Floyd: Victim of a bad system, not just a bad apple

Originally published on Facebook 7 June 2020

The killing of George Floyd occurred because a bad apple police officer was working in a system that permits officers to administer summary punishment of suspects.

Kneeling on a suspects neck is a regular practice of the Minneapolis police department (carried out over 200 times last year), and it is not something that is done only as a brief emergency procedure while a violent suspect is handcuffed and rendered no longer a threat. Almost once a week (44 times in the last year) the hold is kept on so long that the suspect passes out. Those subjected to this extra judicial punishment are seldom rich enough to ‘lawyer up’ and bring the issue before a court. They could file a complaint, but how effective is the complaints process?

Officer Chauvin was subject to 17 complaints before he asphyxiated George Floyd. The details of these complaints are treated as confidential by the police department, but media coverage includes cases where the police department decided not to discipline him for use of excessive force, and on one occasion when a criminal was hiding in a bathroom, the officer broke the door down and shot the suspect twice in the abdomen. Peaceful de-escalation of tense situations may not have been a particular strength of Officer Chauvin.

In the case of George Floyd, a violent criminal, but not one who necessarily (or long) endangered the safety of the arresting officers, officer Chauvin seems to have chosen to choke Floyd by way of summary punishment. Chauvin became Judge, jury, and executioner, and his defence to the crime of murder is likely to be that he had not intended death: he was only trying to be judge, jury, and torturer (in my view one administering a ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment incompatible with the 8th amendment)

In a good organisation, people strive for the highest ideals, help those making uncharacteristic errors to get better, and shun/expel those that are unworthy of membership. It seems that few US police departments meet that standard. Even when a police chief wants to give meaning to the ‘protect and serve’ oath by getting rid of those that let the side down, police unions are usually successful in preventing dismissal.

When a system sees choking a suspect to the point of unconsciousness as legitimate, and protects corrupt/violent officers, one is going to get tragedies like the Eric Garner and George Floyd murders.

The buffalo police chief has banned his officers from using choke holds, and suspended two officers for knocking to the ground and injuring a peaceful 75yr old man who was walking across a town square during a protest. The police initially claimed the man tripped over, but Video footage proved this to be a lie.

The problem with the US police system is highlighted by the incident in buffalo. The police union has stated that the 2 officers did nothing wrong when they assaulted and caused injury to this, at the time, entirely peaceful 75yr old, and the 54 other officers in the crowd control department have resigned from the unit in protest at the suspension of these individuals whom they consider to have only done their jobs. As far as I am aware, the initial lie that the 75yr olds injuries were due to him tripping & falling, rather than being assaulted by officers, was not cited as one if the reasons for the suspension, nor did the police union feel any need to comment on the lie. This suggests that even when you have a police chief who is not keen on officers being excessively/unnecessarily violent, there is a long way to go before lying by an officer attracts disciplinary sanctions, let alone the opprobrium of their peers.

Police unions making it all but impossible to fire bad officers are a big part of the problem. Another is the militarisation of many police departments. Giving police departments Army surplus tanks, and artillery not only encourages the use of excessive force, it promotes a view of policing as a ‘war against bad people’, with cops as the good guys. This ‘we are the good guys’ ‘they are bad’ narrative is inimical to a critical analysis of ones colleagues. ‘We, the police, are good because, and insofar as, we uphold the law and protect / serve the community’ comes to be replaced by ‘We are good because we are the blue team, and whatever we do must be good, or at least ok, if it helps the blue team win, because the blue team are the good guys’. This identity-based and group-membership-based evaluation of the merits of people comes to replace any evaluation based on individual actions and character.

Such tribalism is not confined to the police. It is found in high-crime neighbourhoods where bereaved parents, spouses, and friends are encouraged to follow a code of ‘not snitching’ to the police when their loved ones have been killed or injured. (Such attitudes are likely to reinforce the ‘us’ Vs ‘them’ attitude in police departments). Increasingly it is also found in higher income groups when it comes to politics, the starkest example being longtime women’s rights activists saying that yes they believe that Joe Biden raped Tara Reade, but they will vote for Biden anyway.

Neutral systems leave good people to be good and bad people to be bad. Most people are good, so neutrality is often enough. Good systems push even bad people to do the right thing (generally by making good actions advance a persons self interest). Bad systems encourage even good people to do bad things, and I include not just abuse, but also keeping quiet about abuse, as a bad thing.

The US police system seems to be a bad system. But the same identity-based judgments that cause policeman to forgive abuses by the ‘brother officers’ / ‘comrades in arms’ are also a stain throughout most of the world. It exists among

- those that condemn all police officers due to the actions of their violent colleagues (and, to my utter amazement, those that blame unarmed UK police offers who don’t use choke holds for the actions by US police officers. What next? Are the Swiss guard to blame for the KGB officers that torture people for being Christian?)

- Those that condemn all protesters against injustice for the violence of some other protesters (like blaming Ghandi for the actions of violent Indian nationalists in the 1940s)

- Those that impart collective blame on all Moslems for the actions of Al Qaeda, or on all Roman Catholics for the actions of the inquisition, or on all bhuddists for anti-Tamil violence in Sri Lanca, or on all Jews for the actions of the Stern Gang

- Those that blame the whole UK Pakistani community for the actions of child-rape gangs, and those that think the raped children should ‘shut their mouths for the sake of diversity’ (the latter include MP and shadow minister Naz Shah)

- Those that blame the Danish people in the 21st Century for the rape, murder, and pillage against the Essex & Mercia of the first millennium. Or those that hold modern Italians responsible for the rape of Boudicca and atrocities during the Roman conquest of the (southern part of) this island.

The antidote to the demonisation of collective groups based on their race, religion, orientation, profession, hair style, or whatever, is not to argue that actually cops/vikings/moslems/whomsoever are actually good people (although, as most people are good, and behave well most of the time, this is likely to be the case). Rather, it is to step away from collective views and see people as individuals. Every collective group, from priests to schoolteachers to New Yorkers, has some pretty dreadful members, some near-saints, and a good proportion in between. Whether someone is good or bad cannot be known from their membership of the collective group (as long as the group’s composition is not defined by a quality that entails virtue or great sin: if the group is ‘murderers of children’ ...).

As far as I can see, the last five decades have seen the U.K. become a lot less collectivist in its approach to people. In the 1970s, it was quite usual for people in minorities to be seen initially as a member of some collective based on their race, or orientation, or the football team they supported. It seems that is no longer the case. We are now mostly interested in whether someone is good company, kind, honest, diligent, good at their job/sport etc. In this area, as economically, and generally, the world is becoming a better place (I am taking a view over the decades, not proclaiming that 2020 is more fun than 2019)

I will end by returning to the issue of policing, and how to make the police live up to the ‘protect and serve’ ethos of yore. Aside from curbing police unions, getting rid of bad apples, and de-militarising policing, transparency is probably one of the best options. This has been promoted in some areas by having officers wear cameras so that their work is recorded and reviewable. Unfortunately sometimes these cameras seem to malfunction at precisely the moment that people allege brutality is about to occur. Experience on this side of the Atlantic suggests a solution:

When the British army had a problem with soldiers weapons being fired at the wrong times, they abolished the term ‘accidental discharge’, replacing it with ‘negligent discharge’ which was made a serious disciplinary matter. The number of cases fell dramatically.

To cut ‘camera failures’ one could impose on officers a strict duty to ensure that they have working & live video. And make failure a disciplinary matter, with serious consequences, and webcast disciplinary hearings at which the public can make representations. With such rules, Sensible officers would probably ensure that they had two cameras, so that the failure of one of them would not be an issue.