Serious question: What would a neighbor of yours have to do to justify the authorities killing you? Think about it. What if your neighbor was Ted Bundy, a prolific serial killer. Would his living next door to you justify your demise at the hands of authorities? What if Bundy was doing his serial killing next door to you? Assuming you did not know it was going on, should you be killed for his actions?
What if your neighbor was Adolph Hitler? What if after he had ordered or otherwise caused the murder of millions of other humans, he moved in next door to you? If you were killed in the effort to capture or eliminate him, would you consider that just?
Personally, I have not been able to come up with a situation wherein my demise at the hands of those attempting to hold a neighbor responsible for actions taken without my assistance or knowledge could be considered "just". To be honest, I don't feel like any level of injury to me would be justifiable in an effort to punish someone else for something they did. However, you need not feel limited by my position. If you can think of a suitable answer to the question, feel free to share it with me and the world.
Brett Hankison was a police detective in Louisville, KY. He was very involved in the no-knock raid that resulted in the wrongful death of an innocent civilian, Breonna Taylor. While by all accounts Hankison did not fire the round that killed her as she slept, he did fire rounds that went into or through her apartment. Oddly enough, he is so far, the only officer to be charged and convicted of any crime associated with the poorly planned and executed raid.
The DOJ submitted a sentencing memorandum that recommended essentially no repercussions for the irresponsible detective. Nothing about Taylor's death or the rather obvious violation of her civil rights appears to be of concern to the DOJ though Hankison's well-being - his PTSD and related conditions was a focus.
I have taught several folks to shoot. I tend to tell those I am instructing that "There is no such thing as an accident. If you point the firearm at me, I will assume you intend to shoot me and I will do my best to get you first. I'll explain it to your parents later." Traditional instruction is that you do not shoot if you don't know where the bullet is going if it misses the target or goes through the target. If you cannot say with authority where the projectile will go, it is reckless and negligent to pull the trigger.
I can only see two options, either Hankison and the other LEOs on the scene knew where their bullets were going or they didn't. Those two options translate to either they were reckless and negligent OR, for whatever reason they wanted innocent civilians to be harmed. You are welcome to argue the existence of other options but I am a reasonably experienced shooter so, you're looking at an uphill climb.
So put yourself in Ms Taylor's apartment. She was never the focus of the raid. No one accused her of illegal behavior. The officers were allegedly targeting an ex-boyfriend of hers but not someone who currently or recently resided at the address. So should I rephrase the question? What would an estranged ex of yours have to do to justify your demise at the hands of authorities? If you can't think of a reason, then you need to be more upset about the DOJ recommendation.
I have exes. I have no reason to believe that I should be killed for stuff they might be doing. I have no reason to believe any of them should be killed for stuff I might be doing. Breonna Taylor and her loved ones deserve justice.
Over the years I have known several individuals in law enforcement. Military, FBI, U.S. Marshalls, TBI, Highway Patrol as well as several local officers/deputies. I have no idea who I would go to to get a defense of Hankison et al's actions especially if I were able to ask them prior to them knowing about the event. Perhaps some of them would choose to stand with their LEO brethren once they knew the actual details but none of them would have tried to claim that was the right way to handle things as a hypothetical EVEN if all of the pertinent facts were included in the hypothetical. They know better.
If I were king of the forest, the author(s) of the memorandum would be charged with a crime. The DOJ should be the lead in getting justice for Breonna and her loved ones. They should definitely not be the lead in evading justice for those that murdered her and negligently endangered others.
A pretty standard trope in Hollywood when they want to shock or offend is to have a character describe what are the acceptable levels of civilian casualties. “Collateral damage” is military verbiage but essentially is the same thing. It should never be used outside of the military (and ideally, never in the military either!). There are no acceptable levels of degradation of my health and physical ability due to something someone else did. What about you? What would I, as your neighbor, have to do to make you amenable to your demise or serious injury as a byproduct of my (attempted) apprehension?
If being collateral damage doesn’t work for you, then you need to halt that shit before it gets to you. Louisville, KY would have been a good place to stop it.
No comments:
Post a Comment