NYPD Officer David London Acquitted
Posted in Personal Experiences, In the media on July 4th, 2010Last week, during the trial of Officer David London, I (like millions of others) watched the video tape of the incident that lead to his indictment. However, just because I was a Police Officer myself for a dozen years I don’t automatically take the side of the police in these situations. I do, on the other hand, look at things from a slightly different perspective.
Video Without Audio
What immediately caught my attention was that there was no audio. As numerous studies have shown, the lack of audio can have a dramatic effect on the interpretation of the facts. Part of the reason that the academy teaches new recruits to continue to give verbal direction during a physical confrontation is to also let bystanders know when a subject is being non-compliant.
But what also caught my attention was that very early on, the offender can be seen shoving the police officer. The officer reacted the way I would expect a 14-year veteran to react. He directed the other citizens on the scene to exit the area and waited for his back-up to arrive. Once back-up was on the scene, it became time to effect the arrest. Any offender, a veteran of not, does not get to batter a police officer and not go to jail.
Now obviously, the District Attorney felt that there was excessive use of force. Again, without the audio it is hard to judge. But the other charge brought against this office was that he lied on his report, and a lot of the comments I have read online are critical about the fact that the video tape contradicts the police report. Which is the real reason I feel compelled to write this post.
Eyewitness Testimony
Something that is never discussed in the news is: eyewitness testimony is often wrong! Many times, eyewitness testimony is directly contradicted by forensic evidence, but for some reason the eyewitness always carries more weight.
That can even include the testimony of police officers. I don’t mean the standard testimony of “I arrived and observed blah, blah, blah.” I’m talking about testimony about what happend in a critical situation. I will use my own experience as an example.
For those that don’t know me, I was involved in a police shooting in June, 2000. The short version is that an armed offender pointed a handgun at me and I shot him. When I told my story to the officers assigned to take the report, I stated that he pointed the gun at me and in fear for my life I fired my weapon. I also advised them that after doing so, I advised on the radio “shots fired by the police.”
However, when the evidence technitian processed the crime scene, he recovered spent shell casings from the offender’s weapon. Indicating that the offender not only pointed his gun at me, but also shot at me. Yet to this day I still do not recall a muzzle flash or the sounds of his gun firing.
Furthermore, when the audio tape of my radio transmittion was played for me later, it was clear that I said “shots fired AT the police.”
Does that mean I lied on my report?
Sensory Deprevation
No. It means that my mind was playing tricks on me. In order to function properly and react appropriately to the threat, my mind blocked out any evidence that I was being shot at. But I advised over the radio that I had been shot at, notifying my fellow officers that I needed help.
Thanks to gunshot residue on the offender’s hands, and a thumb print on the magazine of the weapon, he plead guilty to aggrevated discharge of a firearm at a police officer. But had the courts had to rely on my testimony that I saw him shooting at me, things may have turned out different.
Resonable Doubt
Something else that is rarely discussed in the media about the trial is the level of reasonable doubt. That is a very high threshold to meet in a criminal case, and it is that way by design. Every case a prosecutor puts on must meet its burden, no matter who the accused is. A police officer is afforded the same level of constitutional protection as anyone else.
I agree, upon being found guilty, a police officer should face stiffer punishment than a regular citizen, but that’s putting the horse in front of the cart.
Something else the media fails to take into account is, we were not privy to all the testimony. Hopefully some of the points I raised were also raised by Officer London’s attorneys. Which may have helped to convince the jury that the officer’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances. That’s what they have to consider. They also have to consider the totality of the circumstances, not just the inflamitory video.
Althought the criminal justice system is not perfect, I still have faith in it. Based on my experience and understanding of the dynamics around a forceful arrest, and the paperwork that must be completed afterwords, I think the jury made the right decision here.
Media Bias
Lastly, I would like to point out an example of the media bias when it comes to reporting these types of cases. From the AP version I read they descibe Officer London like this:
A police officer seen on videotape repeatedly hitting an unarmed, handcuffed Iraq war veteran with a baton
This is stated as absolute fact, in a way that makes it appear the office just picked this innocent veteran out of a crowd and started beating him. Yet when the AP describes the actions of Harvin, they do it like this:
It shows Harvin moving his legs toward the officer at points.
Why can’t they say say Harvin was kicking Officer London? Because their intent is to downplay the actions of the true offender in this situation. The one who was aggressive from the beginning, struck a police officer, and continued to fight even after handcuffed.
Also, their continued reference to Harvin as an Iraq war veteran is meaningless to the story. Now, if they want to discuss how veterans are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with PTSD at an alarming rate, and how the lack of treatment may have contributed to this veterans violent reaction upon first contact with Officer London, then let’s do that. Otherwise, it’s just another attemtp to shape the impression of the reader.
