Setting boundaries
The recent tasing by a Detroit police officer of a 10 year old boy has sparked justifiable outrage. The incident at a birthday party was captured by a relative on video, widely circulated on social media, and reported in the mainstream press. It provided some of the context for the renewed demands that the Board of Police Commissioners (BOPC) assume responsibility for putting boundaries on police behavior. The BOPC has fallen woefully short of its oversite obligations. They voted against the recommendation of the police chief to suspend the officer involved without pay.
At this week’s BOPC meeting Congress person Rashida Tlaib helped sharpen the debate around the lack of oversight by the commission. In early June she wrote to the commission saying that the Detroit Police were targeting legal observers who attend demonstrations to protect first amendment rights. Tlaib wrote:
“Legal observers are on the front lines of our democracy, guarding against official abuses of power and supporting grassroots movements for social, economic, and environmental justice all across our city.”
Tlaib cites specific instances of tickets given to legal observers at recent demonstrations and noted:
“These citations violate a longstanding norm, reinforced in 2020 by then-Deputy Police Chief Todd Bettison (now Deputy Mayor), that legal observers are not to be targeted or arrested by law enforcement for simply documenting police activity. I have been told that Deputy Mayor Bettison has reviewed the police footage of the above ticketed individuals and does not believe that the issuance of these tickets was appropriate.”
Detroit Police think they can do whatever they want, to whomever they want, anywhere, any time. This is especially true when they confront protestors. During the demonstrations after the murder of George Floyd, Detroit Police engaged in such violence and wonton use of force that a judge issued an order to retrain them. The list of actions that the judge found unacceptable is striking. It forbids police from:
Using striking weapons (including, but not limited to, batons and shields), chemical agents (including, but not limited to, tear gas and pepper spray), or rubber bullets against any individual peacefully engaging in protest or demonstrations who does not pose a physical threat to the safety of the public or police;
Deploying chemical agents or a sound cannon against persons peacefully engaging in protest or demonstrations without an audible warning and a reasonable amount of time to disperse;
Placing in a chokehold or ramming with a vehicle any individual attending a demonstration;
Tightening the zip ties or handcuffs placed on any individual to the point that the restraints cause physical injury, including loss of circulation or change in color;
Arresting any demonstrators en masse without probable cause.
The judge’s order was necessary because neither the Chief of Police, the Mayor or the BOPC was willing to make a forceful stand for the protection of constitutional rights or to hold police accountable for violence.
This week, based on the letter from Congresswoman Tlaib and testimony provided by concerned citizens, the BOPC moved to develop a policy that would ensure the protection of demonstrators and legal observers.
Meanwhile the police liaison continued the tired but successful excuse that police only do what is necessary, they uphold the constitution, and protect the first amendment.
Time and again their actions have demonstrated a willingness to abuse, target, and intimidate those who would hold them accountable.
We have a long way to go to first pass a policy and to then actually enforce it. Our history tells us that unless we are vigilant, the police will continue to be a danger to our collective responsibilities to call out injustice.