Police Protection: It Could Be The Death of You

Almost daily, we open our newspapers or turn on our television sets, only to hear or read of some new travesty dealing with police officers and a victim that is either dead or in hospital as a result of an ‘alleged’ crime. How long will we as law abiding citizens allow this to continue? How can we turn our faces away and ignore an ever growing problem across America today. I am referring to those instances like one in 1998, October 18th, an African-American man passed away just over five days after having been beaten, brutally, by St. Paul’s police officers that had stopped him for a traffic violation. Perhaps the most shocking piece of information about this incident is the fact that Mr. Graham’s hands had been handcuffed behind his back during the beating, and the officers involved claimed he had been attempting to flee the scene in his vehicle.

A large majority of the complaints are based on racism, and ethnicity, however, there are in fact incidents that involve Caucasian people as well. In Minneapolis, a white woman was shot to death by police officers that had broken open her locked door in her apartment. After not only breaking open the entry door, but also forcefully entering her personal bedroom, the officers shot her to death. This woman suffered from mental illness, and her crime as stated by the responding officers — she had her radio playing too loudly. There are far too many stories like these. People, later proven innocent, that suffered drastically at the hands of the very ones that swore to uphold the law and to “Protect and Serve” the community and the people in that community. A young boy, 23 years old, happened to be visiting a friend in Minneapolis in 1994. Police arrived and shot the young man from a distance of approximately 25 feet. This young man died at a hospital, a little over an hour later.  According to the officers on the scene, he allegedly had a knife in each of his hands — this was vehemently disputed by several witnesses.

Where does the law that governs society and the law that governs law enforcement officials, end? Are they not one and the same? How can we allow those that claim to be guardians of the law, to twist and tarnish the laws they do not believe apply to them? Granted there are going to be difficult situations and circumstances, but reacting by beating people or killing they should still be punishable by law, even if you are a police officer. We might not like what we read, but how much longer can we show a blind eye, or turn a deaf ear to the tears and crying of innocent souls everywhere.  Society as a whole, must band together to see that justice is served for those that are unable to speak for themselves, or are simply ignored. Many have suffered at the hands of an over-zealous police officer, whether it was physical or verbal, none of it is correct. If we continue to allow this behavior and not see that it is punished, we are in a sense, condoning it.

There are many organizations throughout the United States that are operating for the sole purpose of making right the wrongs that have been done to so many people. One organization in particular is UCAPB (United Communities Against Police Brutality). This website is mainly for the Minnesota area; however they do provide links for those that wish to find the nearest group that offers support for those that have wrongly suffered at the hands of the police. If you or someone you know has suffered a legitimate mishandling, the web site for reporting such instances is police watch.us. This site assigns an agent to your case for review concerning the specifics of the situation. Demand justice, demand your rights!

Police Brutality: Have We Punished the Wrong People?

Today, society as a whole has a tendency to define most actions taken or carried out by police officers as forms of brutality. To fully understand the implication of the word, one must look at the beginnings, of said word. The word brutality originates from the Latin word Brutus, which translates to brute. Brutality would be the act of all of the above. When breaking down the word as such, it begins to take on a far more serious tone, possibly even frightening, when applied to some of the simple circumstances that occur to day. Is it just what we hear in the news and in the paper or is their a real issue here that needs to be taken seriously? Do the police have a choice or are there some certain times when a more forceful action needs to be taken against some of these criminals.

Some critics view most of police actions as being cruel, bordering on brutal. How can they use such terminology to judge the countless men and women that risk their lives daily for the safety of everyone, regardless of race, sex, or orientation? These men and women have undergone extensive training, physical and mental, as well as psychological. Some of what they have had to endure, to fulfill a position performing a thankless job with little pay and very few benefits, may well have toughened them up, but they are still human. They make mistakes in judgment calls the same as anyone else. Some calls are purely based on survival and how do we as citizen’s judge something like this when we have never been faced with such raw evil.

Often, some of the verbal, and too often physical, abuse they must persevere throughout the course of a normal day would border on the definition of brutal; however, society forgets those instances. They find it easier instead to judge them by certain standards, yet ignore what is done wrong against them. Perhaps it is the lack of support for police officers and the jobs they do, that we, as a society, are forcing them to sever any emotional ties they once had for their jobs, and making it almost necessary for them to react as strongly to any situation as they are able. With little or no support, they are virtually left on their own to survive in a world that most people do not even realize exists.

Instead of applauding their achievements, we publicly criticize their actions and decisions, only helping to further the dislike, distrust, and disrespect of police officers everywhere. They and their families often feel ostracized from normal society, and sometimes resort to forming their own ’societies or families’. Perhaps it is time we take a step back and look at the terms us so freely use against them, and in all certainty knows what is being implied at any given time.  Labeling them as brutal is implying they are no better than animals — would you call on your animals to handle car accidents, homicide calls, or domestic situations? Of course they are not. Laugh at the idea, but that is in fact what is being said.

We might just have the definition of ‘police brutality’ down to an exact science, but are we pointing our fingers at the right perpetrators? Police officers suffer daily, through all types of abuse, and they are expected to maintain a professional attitude at all times, while wiping spit from their faces, or enduring a string of obscenities from a simple traffic stop. What then is this called? I say it falls under the label of ‘police brutality’ only it is being done to them, not by them.  If we want a change, it has to begin with us. Show support of the police officers, follow the laws and take a stand against those that do wrong. They guard us with their lives — the least we can do is support them during ours.

The situation in which a Miranda warning is necessary is in times of arrest or when the suspect is in custodial situations. This means that the suspect does not have a free right to leave if they so choose too but they are not yet under arrest for anything. Miranda Rights are standard before any questioning is done of a suspect about the crime. If anything is said by the suspect to admit guilt in a crime and no Miranda Rights were given and the suspect waived those rights in a voluntary way, the confession or comment is usually not admissible or usable in court. Questions about your address, birth date, and name can be asked without a Miranda Warning being given.

Miranda Warnings were authorized to be a mandatory reading as they are now because of the court case of Miranda versus Arizona. This case was ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966 to help protect the 5th Amendment rights of all individuals including suspects and to ensure self incrimination was not coerced out of that suspect. The specific words of the Miranda Warning were not set down by the Supreme Court but were given as a general guideline to follow. Basically, the Miranda must state that the rights of the suspect are; to remain silent, what they choose to say without a lawyer present can be used in court to find them guilty, to have a lawyer with them when questioned and to represent them, and that lawyer can be provided with no cost to the suspect if they can not pay for it. Miranda warnings are not designed to be read or spoken in any order as long as the rights are given and understood. Miranda must be given in such a way as to be understood and it is essential to ask if the suspect understands the rights given to him. A silent suspect is not a waiver of the rights however, if a clear answer is not given, it might present problems later in court.

The case involving Miranda versus Arizona was against a man named Ernesto Miranda. He was being accused of rape and kidnapping. While he was being questioned by the police, he confessed tot he charges. Unfortunately, there was no lawyer present and his rights under Miranda were not given to him before the confession was given. Because of the confession only and no other evidence to support the guilt of Ernesto Miranda, he was found guilty of the charges. Three years after the conviction, the Supreme Court decided that Ernesto Miranda was being frightened by the one investigating him and therefore gave the confession not of his own voluntary choice. Because of this, Ernesto Miranda was released only to later be retried and this time witnesses and evidence was used to convict him and caused him to have to serve eleven years in prison. One a weird twist of fate, the man that was to kill Ernesto Miranda in prison was given the Miranda rights and he chose to remain silent.

The television police shows have given all of us a view of the Miranda warning in a way that we have grown to expect this reading to occur in every arrest situation. This has become the normal course of things tot he point that most people can recite their Miranda Warnings from memory. Miranda is necessary only when the police are going to interrogate a suspect and keep them detained at the local station or in the police car after detention. Suspects can be arrested and not be given the Miranda. If interrogation is necessary after that arrest, this is the time for Miranda to be used. It is important for citizens to know those rights and when they are to be given that way, their Fifth Amendment Rights are protected.