On Slate, Mark Joseph Stern reports on a tragedy:
Andrew Scott and his girlfriend were playing video games in their Florida apartment late at night when they heard a loud banging at the front door. Scott, who was understandably disturbed, retrieved the handgun that he lawfully owned, then opened the door with the gun pointed safely down. Outside, he saw a shadowy figure holding a pistol. He began to retreat inside and close the door when the figure fired six shots without warning, three of which hit Scott, killing him. Scott hadn’t fired a single bullet or even lifted his firearm.
The figure outside was Deputy Richard Sylvester. He failed to identify himself as a law enforcement officer at any point. He had no warrant and no reason to suspect that Scott or his girlfriend had committed a crime. He did not attempt to engage with Scott at all after he opened the door; he simply shot him dead. And on Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that Scott’s parents and girlfriend cannot sue Sylvester because the officer’s conduct was not “clearly” illegal.
I think it might be more helpful to focus on the larger issues, rather than get tied up in the legal doctrine of qualified immunity, which is the legal reasoning used by at least two courts now to find the deputy non-culpable. There have been many calls, and many efforts, to build trust between law enforcement and the communities it polices. For example, following the Castile shooting, the Falcon Heights City Hall issued an email to residents which states, in part,
Our goals are to unify our community around a plan to address the concerns we have heard since this tragic incident, and to work to restore trust between law enforcement officers, and the residents and city visitors whom they serve.
We should start from ground level and work our way up, and that means collaboratively constructing1 a definition of the word trust. I don’t want to thrust forward a full, detailed definition, but rather I simply want to bring out a facet of the word which I think should be emphasized, and it is this.
Trust must imply vulnerability.
Trust is about partnership, not about a hierarchical relation in which the superior is granting favors out of the goodness of their heart – or fear of pitchforks and torches. Trust is about opening oneself up to the possible fatal wound of another – and trusting they won’t do it.
The application of qualified immunity automatically puts law enforcement personnel in a superior position, and while I recognize they are doing a tough job, if they want that job to be a little bit easier, they must be willing to show that trust by being vulnerable. By discarding this doctrine and saying, yeah, he didn’t point a gun at me, and, no, I didn’t identify myself properly, and now I have to face a penalty.
Another situation – approaching a vehicle with your guns drawn. Without additional information that the occupants are dangerous, that gun should be in the holster. Does that raise the danger level for the cop?
Sure does. No doubt it’ll get a few killed through ambush.
But by approaching so many cars with innocent citizens with guns drawn, those very citizens who are supposed to be safeguarded are, instead, endangered. Accidents do happen. After a while, law enforcement personnel burn out and have suboptimal responses. And then innocents die and a little bit more trust withers
And our society becomes a little less special.
1I avoid the word “asking” as it implies an unwarranted hierarchical structure to society. I also avoid the word “defining” as that may lead people to think the dictionary is the best authority for this process.
