海角大神

At Stephon Clark funeral, a familiar story amplifies drumbeat for change

Mourners attending Stephon Clark's funeral on Thursday had little time to grieve the loss of the young father of two. The hundreds of demonstrators drawn to the California capital spent much of the past week reigniting calls to end what they say is systemic racism in law enforcement.

It鈥檚 a news story that鈥檚 grown uncomfortably familiar in the past four years: A young black man, apprehended by police, flees a scene. The officers give chase and, thinking he has a weapon, fatally shoot the suspect. No weapon is found. The community rises up in protest, demanding justice.

This time, the community in question is Sacramento and the young black man is Stephon Clark, a father of two who was shot eight times by police on March 18, according to an autopsy released Friday.听His funeral the day before drew hundreds of demonstrators to the California capital. The gathering capped more than a week of traffic-stalling rallies. Activists reignited calls to end what they say is systemic racism among law enforcement and to punish officers involved in the deaths of unarmed civilians 鈥� too many of whom happen to be black and brown men.

鈥淵ou鈥檙e killing us. It鈥檚 genocide, it feels like genocide,鈥� Tanya Faison, head of Black Lives Matter Sacramento, reportedly said Tuesday听听at Sacramento City Hall. 鈥淭hose officers need to be fired. That鈥檚 the only way we鈥檙e going to get justice.鈥�

But taking police officers to task 鈥� especially for the use of excessive or deadly force 鈥� is a tough ask at best. Studies show that law enforcement agents听 for a shooting. And few of those who do end up with a conviction or prison time. Administrative actions are almost as hard to pursue. State, local, and department policies听erect a series of barriers that, according to legal scholars, make it difficult to discipline, much less fire, an officer for misconduct that stems from use of force. Changing those policies is further complicated by the fact that the decisions are often tied to collective bargaining agreements.

By themselves, such laws and policies make sense. Cops have a demanding, dangerous job and they need to know that they鈥檙e not at risk of losing their livelihood or going to jail every time they do something expected of them, like using force, in the line of duty.

Legal analysts point out, however, that these policies don鈥檛 operate in a vacuum. Race and class tensions have coexisted with policing in America since at least the 19th century, a reality that has resulted in deep mistrust between law enforcement and minority communities. Events like Mr. Clark鈥檚 death exacerbate the situation.听Laws and policies that seem to shield cops from accountability further heighten that mistrust, critics say, especially since police possess the greater share of power and authority in most interactions with civilians.

鈥淒o these laws protect good cops who found themselves in an unfortunate situation? Yes. But they also protect bad actors,鈥� says Kami Chavis, a law professor and director of the criminal justice program at the Wake Forest University School of Law in Winston-Salem, N.C. 鈥淲e have to balance some of those protections against protections of citizens who are at the mercy of these officers.鈥�

Finding accountability

There are two main ways that law enforcement agents can be held accountable after an incident involving use of force results in a civilian death or injury.

One is legal: A municipal, state, or federal agency, or some combination of the three, can investigate the officer鈥檚 actions under a number of statutes that regulate police conduct. Those statutes present a slew of challenges, including vague definitions of what reasonable use of force looks like, and standards that require prosecutors to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an officer used force with the specific intent of violating the victim鈥檚 constitutional rights.

Complicating matters is the fact that cops, in the course of their duties, are allowed to do things that otherwise would be considered crimes,听says Seth Stoughton, a former police officer and now assistant professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law in Columbia.听They can drive around with illegal drugs to take into evidence, violate traffic laws during a pursuit, or use force in interactions with resistant civilians. That makes it difficult to identify whether or not the officer committed an infraction at all, he says.

鈥淎n officer may use exactly the same amount of force and have it be legal in one incident and illegal in another,鈥� Professor Stoughton says. 鈥淪o we have these additional protections to avoid punishing them for doing their job the way we want them to do it.鈥�

In the end, few investigations amount to much. One study, which looked at听听against cops between April 2009 and December 2010, found that 33 percent were convicted. Of those, only 36 percent ended up in prison. And that鈥檚 when allegations against an officer even made it to court. More often 鈥� as in the cases of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in New York, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, and,听, Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge 鈥� no charges are filed against the cops involved.

The other method of holding officers accountable is procedural: Administrators have the right, duty, and ability to investigate and sanction officers who violate department policy. But here, too, there鈥檚 a high bar for proving inappropriate use of force. In about a dozen states, including California, a Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights codifies that standard and often bars the public from learning whether or not an implicated officer has a history of bad behavior. It also outlines a method of appeal against disciplinary actions.

So even when a cop is fired for misconduct, it doesn鈥檛 always stick. A Washington Post investigation found that since 2006, 1,881 officers in the nation鈥檚 largest police departments were terminated for actions that betrayed the public trust.听听after lawyers were hired to review the process.

Securing rights or providing cover?

Advocates for law enforcement say these protections are well within police officers鈥� rights. It鈥檚 not supposed to be easy for law enforcement officers to lose their jobs because they acted in accordance with training, says James Touchstone, legal counsel for the Sacramento-based California Peace Officers Association. He disputes the notion that having a bill of rights prevents meaningful oversight and accountability.

鈥淚s there always room for improvement? Yes. California law enforcement is听always striving to improve daily,鈥� Mr. Touchstone says. But he adds that police officers, like everyone else, 鈥渁re entitled to appropriately defend themselves when they face allegations of wrongdoing. An accusation doesn鈥檛 make it true.鈥�

Critics argue, however, that these policies need to be reexamined in a way that accounts for the dynamics of race and class, and by extension, power, that exist in interactions between law enforcement and the communities they serve. Legal mechanisms that shield officers from liability, while justifiable on their own, shift a significant burden of risk and uncertainty to the communities most often surveilled by police 鈥� which happen to be disproportionately high-crime, high-poverty, and majority-minority, Stoughton says.

鈥淭here鈥檚 a real imbalance there,鈥� Wake Forest鈥檚 Professor Chavis adds.

These laws thus reinforce mistrust already inherent in the police-community relationship. Among cops, having so many barriers to liability bolsters what military veteran and senior National Review writer David French calls a 鈥渟ense of risk听听to the actual threat.鈥�

鈥淚t鈥檚 often said that cops have mere seconds to make life-and-death decisions, and that鈥檚 exactly right,鈥� Mr. French writes. 鈥淏ut do you know who else has mere seconds? The suspect. A suspect who is far more likely to be frightened, confused, disturbed, or drunk than he is to be committed to killing cops.鈥�

To minority, and especially black, communities, the laws embody a system that treats their lives as expendable 鈥� or at least less valuable. 鈥淓very male person of color cannot be a suspect. You can鈥檛 shoot on sight. And unfortunately ... we鈥檙e developing a rule that it鈥檚 OK to shoot certain people on sight,鈥� Chavis says. 鈥淭hese laws provide cover [for that].鈥�

Yet experts also contend that addressing the issue requires something other than stripping law enforcement of protections, or increasing the number of criminal prosecutions against officers. Going after a single officer in a particular case 鈥� whether it鈥檚 Michael Brown or Stephon Clark 鈥� could speak to a community鈥檚 broader sense of justice, they say. But it doesn鈥檛 deal with the daily interactions between police and the public that create hostility. It doesn鈥檛 force police, political leaders, or the public to consider hard questions about what law enforcement鈥檚 mission is and how they should go about accomplishing it. And it doesn鈥檛, they add, challenge the structures that allow for all this to take place.

鈥淧eople respond to the culture and systems they鈥檙e operating in,鈥� says Judy Lubin, head of the Washington-based Center for Urban and Racial Equity and co-founder of Sociologists for Justice. 鈥淭he legal structure needs to be challenged ... with transparency and accountability and openness to the public in mind.鈥�