You may find yourself wondering why I would bring up that particular exchange at this moment, and what I'm on about by doing so. Wonder no longer, gentle reader. The grand jury has ruled in the John Crawford III case in Ohio.
The grand jury declined to file charges for murder, reckless homicide, or negligent homicide against the officers who shot Crawford on sight as he stood alone in the pet aisle in his local Walmart citing a lack of probable cause. It's important to point out that Mr. Crawford lived in Ohio, an open carry state, so even if he were carrying a loaded rifle he would have been within his rights to do so. It would appear that, at least in Ohio, a person ostensibly exercising constitutionally guaranteed rights is subject to being killed by the police on nothing more than the word of a person, whose reliability is never once questioned, making a 911 call. Upon seeing Mr. Crawford for the first time, the security footage of the incident shows, the police never challenged him. They never said a word to him before opening fire. They simply fired their high-velocity assault weapons at him. He was struck twice—once in the arm and once in the side resulting in what the prosecutor in this case called "a catastrophic wound" through the liver which Mr. Crawford could not have survived.
Despite declaring that Mr. Crawford had done absolutely nothing wrong, Prosecutor Piepmeier cited the officers' training for active shooter situations as justification for their actions in this case. It would seem important to point out that no shots were ever fired by anyone other than the officers who killed Mr. Crawford. One must conclude that, at least in Ohio, active shooter situations do not require active shooters. This fact is troubling in the extreme.
One is left to wonder what might have instigated the events which ended with Mr. Crawford dying on the floor of that aisle. If you watch the two videos of the press conference, the security footage makes it plain that Mr. Crawford's actions were being blatantly misrepresented by the single person who was describing what was happening. Never once did Mr. Crawford "wave (the gun) at a couple of kids" as the caller, Ronald Ritchie, claims. (Incidentally, Ritchie is just a peach.) Never once does Mr. Crawford appear to be "trying to load it" as Ritchie claims. In fact, Mr. Crawford's presence never caused a moment's concern for the mother who appeared with the two children Ritchie tells the 911 dispatcher had the pellet gun waved at them. None of them even appear to notice Mr. Crawford.
My wondering what might have led to this tragedy is fairly transparent, I would say. It's clearly race, which brings me back to Tavis Smiley's comment which ended his conversation with Bill O'Reilly. In the midst of all the furor over the summer involving open carry demonstrations during which Second Amendment activists (notably, white ones) carried assault weapons strapped to their chests into several restaurants and big box stores. I point out that they were almost exclusively white people because, despite causing quite the uproar, managed somehow not to be killed on sight by the police. Sure, there were plenty of other white folks whose blood pressure shot through the proverbial roof upon gazing at these people strolling nonchalantly toward them with assault weapons, and there were some calls to the police. Still, no activist was even threatened with deadly force as a result even though at least one was quite belligerent (not to mention inebriated) when confronted by law enforcement. But one black man holding a pellet gun in plain view in an open carry state was killed on sight by police.
I like Tavis Smiley quite a lot. He's an insightful and diligent man, and he's not afraid to challenge bullshit when he hears it. I can't imagine that Mr. Smiley is surprised by Mr. Crawford's killing, nor can I imagine that he is terribly surprised that Mr. Crawford's death has been officially determined as a no-fault deal—sort of an, "Oops! Our bad!" thing on the part of all involved in his death.
How long can we, as a society, expect to continue to pretend that killing black men for no good reason is just part of the cost of doing business in America? It's possible to conclude that the police didn't murder Mr. Crawford, technically speaking, but what reasonable person can watch the security footage of Mr. Crawford's killing and think there wasn't at least some negligence involved on the part of law enforcement? By any reasonable standard, there would definitely appear to have been no small measure of recklessness, for that matter. Yet we respond with an official shrug because training. Far too many of us can watch the footage and say, with a straight face no less, that no one is criminally responsible for Mr. Crawford's death. How? How is this conclusion possible absent deep wells of institutional racism? (Hint: It's not.)
I'll leave you with the following. What of our intrepid crime fighter, Ronald Ritchie? He is on record as giving false information to the 911 dispatcher. Watch the security footage. He's describing a scene which is definitely nothing like what is taking place before his eyes. The video shows such a mundane scene that, had one been unaware of how this incident ended, easily could have concluded with the police looking for Ritchie to ask just what the hell he thought he was doing making that call. One is still forced to wonder how he has not been charged with, at the very least, filing a false report. I can also come up with at least reckless endangerment as another potential charge against Ritchie, but for the life of me I can't find any indication that he will ever stand in court to answer for what he did. More than anyone else, Ritchie is responsible for the death of Mr. Crawford. Yes, even more than the officers who shot him. After all, they were proceeding solely, if inadvisably, on his word. If he hadn't decided, somewhere in the dark recesses of his brain, that a black man with a gun is a mortal threat by definition then none of this is likely to have ever happened. Ritchie, in the meantime, gets to spend another day walking this earth as Mr. Crawford lies beneath it.
We cannot continue down this path.
No comments:
Post a Comment