Does Al Sharpton Encourage or Prevent Civil Disobedience

It’s pretty easy to empathize with Reverend Al Sharpton’s reason for wanting “to plan the day that we will close this city down” following the acquittal of three police officers involved in the 2006 shooting that claimed 23-year-old Sean Bell’s life and injured two friends on his wedding day.

We have witnessed police officers seemingly ‘get away with murder’ for many years as the result of what is apparently a carte blanche attitude towards police by our criminal justice system.

There is an underlying message here that says if police are to be held criminally negligent in any officer involved shooting, then the future safety of all police officers will be in jeopardy. This understanding is accepted as factual by the police and the court system. They believe that policemen who think twice about using their weapons are providing their suspect with enough time to shoot first. Therefore they are trained to shoot first and question later. And they are trained to shoot to kill. This leads to inevitable situations where innocent victims are shot to death.

Here we have a situation where a group of men, members of a bachelor party, celebrating one of its members good fortune of marrying the woman of his dreams. As these parties do it lasted well into the night with much celebratory drinking. Undercover police officers were at the same nightclub where this party took place due to a history of past rowdiness. They saw in this group of men a possibility that trouble could arise, based on what only they would know.

When the group left the club, undercover officers decided to follow them. Out in the street as the Bell party was getting into their car the plain clothes officers drew their weapons (again, why, only they would know) and according to witnesses did not identify themselves as police officers. From Sean Bell’s point of view they were under threat of car-jacking or robbery so naturally his first thought was to get out of there quickly, as I am sure any rational thinking individual would do.

The police immediately used the euphemism ‘vehicle as a deadly weapon’ scenario and assumed that they were about to be run over. So without any further thought one policeman opened fire. In any similar situation when one officer begins shooting they all begin shooting. It is sort of a crowd mentality. One officer even reloaded and continued firing. This is the one point that makes this scene particularly disgusting and barbaric.

All cops will justify using their weapons by saying they thought they were under attack. No cop is going to admit that they did not identify themselves. All cops will stand up for each other even when they know they are in the wrong.

The history that is mounting in the courts, that police officers do not receive criminal charges for killing someone, sets the stage for every police officer to feel complete immunity for using their weapons. Therefore they feel completely justified to shoot first and ask questions later.

Police officers who, even accidentally, shoot an unarmed, non-guilty person should not be bolstered into believing they will never be punished. Mistakes are made, certainly, but this lack of punishment, this air of complete immunity has created the idea that policemen are above the law and the public is getting fed up with it.

The media also has a hand to play in this. We read initial accounts of an officer-involved shooting reported by a media system that quite often tells a partial story, and gets the facts wrong, in the their own self-interest in publishing the story first. Follow-up reports that would more thoroughly clarify actual events are rare or buried because it is ‘old news’. A mis-informed public runs with what they first hear as fact and incorporates those ‘facts’ into opinions already compiled about the police and when the inevitable news from the courtroom is acquittal then people feel justified in their outrage all over again.

If the case involves a person of color (read black) Reverend Al Sharpton is on the scene ready to rally all outraged citizens with the kind of “massive civil disobedience” once led by Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. seemingly unfazed of the hatred he is fomenting in bystanders yelling “kill the police”.

I am not going to comment on whether peaceful or non-peaceful protests will do anything more than vent frustration at a system everyone knows will never change. But to see the Reverend Al Sharpton suddenly appear as the mouthpiece for every miscarriage of justice against a black that garners national coverage just seems to me to be in his own self-interest. Perhaps I am reading this wrong. Maybe if he did not show up at these demonstrations, maybe if he did not focus the energy of the demonstrators into a march after these abortions of justice, perhaps an unruly mob would turn violent. Maybe he is the one calming factor necessary in these situations.