The Cruelty of Police Brutality - Unbelievable Phenomenon - Essay Example

The Cruelty of Police Brutality Unbelievable Phenomenon and Number 06 April Introduction Police is considered to be the main instrument of law enforcement both nationwide and within the society, and this is the service which is most addressed to when situations threatening human life and health occur. That is why reports on fatalities and serious injuries caused by the actions of the police officers are more than unusual and are similarly breaking news and points of concern for a typical law-abiding citizen. This is double breaking because the police officer should provide an example the way the laws should be observed, and when the practice of excessive force application takes place the society may feel unprotected and fail to trust this important and truly significant governmental service. For understanding the phenomenon of police brutality it is necessary to clarify its meaning. Police brutality is usually referred to as “the use of excessive and/or unnecessary force by police when dealing with civilians.” (Danilina). The word “excessive” stands for the force which is more than necessary for the situation handling by the police officer. A usual image of a brutal officer hitting a victim with a bludgeon is completed by such phenomena also classified as police brutality as “false arrests, verbal abuse, psychological intimidation, sexual abuse, police corruption, racial profiling, political repression and the improper use of Tasers” (Danilina). Better and more evident understanding of this adverse phenomenon can be reached by means of consideration of police brutality examples given in official publications. The Huffington Post reports on recent case (March 25, 2015) of the cops brutally beating an unarmed African-American man in Inskter, Michigan. The reason for the driver pulling over, according to the police officers’ words, was violation of traffic that he committed yet in January. The video evidence, however, shows cruel behavior of the policemen, which does not correspond to the idea of law enforcement by legal methods: the man was punched 16 times to his head by the primary officer, “leaving his face bloody and body bruised”. (Workneh, 2015). The situation worsened after that when one of the officers used a stun gun on a driver for three times and another officer did his best at placing handcuffs on a victim. This improper behavior is enforced by illogical accusations of the driver from the side of the policemen that he tried to bit them, whereas the video cameras providing evidence proof that the man was unarmed and did not try to escape from police pursuit. It is quite predictable that such actions of the governmental service caused public protests as soon as this information became publicly known, and about fifty people conducted a demonstration near the Detroit police department demanding the officers involved to be fired. (Workneh, 2015). Police brutality in cruel form is observed not only in the US. Turkish events of July 2013 can also provide facts of wanton use of power by the policemen while trying to resolve the situation on Taksim square, Istanbul. Then many people came to the main square of the capital to express their being non-content with the politics of the official government, and the policemen, being defenders of the regime, caused health damages of some of the demonstrators. One of them, a thirty-four-year old Turkish Kurd, admitted that the police officers started applying tear gas on him and the fellow protestors. He describes the situation using such words: “…amid the smoke I saw one come at me with his tear gas launcher and fire it directly at my head. The gas canister hit my brow and cracked my skull and eye-socket, look. It’s a miracle that I survived.” (The Economist, 2013). Use of tear gas as a means of law enforcement causes questions of its relevance nowadays because it is prohibited to use such means in international military conflicts, but using it to control the crowd or certain individuals justifies its adverse effects caused. Similar cases are often reported about when informing about anti-governmental riots in different parts of the world, and the authorities motivate this means of public control by non-using lethal weapons instead of tear gas. Similarly, this fact also is illogic, as unarmed people have nothing to oppose to the policemen who are equipped and able to deploy technical means of control which can be referred to as weapons. If consider the governmental motives of sanctioning such treatment from the side of the police, it is clear that they choose this way to save their power, and any means are good for them to fulfill this task, but when there is anything in the crowd which can be defined as weapon the police is more than authorized to act adequately to neutralize its bearer, and the law is on the side of the police officers who are to maintain civil order. This fact can be used for false statements of the government and its representatives, as it is very easy to fabricate a photo evidence of anyone from the crowd suspected of having weapon while participating in a peaceful demonstration. The above mentioned illogical facts and behavior of the police staff reasonably raises questions why such behavior is possible and people let themselves act differently from the laws and not considering the consequences of their actions on the others. Bonnie Kristian provides possible reasons to answer this question. One of them is because most departments do not train their personnel to act adequately in non-violent situations. ““Police kill family dog” is practically its own subgenre of police brutality reports, and most of these cases—like the story of the Minnesota children who were made to sit, handcuffed, next to their dead and bleeding pet—are all too preventable.” (Kristian, 2014). When such training is insufficient, the policemen rarely consider violence to be the ultimate way of discipline support. The second reason is that standards and explanations of what brutality is or not may vary, when a certain action of the supposed law breaker leads to different consequences and actions from the side of the police: in one place it is possible to be told off for not having some document, whereas police officer of other place can consider this as an act of resistance and “pull you through the car window, [or] … tase you.” (Kristian, 2014). One of the most argued and discussed reasons is that improper behavior of the police officers is punished in the way which is not severe enough and does not make them refuse cruel using excessive force. 99 per cent of all the complaints of police brutality in New Jersey are not investigated into at all, and this is also a typical state of affairs nationwide. The juries are instructed to trust the cops, which fosters their feeling unpunished and being likely to use any methods they let themselves to. Minorities of the society, such as black population, complain that they are an easy target for police misconduct. One city in Florida is famous for its statistics on this issue: one man was stopped for 258 times during four years while on his job, and the policy called “stop and frisk” was aimed at all the black men of that very city: since 2008, with the population of around 110,000 there were 99,980 stops conducted which did not lead to an arrest. The policemen themselves provide another reason for police brutality taking place. They admit that this phenomenon is becoming more and more widely spread and usual in their work, and this may happen because people are used to traditionally trust the policemen and not often check if the trust is based upon proper reasons. (Kristian, 2014). The numbers and per cent rates always help to trace changes in the state of affairs in other sphere of activity, and there are also statistic data on police brutality. It is stated that police is equipped with powerful weapons, and use of SWAT teams by police has increased by 1500 per cent in 1994-2014. It is also reported that 84 per cent of the cops confess they have evidenced their colleagues use excessive force on unarmed civilians, and 61 per cent prefer not to report on authority abuse by their colleagues even if the violations made by their fellow officers are serious. (Kristian, 2014). Although government and laws prohibit application of excessive physical force on anyone, the reality is often far from those laws and rules, and the society offers its own response to it. Public reaction to the facts of police brutality and cruel treatment is negative and sometimes even is not limited to demonstrations or street protests. In Ukraine, in the time of anti-governmental riots of 2013-2014, the police special police force, called “Berkut”, was dismissed after the power change in this country and investigation into excessive force application by both sides of the conflict, and nationwide protests against police outrage and people’s attacks on the officers were highly reported that days. (Euronews, 2014). This may serve as a unique example of mutual understanding between the officials and the representatives of the nation whose views on this problem coincided. Conclusion Police brutality is a negative side of the police work which is usually considered as the fact discrediting this structure generally and the police officers in particular. It is unusual to hear reports of this phenomenon because police is the very service designed for law enforcement by legal methods. The official statistics inform that increase of weapon quantity, frequency of its use, number of cases if unreported police abuse, even by the fellow officers, worsen the state of affairs with the public trust and assistance. It is also not easy to accept information about cruel actions of the police staff because they are legally prohibited and the government is reportedly struggling against this terrible phenomenon, but reality demonstrates that this is often not so and the society has to elaborate its own answer. It can be asymmetric one, for example, Ukraine crisis and public reaction to police outrage led to banning of one of the best special police units, “Berkut”, because of finding proofs of cruel treatment of the demonstrators and police brutality acts. Works Cited Danilina, S. What Is Police Brutality? Web. 06 April 2015. Euronews. Ukraine: Berkut riot police to be disbanded. 2014. Web. 06 April 2015. Kristian, B. Seven Reasons Police Brutality Is Systemic, Not Anecdotal. 2014. Web. 06 April 2015. The Economist. Tear gas as a dangerous weapon. 2013. Web. 06 April 2015. Workneh, L. Im Lucky To Be Living: Video Shows Cops Brutally Beating Unarmed Black Man In Michigan. 2015. Web. 06 April 2015. Read More