Jamieson strikes out on relatives of police shooting victims
Robert L. Jamieson's "Police shootings: The pain that lives on" blew a serious amount of his credibility with me. He writes about a gathering of relatives of people shot by police officers.
The inquests always agree.
Uh, really? Every single inquest everywhere (since Jamieson reports on the October 22nd Coalition, which represents relatives from all over the U.S.)? I hoped, after reading that sentence, that he'd provide stats or records - anything to back up his assertion.
Monique Davis spoke about DeOntrel, who was fatally shot by Seattle police in December. "I'm his mother," she said. "That was my only son."
Her son was a bad kid who did bad things. He and a partner robbed people at ATM machines in Seattle. DeOntrel wore a ski mask and threatened his victims with what appeared to be a pistol; it was actually a paint-spray nozzle covered by a stocking cap.
During a stakeout, Seattle police surprised DeOntrel, who ran away -- until a bullet blasted him in the head. His mother rightfully wonders why the officer didn't shoot DeOntrel somewhere else, like in the leg, if at all.
I'll ignore the painfully truthful "bad things", and focus on the mother's wondering. Police shoot to kill. It's a last resort. They are not The Lone Ranger, shooting the guns out of people's hands.
At the inquest, his mother recalled overhearing the inquest jury doing something unconscionable. "They were joking, laughing," she said.
Did anyone else overhear this? Going back to my first comment - where are the records on the inquests? Any audio or video recordings? I don't like closed hearings by government, nor do I like blanket assertions by journalists. In this I am from Missouri.
"It's part of the dehumanization process," she (Efia Nwangaza, a civil attorney) explained. "When law enforcement kills someone they begin a process by charging or alleging criminal behavior on the part of the decedent, as if the officer was a mind reader or the person who was killed was walking around with his criminal history tattooed on the chest."
Oh. I thought the police officers opened fire because the victim committed a crime. How does a police agency release information that the public should be aware of in a neutral manner? Do all police agencies release all info they have on a person they shot? They should - and don't be surprised if it doesn't contain anything positive.