

        Even if there is no formal rulemaking procedure in place, police departments have an inherent power to adopt their own rules and policies.  Therefore, citizen groups and even concerned citizens  - just like Banzhaf's law students - can petition their police departments to adopt new policies and procedures; in this case, firing officers found to have lied to cover up crimes by a fellow officer.

http://banzhaf.net/  @profbanzhaf