I read Peggy O’Hare’s Houston Chronicle story this morning of an unfortunate incident regarding the shooting death of a citizen by a Houston Police Officer. The title, “HPD facing criticism in mentally ill man's death” followed by a secondary line, “Family says the 21-year-old shot by police posed no threat”. (linked via title bar)
I have several questions, some of which should only be asked after the investigation has been completed and presented to the public in a proper forum; however, I feel it important to ask, “If the family claims, as the story has been reported, that he “posed no threat”, then why did they feel it necessary to exit the house to get away from him, why did they call for police to intervene rather than call their family doctor?” Is it possible that “some” threat existed rather than no threat?
Did the family expect the police officers to simply walk away and tell them, “Hey, it’s your son, your hammer; you take it away from him. We see no threat of any kind here either.”, and then get back into their blue and white police cars so they could go to the local donut shop for a snack break?
I find it convenient for local activists, those who have no authority or responsibility to the public, to offer inflammatory remarks which defame an entire police department without having any established facts. “The local activist criticizing the handling of the incident said that families should never call Houston police to help deal with a mentally ill loved one. "If they can't solve something from a distance with their toys, the guns come out," said Arlene Kelly, co-founder of Civilians Down, an activist group for families and friends of people killed by police.”
I have been accused in the past of being in “lockstep” with what ever the police department comes out with to defend their actions. Those who have read my articles over the past couple of years here on my blog site or any of the internal letters, those directed through the chain of command while I was an active member of the Houston Police Department need to wipe away that grin.
I’m a member of the post WWII generation, those infuriating individuals who ask “why” at the drop of a hat; a character trait which did not endear me to my “superior officers”, or more properly stated, those who out ranked my position within the Department, and used up several yellow legal pads worth of paper to explain what appeared to be an insubordinate attitude. In each instance I was called to justify my “opinion”, something which is fine as long as you are in a command position; an opinion which required my justification for articulating any dissatisfaction with the Department on standard operating procedures which appeared either out dated, inefficient or improper. The fact that I survived twenty years with that Department and reached retirement speaks volumes.
For the record, I was suspended only once for insubordination; but that was a lulu, costing me forty days pay. I won’t go into details; suffice to say that they won and I lost, or did they? My supervisors had tried to get me fired for questioning their integrity, “indefinite suspension” was the official term, and that didn’t float in spite of my helping them when I asked several of my supervisors to clime up my …; they wouldn’t all fit so it only cost me forty days. The rest of my folder must have been interesting to read as well, a collection of official documents regarding my confrontations with supervisors and the public in general; it having been handed around on more than one occasion for the amusement of my immediate supervisors, in direct violation of Departmental Rules and Regulations.
I thought it was a bit over the top to show a picture of the victim wearing a tuxedo as if he were headed out to pick up his prom date. I wasn’t there, maybe that’s what he was wearing while holding the hammer, sitting peacefully on the sofa in the middle of the living room while the “Gestapo”, my apologies, the insurgents dressed to look like police officers, armed with machine guns, cannons and atomic weapons stormed the walls; as he posed no threat to anyone and called his prom date to explain the delay.
My questions regarding the presentation in Peggy O’Hare’s article would include the racial identification of the police officers involved in this particular incident; or more importantly, the lack of such reporting. Nothing much was said about any of the police officer’s ethnic backgrounds. The public should be told that the police department maintains more than an even mix of Asian, Black, Hispanic and even Anglo ethnically oriented individuals who are aware of the need to be sensitive to the law and to properly discharge their duties, especially the use of deadly force.
I worked with some officers, brothers in the truest sense, named Chaison before I retired, likely relatives of Rodney D. Chaison Jr., named as the officer who shot the suspect. The Chaison family has supplied Houston with some exemplary Black police officers, officers who showed Christian values and a healthy respect for human rights, to include the right to life itself. I’m quite certain that the Chaison family and those who know them really appreciated Arlene Kelly’s comments, “If they can't solve something from a distance with their toys, the guns come out”.
I wrote about a similar article last week ( link provided below ) when an activist attempting to rally anti SWAT team sentiment published photographs and above each photograph had pasted his opinion, “Someone will die tonight”, because the SWAT team had been called into use. I resented the implication then and I resent it now; the police department, contrary to some malcontents with a microphone and a camera to widen their platform, the police department represents it citizenry, its desire to obey the laws conceived to protect everyone without inference of racial, social or otherwise impartial means. I expect the highest standards of those who wear the “Blue”, and continue to respect the individuals who face dangers, dangers that we normal citizens avoid and rely on those police officers to face on a daily basis. I consider Arlene Kelly’s remarks slanderous and to print them as if she were some kind of expert equally malicious.
The public has every right to question each and every incident that involves their police department, those individuals who represent the public’s desire to maintain the peace and dignity of their particular corner of the world. That does not include distorting facts by slanting an article in such a way as to pour gasoline on an already inflamed situation; but of course, this article poses no threat to our perfect social order here in Houston, where everyone trusts and appreciates the finest level of law enforcement available, no threat at all, none, nada and zip.
http://tfsternsrantings.blogspot.com/2007/01/kick-in-that-door.html
No comments:
Post a Comment