Showing posts with label arrest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label arrest. Show all posts

Friday, July 24, 2009

Jumping to Conclusions


"Grant that I may not criticize my neighbor until I have walked a mile in his moccasins."

Indian prayer

I learned many things in journalism school — the most important, probably, were the nuts and bolts of news writing and news editing.

I carried those lessons with me into most of the jobs I have held in my life, from being a general assignment reporter to working on a copy desk to instructing young journalism students and preparing them for their own careers in a field that has always been very special to me.

But today, as I read a commentary by Maria (Maki) Haberfeld at CNN.com, it occurred to me that I haven't always followed the admonition I received in journalism school — although it actually is something my parents instilled in me when I was a child — to withhold judgment until all the facts are in.

Haberfeld was writing about Barack Obama's comment during his press conference the other night that the Cambridge, Mass., police "acted stupidly" when they arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. last week.

In fact, I said almost the same thing the day before Obama did in this blog.

But I have to conclude, based on Haberfeld's observations, that the president and I — and countless others — were wrong to do so. At least, at this point.

The president and many other black Americans were responding from the perspectives of those who have lived as black people in America. Given the facts that Gates is black and the arresting officer is white — and the use and frequent abuse of racial profiling is known to exist, even if it is not always acknowledged — that is an understandable reaction.

I am not black, but there have been times in my life when my actions or statements were misunderstood by people who did not know — and often did not bother to find out — all the necessary facts.

The police officer in this case was responding to a citizen's report that there appeared to be a break–in occurring at Gates' home. According to Gates, the front door of his home was jammed when he returned from a trip to China. Only Gates and the investigating police officer know how that information was relayed to the police — and whether it was complete and accurate.

With that in mind, let me share with you a couple of Haberfeld's observations. She is a professor of police science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York:

"One needs to understand that the interaction between a police officer and a suspect is just part of a larger context," Haberfeld writes. "When a neighbor calls the police to report a burglary in progress and a police officer is dispatched to respond, a decision–making process begins for the officer."

That decision–making process includes the experiences police officers have had on the job. It is certainly a fact that these experiences can breed racism in some people. But, as Haberfeld points out, these experiences also play an important role for people who must respond to all kinds of situations, many of which can turn deadly at a moment's notice.

"Yes, the professor identified himself as a legitimate occupant of the premises," Haberfeld writes. "However, he was not arrested for trespassing. He was arrested for disorderly conduct.

"Police officers arriving at the scene of a suspected burglary in progress do not put down their armor of suspicion just because somebody proved to them that they are the legitimate occupants of the dwelling. ... A person usually does not break into his own house — it is true that it can happen, and it apparently did in this case — but this is not a standard behavior that, once explained to the officer, should mandate an automatic approach to put down your guard."


Police work, of course, is an extreme. Seemingly innocuous situations can get out of hand rapidly. And, while the public may be apt to forget instances when police officers are killed in the line of duty, as Haberfeld points out, "police officers carry these stories as their secret weapons."

Perhaps racism did play a role in Gates' arrest. To this point, though, is there any evidence of that, aside from the facts that the arresting officer and the person who was arrested are members of different racial groups and Gates accused the policeman of racism?

It is best to know the whole story before jumping to a conclusion. Let's wait until all the crucial questions have been asked and all the information has been gathered before handing down our verdict.

I am reminded of something.

When I was growing up, there was a popular TV series based on the Neil Simon play and movie called "The Odd Couple." Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau starred in the film; Tony Randall and Jack Klugman starred as the fussy Felix and the slovenly Oscar in the TV series.

In one episode of the TV series, Felix and Oscar were wrongfully accused of ticket scalping by an undercover policewoman who did not bother to get the whole story. So the case wound up in court.

During the proceedings, Felix acted as his own attorney. He questioned the policewoman on the stand and got her to admit that she assumed a crime was being committed.

Making use of a chalkboard in the courtroom, Felix wrote the word "ASSUME" and said, circling the appropriate sections of the word as he did so, "You should never assume. Because when you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME!"

Circumstances are not always what they appear to be.

In fairness to all, I urge the president — and any who take their cue from him — to withhold judgment until all the facts are in.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Legal Lessons


Paul Cézanne's "The Murder."


The wording of laws can be tricky. But that is deliberate. Laws are intended to protect the rights of the accused as well as the rights of those who are not accused. And circumstances differ so the law has to be somewhat vague to cover all possibilities.

For the most part, law enforcement officials are aware of this ambiguity in legal language. They may confirm that they have searched a particular location, for example, but they will not confirm if certain people who are connected to that location are under suspicion — until an arrest is made.

That's a fine point in the law of which many people are unaware — and such legal ignorance has made many libel lawyers rich and many aspiring journalists poor — and unemployed.

I was reminded of that this week when police in Tracy, Calif., were investigating the disappearance of an 8–year–old girl, whose body was found stuffed in a suitcase submerged in a pond at a dairy farm.

During the police investigation, a nearby church and the home of its pastor were searched. Based on this information, a blogger speculated that the pastor "could have had something to do" with the murder — even though no one in authority had linked the pastor to the crime. The blogger acknowledged that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but her words implied that she considered the pastor a possible suspect.

I made a comment about this, and the blogger replied that she was free to speculate. She seemed oblivious to the consequences of being sued for libel, contending that all she had to do was offer an explanation for her actions. I said that it would be up to the jury whether to accept the explanation and pointed out that fair comment is considered a defense when the plaintiff is a public figure. I expressed doubt that the pastor of a church is considered a public figure. I was especially doubtful since the church appears to be a small one.

The thing about libel law is that even public figures can file suits if they feel they have been defamed, but it is up to the jury to decide who is right. The ruling may not go against the writer, but the legal defense itself can be costly. Judgments, of course, can be even costlier. Judgments in libel suits can be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.

Are you old enough to remember Carol Burnett's libel suit against the National Enquirer in 1981? The tabloid accused her of public drunkenness, a charge to which she was particularly sensitive because her parents were alcoholics. It was a landmark case involving celebrities, and the jury awarded Burnett a $1.6 million judgment.

That amount was cut in half on appeal and eventually the case was settled out of court. But Burnett gave part of the money to the University of Hawaii and University of California at Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism to fund law and ethics courses. She said the lawsuit was a matter of principle, that it was never about the money.

In my experience, which includes a period in my life when I was a police beat reporter, the police often cast a wide net in their investigations. They're looking for evidence. In some cases, the only evidence that is recovered is microscopic forensic evidence — hairs or fibers that cannot be seen with the naked eye. They may not find it in a particular location, but how can they know until they search it?

Red flags may appear during an investigation for several reasons — for example, reluctance to cooperate with investigators. I heard no reports that the pastor did not cooperate. Apparently, there were no red flags.

Early today, some of the lingering questions in the case were answered. Police arrested a 28–year–old woman, who is a Sunday school teacher and the granddaughter of the church's pastor, and charged her with kidnapping and murder.

The victim was a playmate of the woman's daughter. The suitcase in which the girl's body was found belonged to the suspect. The woman and her daughter live with the pastor. I guess that explains why the church and the pastor's home were of interest.

Few other details have been released. The suspect has admitted that the suitcase was hers, but she claims it went missing the day the girl was last seen. No motive for the crime has been alleged.

But the case is a reminder to everyone — not just journalists — not to jump to conclusions.