This Friday, October 6th, Salt Lake City authorities have cleared Officer Clinton Fox in the fatal shooting of Patrick Harmon, a fifty year old African-american man. This event took place a few months ago, on August 13th, and the authorities made this decision based on the testimony of the three officers there and the footage from their three body cameras. All three officers testified that after he managed to break free(not literally) during the handcuffing process, Harmon started to run, and then turned back around to threaten Fox with a knife(a knife was found at the scene of the crime), and then Fox shot him.
A takeaway from this incident is the simple fact that body cameras are not an instant solution to the tensions felt surrounding police and their accountability. The footage is blurry and can be interpreted in different ways; it is hard to ascertain what truly happened, and the testimony of the officers present was still very weighty. I'm not trying to advocate against body cameras, but they are only part of the solution, not its entirety
This revolving debate is predicated around the justness of police officers' actions, so what do you think? Did Fox act justly? Did he act reasonably? Why? What more can be done to better relations with people and the police? How?
Article Link
7 comments:
This is a more nebulous case than most, and I would predict that people's answers to whether it was justified or not will depend almost completely on their political orientation. I personally think that it was somewhat justified, but could have easily been handled in a better way. The officer was almost at point blank range, and instead of firing three shots into the back of the suspect, he could have easily fired one or two shots into the legs in order to immobilize the suspect without taking his life. Saying "I'll shoot you" doesn't give the suspect a chance to repent and calm down if you shoot him dead as you are speaking. Overall, the suspect did have a knife, and did appear to try to attack the officers with it, so this is not a cookie cutter police brutality case and does not necessarily merit criminal charges, but police departments should put more effort into training their officers to immobilize rather than kill their suspects when possible.
I also believe that the police officer was in some ways justified, but not to the point of killing someone. Like Daniel said, there are alternatives to handle situations like this. The suspect did have a knife and was holding it out, at that point the officers could have tried to get the knife out of his hands and from there proceed with the arrest. I agree that police officers should focus on ways to not use their firearms and use other tactics instead.
I'm actually a little on the fence about this, especially upon reading the entire segment. Within the article, the police also claim that another reason as to why they stopped Harmon was because of his red tail light, or lack of it. However, the article claims that Harmon did have a red reflector, which he can legally have instead of a taillight in the state of Utah. I understand that bicycling erratically can prove dangerous, but their whole account of pulling him over seems sketchy. It´s unsurprising that they aren't getting charged, and somewhat justified, but it's depressing that this man will become another statistic regarding black lives and police shootings. Though this entire scenario seems questionable, I do believe the police had some justification upon shooting him. They probably felt threatened by his concealed weapon, but they could have apprehended him without using deadly force.
Harmon's death is a reflection on the flawed law enforcement training system in America. Often times, the highly publicized murders of black men by white police officers happen because of racial discrimination and preconceived notions about race, but one must also consider that policemen are also trained to act without any hesitation at the slightest hint of danger. I am in no way making excuses for the policemen's abhorrent actions, and in fact I firmly believe that exempting policemen such as Officer Yaniz (the killer of Philando Castile) from imprisonment is a gross miscarriage of justice. These police officer's paranoid and fatal reactions make it all the more necessary for the police training system to be reformed so that officers can be vigilant while still remaining calm and refraining from unjustified violence.
In my opinion, I feel that no police officer should shoot down someone unless the person poses a serious life-threatening danger. From reading the summary, since Harmon was not behaving the officers instructions, and threatened the police officers with a knife, I think the police man has every right to protect himself. However, I don't think shooting him was the best option; I'm not entirely aware of the whole story, but I don't see why a taser or different method was used. A gun should be pulled out as a last option to protect one's life. I've also seen videos where police man use wrestling and/or jiu-jitsu to get the person down to the floor and then proceed to handcuff them unharmed. I feel that there is this bad stigma around police these days, so when a black person is pulled over by police they instantly assume the worst, which causes them to act out and misbehave. To better the relationship between the public and police, I feel like the public needs perspective on what a police officer has to go through. This could be achieved through classes and incorporated into schools because being more aware and having the knowledge could improve communication and relationship between the public and law enforcement during situations like these.
I feel as if the police officer could have approached this issue in a much different way. For starters, I do not think that the police officer had to resort to shooting the man down, nor do I think most officers should. I believe this issue could have been handled in a way in which the man would have been disarmed of the knife but at the same time still alive. I would have to agree with Jason in how a taser could have been a very easy and much better substitute. This way, the threat the police officer was facing would be treated with but the life of the man, which should not have been taken away, could be preserved. I think the best way to improve the relationship between the police and the public is to educate both the public and the police officers about this issue. For the public, they should be informed on how to behave when pulled over and how to make sure that they do not do any suspicious activity, even by accident, such as keeping their hands on the wheel at all times. For police officers, I believe they should be informed how to deal with threats without resorting to guns as well as a better way to communicate with the public.
It's much more difficult to be a police officer than people think, you have to make these split-second decisions that are incredibly crucial. That's the reason why you don't resist arrest and run if you feel like you're being unfairly treated because you're able to make your case in court. Looking back, should a taser been used instead? Probably. Hindsight is 20/20. But could the whole situation be avoided? Yeah.
Post a Comment