I want people to understand this about police shootings.
So often we hear the police rationale that in a "life or death situation" police have to make "split second decisions" on whether and what kind of force to use in any given circumstance. Sometimes, of course, those decisions lead to "unfortunate loss of life." Oh well. Police "should be able to go home to their families at night." Case closed.
So often we hear the excuses. So often the excuses are false.
The decision to kill is not made in a "split second." Sometimes these decisions are made hours, days, months and even years in advance, not based on what is happening but based the on protocols and policies of sniper squads and special weapons and tactics teams.
Once deployed, the death of the suspect is all but certain. It has nothing whatever to do with "split second" decision making. It has everything to do with the expectations and training of those assigned to do the killing.
KRQE in Albuquerque has done detailed reporting on how it worked in the case of a mentally ill homeless man, James Boyd, shot to death in the Sandia foothills last March. That shooting triggered months of protest and the release of a scathing report from the Department of Justice on the routine violations of civil rights and the many other failings -- some of them clearly criminal -- of the Albuquerque Police Department.
Boyd was shot to death as he was surrendering after a multi-hour standoff between him and as many as 42 officers and a police dog (a dog which was sicced on Boyd and bit him severely after he was shot and paralyzed.) Two of those officers, Dominique Perez and Keith Sandy, shot Boyd to death. Sandy, at the least, has now been documented to have made the decision to shoot him hours before the deed was done. It was his assignment as a member of the elite Repeat Offender Project.
Recently, too, another APD killer, a police sniper named Sean Wallace, has been awarded a commendation by Police Chief Gorden Eden for his outstanding service. So far, he has shot and killed three -- or is it four -- unarmed men. It's his assignment on the force. Of course, the award was for helping to take armed men into custody without shooting them to death, so maybe it's a sign of progress. Maybe not.
Many police forces employ snipers and elite officers and units whose main function is to kill. Once they are assigned and deployed, the suspect will more than likely die.
There is nothing "split second" about it -- except when the bullets enter the person's body.
Showing posts with label snipers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label snipers. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Routines, Protocols, and Justifications
There is a magical incantation: "The officer followed proper department procedure."
There is another magical incantation: "The officer stated he was in fear for his life."
And yet another magical incantation: "The subject was seen to reach for his waistband."
And still another: "The subject refused commands to drop his weapon and was seen to point it at the officer."
One more: "The subject advanced toward the officer with hostile intent."
There are many more, of course, but these are among the magical incantations that will, in almost every case, enable the police department and district attorney, along with almost every use of force monitor and civilian review panel to rule yet another police homicide "justified." It typically doesn't matter whether these incantations are true or not, for the truth is rarely a matter for internal investigations. Veracity -- ie: the believability of the incantation -- is not necessarily truthfulness after all. What's needed -- often all that's needed -- is that the officer state certain things in certain ways, and once that's done, he (or rarely, she) is on his/her way.
The perp in almost every case deserved to die according to police procedure and protocol for the use of force.
Almost every time. So often, in fact, do police do so that getting away with murder has become a police department routine.
There is essentially no defense when an officer has decided (in that legendary "split-second" so frequently alluded to) to kill a subject. None. The subject may be surrendering, may not be armed, may be confused or unable to obey, may be mentally handicapped or or otherwise disabled, may be belligerent, may or may not be a real threat to the officer or others, it does not matter. Once the decision to kill has been made, there is no defense the officer is bound to respect. The bad aim and shooting skills of the officer may be the only thing that prevents the death of the suspect.
This became clear to me sometime this year when a particular New Mexico State Police sniper was assigned to a number of incidents involving civilians in crisis and he shot three of them, killing two, severely wounding another.
In the first case I'm aware of, he shot and killed a suspect at an apartment complex in Albuquerque. The suspect's family said, "He shot the wrong brother." There were two brothers wanted for firing at police and lightly wounding a police officer the night before. According to the family, the brother who had actually fired at officers the night before surrendered during a daylight standoff and claimed that the other brother was the one who fired. The other brother, according to the family, never fired a weapon at the police and was in the process of surrendering or negotiating his surrender, when the State Police sniper shot him dead.
A few months later, he was assigned to a "stand off" out in the country, not far from our own place, as part of a SWAT back up requested by the sheriff. The subject in this stand off was known to the sheriff as a troubled individual who was now "barricaded" in his parents' home, refusing to come out, and alleged to be firing at police and others from inside the home. It would later turn out he was not firing, but in these cases, what he was really doing is beside the point. He would not surrender in a timely fashion.
The sheriff and the man's parents were on the phone with him trying to get him to surrender when the State Police sniper opened fire, killing him. The sheriff was shocked. The man was not considered a serious threat -- though he was armed, and apparently had fired the gun inside the house. During the standoff and immediately after the killing, it was said he had fired at police, news helicopters and bystanders, but sometime later it was determined he had not actually fired "at" anyone, and statements to the contrary issued by police and media were false. Nevertheless, the man needed killing, yes?
The third incident happened a few months later when a man was having a crisis episode in Los Lunas. He was armed, threatening and fired his weapons several times, and apparently actually did fire at officers (though we should take any statement that he did so with a dash of skepticism.) Local police were backed up by Valencia County and State Police, once again including this particular sniper. Within a short time, the man was shot and wounded by this sniper and two of the local police. He was taken to the hospital and was said to be recovering from his injuries according to news reports which have, so far as I know, not been followed up on.
This State Police sniper has essentially been sent on assignment after assignment to kill people. We know of other individuals who have similar assignments. And if there are such individuals in New Mexico, we can be sure there are other police assigned to kill in other places. In fact, they are probably all over the country. Killers. By protocol and procedure.
When it dawned on me that this was happening, not just around here but probably everywhere, and that killing by police was not by any means always a "split second" determination by an officer under threat -- or perceived threat -- but was an assignment carried out with extreme prejudice by designated killers, I got the picture that what we think is going on is not what's going on at all.
In many of these cases of police killing the fact is that there has been an active process of premeditation and predetermination leading to summary execution. In that context, the killings, which otherwise might seem spontaneous or random actually turn out to be planned and implemented according to protocols and justifications -- "rules of engagement" if you will -- that the public is largely unaware of.
They largely don't know that when they call 911 in cases of a loved one undergoing an emotional or psychological crisis or a drug or alcohol induced crisis, police will almost always be dispatched to "secure" the situation prior to EMTs having access. If the loved one cannot or does not obey commands from police, the loved one will be shot. Often the loved one will be killed. This is standard protocol for such situations, and so it's rarely advisable to call 911 for emergency services in such situations unless you are OK with your loved one being shot and killed. (Which apparently a lot of people are... )
For whatever reason, though, most people don't seem to understand this.
If police see someone with a gun or what they think is a gun when they are engaged in some kind of "crime suppression" operation, they will open fire sometimes without warning. "Rules of engagement." There doesn't have to be a gun for this to happen, just the perception of something somewhat gunlike is enough. Or if someone suspected of being involved in a criminal activity reaches for his waistband... bam.
Again, it doesn't matter whether the suspect is armed or not, nor does it matter whether there is an actual threat, all that matters is that the officer says he perceived a threat. Or, as we've seen, the officer is assigned to kill the suspect, perceived threat or no.
It's routine, it's protocol, and it is sufficient to justify just about any police killing of anyone at any time.
Stuart Schrader at Jacobin gets into how these rules came about, how they were derived from military and policing practices used by American Imperial troopers in the Philippines and Vietnam, and how they became the standards for domestic policing as well. It's a fascinating story. Grim. But fascinating.
The thing of it is, the victims often have no idea what the rules are, or they believe they are quite different than they are. This misunderstanding actually leads to a lot of the killings by police, as the police operate by a set of rules and protocols completely different from those of the public, and often completely unknown to them.
This has been true of the military in Afghanistan and Iraq as well, where thousands of innocents were killed -- because they didn't know what the rules of engagement were, or because snipers were assigned to kill them, or because they were in the way.
Thus the Haditha massacre, the endless checkpoint killings, the "clearances" of civilians from areas of operations, the roadside killings, the kill response to any perceived threat, any perceived action that might be a threat, the random shooting at civilians to terrorize them and so on. Ultimately it's about force protection. The killers to be protected at all costs, civilians not so much.
All these practices that were intended to cow and control an occupied population abroad, dating back at least to the Philippine Insurrection of 1898-1904 have been applied to domestic policing as a means of enforcing control through what amounts to terror. It's not new. It's integral.
Changing it means that the ruling class must abandon an imperial mindset. The question is, how?
There is another magical incantation: "The officer stated he was in fear for his life."
And yet another magical incantation: "The subject was seen to reach for his waistband."
And still another: "The subject refused commands to drop his weapon and was seen to point it at the officer."
One more: "The subject advanced toward the officer with hostile intent."
There are many more, of course, but these are among the magical incantations that will, in almost every case, enable the police department and district attorney, along with almost every use of force monitor and civilian review panel to rule yet another police homicide "justified." It typically doesn't matter whether these incantations are true or not, for the truth is rarely a matter for internal investigations. Veracity -- ie: the believability of the incantation -- is not necessarily truthfulness after all. What's needed -- often all that's needed -- is that the officer state certain things in certain ways, and once that's done, he (or rarely, she) is on his/her way.
The perp in almost every case deserved to die according to police procedure and protocol for the use of force.
Almost every time. So often, in fact, do police do so that getting away with murder has become a police department routine.
There is essentially no defense when an officer has decided (in that legendary "split-second" so frequently alluded to) to kill a subject. None. The subject may be surrendering, may not be armed, may be confused or unable to obey, may be mentally handicapped or or otherwise disabled, may be belligerent, may or may not be a real threat to the officer or others, it does not matter. Once the decision to kill has been made, there is no defense the officer is bound to respect. The bad aim and shooting skills of the officer may be the only thing that prevents the death of the suspect.
This became clear to me sometime this year when a particular New Mexico State Police sniper was assigned to a number of incidents involving civilians in crisis and he shot three of them, killing two, severely wounding another.
In the first case I'm aware of, he shot and killed a suspect at an apartment complex in Albuquerque. The suspect's family said, "He shot the wrong brother." There were two brothers wanted for firing at police and lightly wounding a police officer the night before. According to the family, the brother who had actually fired at officers the night before surrendered during a daylight standoff and claimed that the other brother was the one who fired. The other brother, according to the family, never fired a weapon at the police and was in the process of surrendering or negotiating his surrender, when the State Police sniper shot him dead.
A few months later, he was assigned to a "stand off" out in the country, not far from our own place, as part of a SWAT back up requested by the sheriff. The subject in this stand off was known to the sheriff as a troubled individual who was now "barricaded" in his parents' home, refusing to come out, and alleged to be firing at police and others from inside the home. It would later turn out he was not firing, but in these cases, what he was really doing is beside the point. He would not surrender in a timely fashion.
The sheriff and the man's parents were on the phone with him trying to get him to surrender when the State Police sniper opened fire, killing him. The sheriff was shocked. The man was not considered a serious threat -- though he was armed, and apparently had fired the gun inside the house. During the standoff and immediately after the killing, it was said he had fired at police, news helicopters and bystanders, but sometime later it was determined he had not actually fired "at" anyone, and statements to the contrary issued by police and media were false. Nevertheless, the man needed killing, yes?
The third incident happened a few months later when a man was having a crisis episode in Los Lunas. He was armed, threatening and fired his weapons several times, and apparently actually did fire at officers (though we should take any statement that he did so with a dash of skepticism.) Local police were backed up by Valencia County and State Police, once again including this particular sniper. Within a short time, the man was shot and wounded by this sniper and two of the local police. He was taken to the hospital and was said to be recovering from his injuries according to news reports which have, so far as I know, not been followed up on.
This State Police sniper has essentially been sent on assignment after assignment to kill people. We know of other individuals who have similar assignments. And if there are such individuals in New Mexico, we can be sure there are other police assigned to kill in other places. In fact, they are probably all over the country. Killers. By protocol and procedure.
When it dawned on me that this was happening, not just around here but probably everywhere, and that killing by police was not by any means always a "split second" determination by an officer under threat -- or perceived threat -- but was an assignment carried out with extreme prejudice by designated killers, I got the picture that what we think is going on is not what's going on at all.
In many of these cases of police killing the fact is that there has been an active process of premeditation and predetermination leading to summary execution. In that context, the killings, which otherwise might seem spontaneous or random actually turn out to be planned and implemented according to protocols and justifications -- "rules of engagement" if you will -- that the public is largely unaware of.
They largely don't know that when they call 911 in cases of a loved one undergoing an emotional or psychological crisis or a drug or alcohol induced crisis, police will almost always be dispatched to "secure" the situation prior to EMTs having access. If the loved one cannot or does not obey commands from police, the loved one will be shot. Often the loved one will be killed. This is standard protocol for such situations, and so it's rarely advisable to call 911 for emergency services in such situations unless you are OK with your loved one being shot and killed. (Which apparently a lot of people are... )
For whatever reason, though, most people don't seem to understand this.
If police see someone with a gun or what they think is a gun when they are engaged in some kind of "crime suppression" operation, they will open fire sometimes without warning. "Rules of engagement." There doesn't have to be a gun for this to happen, just the perception of something somewhat gunlike is enough. Or if someone suspected of being involved in a criminal activity reaches for his waistband... bam.
Again, it doesn't matter whether the suspect is armed or not, nor does it matter whether there is an actual threat, all that matters is that the officer says he perceived a threat. Or, as we've seen, the officer is assigned to kill the suspect, perceived threat or no.
It's routine, it's protocol, and it is sufficient to justify just about any police killing of anyone at any time.
Stuart Schrader at Jacobin gets into how these rules came about, how they were derived from military and policing practices used by American Imperial troopers in the Philippines and Vietnam, and how they became the standards for domestic policing as well. It's a fascinating story. Grim. But fascinating.
The thing of it is, the victims often have no idea what the rules are, or they believe they are quite different than they are. This misunderstanding actually leads to a lot of the killings by police, as the police operate by a set of rules and protocols completely different from those of the public, and often completely unknown to them.
This has been true of the military in Afghanistan and Iraq as well, where thousands of innocents were killed -- because they didn't know what the rules of engagement were, or because snipers were assigned to kill them, or because they were in the way.
Thus the Haditha massacre, the endless checkpoint killings, the "clearances" of civilians from areas of operations, the roadside killings, the kill response to any perceived threat, any perceived action that might be a threat, the random shooting at civilians to terrorize them and so on. Ultimately it's about force protection. The killers to be protected at all costs, civilians not so much.
All these practices that were intended to cow and control an occupied population abroad, dating back at least to the Philippine Insurrection of 1898-1904 have been applied to domestic policing as a means of enforcing control through what amounts to terror. It's not new. It's integral.
Changing it means that the ruling class must abandon an imperial mindset. The question is, how?
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Disturbing Though Not Surprising
Been hearing and reading very brief dispatches about this all day, but only now have I been able to see the RT report that started it off:
There is no reason to assume anything about the report is inauthentic.
There is no reason to believe the snipers firing on the crowd and police in the Maidan in Kiev weren't what the speculation now suggest they were: snipers (mercs?) hired by the opposition as murderous provocateurs.
There is at this point no proof, however.
As far as I can recall the events of the day -- and they are a bit hazy as I only came upon reports after the fact -- the Yanukovych government's interior minister deployed armed internal security personnel for the first time on the date in question (February 19?) and authorized them to use deadly force. There were reports of dozens killed, upwards of 80 or 90, mostly demonstrators but some police as well. Many hundreds wounded. But something was odd about these reports. Something that reminded me...
Cairo, last year. When Muslim Brotherhood supporters rallied and protested against the coup which overthrew the Morsi government, snipers were deployed -- presumably by the government -- to dispatch the protesters by picking off individuals in the crowd one by one, shooting them in the head or heart, and terrifying the rest of the crowd. This happened day after day, and on some occasions, it seems that hundreds were killed.
The sniping in Kiev that day seemed an awful lot like what had happened in Cairo, and so it was natural to assume the Yanukovych government was behind it, but Yanukovych said no, he had never ordered any such thing. There were hints and suggestions that the snipers were not "government" snipers, but who they were, nobody could say. This leaked phone call turned up on Russia Today -- more than likely leaked by the Kremlin itself, though the story claims it came from Ukrainians loyal to Yanukovych -- and indications are that those European representatives who went to Kiev (for example, the Estonian foreign minister heard in this call) were made aware that something was not right about the news reports of government security personnel firing on the crowds, and they were told the snipers appeared to have been hired by "the coalition" -- ie: the anti-Yanukovych opposition.
It's pretty clear from the evidence -- as opposed to the propaganda -- that Ukrainian "ultra - nationalists," fascists and neo-Nazis were utilized as shock troops of a sort during the demonstrations in Kiev, committing acts of violence and sabotage on an ever growing scale, including firebombing police, destroying government buildings, and other acts that appeared to be intentional provocations. These acts were almost always blamed on the police in western media, and claims that the police were killing demonstrators were regularly made, but the police in Kiev were unarmed, at least officially, and how they were able to kill demonstrators was never entirely clear. It was simply asserted as fact in western media.
There was rarely any mention in the mainstream media of the violence committed by demonstrators in Kiev; but many alternative media carried shocking videos of mayhem against police and government buildings.
As the demonstrations became more intense, so did the violence until finally there was a kind of Day of Rage outburst which was met by sniper fire.
Come to find out now that the snipers may not have been government deployed forces at all.
I've been poring through the list of agencies and organizations that were under the umbrella of "New Citizen" -- a project of Center UA -- both funded by the Omidyar Network to the tune of over a million dollars (they got much more from USAID). It is a varied collection of opposition groups, but among them are some not nice people whose interests do not lie with the Ukrainian people. They represent, instead, an oligarchic dismantlement of Ukrainian society.
Would they, could they have made such a murderous and bloodthirsty move to overthrow the Yanukovych government?
Well, the golpistas had no trouble doing it in Cairo to secure the success of their coup.
None whatsoever.
----------------------------------------
The leaked call:
There is no reason to assume anything about the report is inauthentic.
There is no reason to believe the snipers firing on the crowd and police in the Maidan in Kiev weren't what the speculation now suggest they were: snipers (mercs?) hired by the opposition as murderous provocateurs.
There is at this point no proof, however.
As far as I can recall the events of the day -- and they are a bit hazy as I only came upon reports after the fact -- the Yanukovych government's interior minister deployed armed internal security personnel for the first time on the date in question (February 19?) and authorized them to use deadly force. There were reports of dozens killed, upwards of 80 or 90, mostly demonstrators but some police as well. Many hundreds wounded. But something was odd about these reports. Something that reminded me...
Cairo, last year. When Muslim Brotherhood supporters rallied and protested against the coup which overthrew the Morsi government, snipers were deployed -- presumably by the government -- to dispatch the protesters by picking off individuals in the crowd one by one, shooting them in the head or heart, and terrifying the rest of the crowd. This happened day after day, and on some occasions, it seems that hundreds were killed.
The sniping in Kiev that day seemed an awful lot like what had happened in Cairo, and so it was natural to assume the Yanukovych government was behind it, but Yanukovych said no, he had never ordered any such thing. There were hints and suggestions that the snipers were not "government" snipers, but who they were, nobody could say. This leaked phone call turned up on Russia Today -- more than likely leaked by the Kremlin itself, though the story claims it came from Ukrainians loyal to Yanukovych -- and indications are that those European representatives who went to Kiev (for example, the Estonian foreign minister heard in this call) were made aware that something was not right about the news reports of government security personnel firing on the crowds, and they were told the snipers appeared to have been hired by "the coalition" -- ie: the anti-Yanukovych opposition.
It's pretty clear from the evidence -- as opposed to the propaganda -- that Ukrainian "ultra - nationalists," fascists and neo-Nazis were utilized as shock troops of a sort during the demonstrations in Kiev, committing acts of violence and sabotage on an ever growing scale, including firebombing police, destroying government buildings, and other acts that appeared to be intentional provocations. These acts were almost always blamed on the police in western media, and claims that the police were killing demonstrators were regularly made, but the police in Kiev were unarmed, at least officially, and how they were able to kill demonstrators was never entirely clear. It was simply asserted as fact in western media.
There was rarely any mention in the mainstream media of the violence committed by demonstrators in Kiev; but many alternative media carried shocking videos of mayhem against police and government buildings.
As the demonstrations became more intense, so did the violence until finally there was a kind of Day of Rage outburst which was met by sniper fire.
Come to find out now that the snipers may not have been government deployed forces at all.
I've been poring through the list of agencies and organizations that were under the umbrella of "New Citizen" -- a project of Center UA -- both funded by the Omidyar Network to the tune of over a million dollars (they got much more from USAID). It is a varied collection of opposition groups, but among them are some not nice people whose interests do not lie with the Ukrainian people. They represent, instead, an oligarchic dismantlement of Ukrainian society.
Would they, could they have made such a murderous and bloodthirsty move to overthrow the Yanukovych government?
Well, the golpistas had no trouble doing it in Cairo to secure the success of their coup.
None whatsoever.
----------------------------------------
The leaked call:
Sunday, February 3, 2013
The Shooter Is Shot Down At the Gun Range
Yeek.
Or is it some perverse justice?
This man, Chris Kyle, is the author of "American Sniper", part of which I have read, recoiled from, put down, pondered. Chris Kyle is now dead, killed at a Texas gun range, allegedly while trying to help a
Snipering in our Glorious BattleZones during the heady days of the BushWars was considered Manly and Heroic by many observers, unless, that is, you were on the receiving end of the snipering, in which case it was considered cowardly and criminal, and that was the charitable interpretation.
In many cities in Iraq, for example, American snipers killed anyone who appeared on the street -- women out to buy food, children, dogs, goats, you name it, all were targeted and shot by snipers. People were shot in their homes if they were seen in windows or doorways or at their gates. Anyone and everyone, and their animals, were targets for American snipers. This wasn't assassination of the "bad guys," it was straight-out murder, and most of the snipers loved it, got off on it, reveled in it, as did their President and Vice President, in their White House bunker, awaiting reports from the field. Preferably with pictures.
Chris Kyle was one of these joyous snipers, considered one of the most prolific, and therefore effective, individual killers in the practice of modern warfare. That practice includes random murder of civilians as a terrorizing tactic in order to more easily control restive civilian populations.
Let's not fool ourselves. That's what modern snipers do. They routinely deny it, claiming they only take shots at verified armed insurgents, never at civilians, let alone random individuals or their animals.
Those on the ground receiving sniper fire would vigorously dispute the sniper's claims to honorable kills. Those on the receiving end would call them liars and murderers.
The supposed "bad guy" is anyone and everyone -- including their pets and domestic animals. The objective is control of civil populations through fear and terror. Oddly enough, despite the thousands murdered by American snipers in Iraq, the tactic failed, and the strategy of terror was an unmitigated disaster.
People like Chris Kyle were held up as heroes. At least for a time. For some people, of course, they still are heroes and always will be. But what were they really doing besides imposing a reign of terror on civilian populations that were chafing under foreign occupation?
People like Chris Kyle were eager to impose a similar reign of gunner terror on the American civil population.
Many still are.
Reflect on the DC Sniper episode for a sense of just how much terror was being imposed on the civilian populations of Our Glorious War Zones during the hey-day of snipering.
Reflect, too, on the fact that the role of the individual sniper like Chris Kyle has been largely superceded by the Drone Pilots celebrated in the recent NOVA episode...
Progress!
It's time for this shit to stop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)