[Peace-discuss] Julia Reitz interview on PBR

[Laurie Solomon]

While my responses here probably will not sit well with most on this list, I will attempt to address them. 

 Questions #2 and #3 are good questions and I would be curious to hear the rational for such inquiries long after the event that was being responded to was over.  I can understand such an inquiry being undertaken by police when responding to the incident in progress if they had information as to who might be involved to check and see if the complaint was related to any earlier incidents that they were investigating or during the incident in progress to obtain information about the alleged perpetrators of the alleged incident.  I can even understand such an investigation being conducted after the incident conclusion with respect to the investigation of the original complaint reported to the police that initiated the response.  I find it difficult, given the existing information, to understand the relevance of said information to an after the fact investigation of the "police use of force" investigation of the police officer's actions on scene when responding to the complaint.

I take questions #4 and #5 to be rhetorical.

Question #1 makes a whole lot of assumptions and attributions of motive and intent by those who would ask such a question about the officers and the situation. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of both practical police procedures, the realities of policing on the street, and the concrete situational contingencies of the event as they may have existed and as they may have been encountered by the police officer.  If an officer is entering an ambiguous situation with little advance information prior to arriving on scene (radio traffic should suggest what information about the situation and the alleged perpetrators were available to the arriving officers on the scene prior to their arrival), if an officer feels or thinks that the alleged perpetrators might be armed or the situation might be dangerous potentially involving overwhelming odds against the arriving officers with suspects outnumbering officers, suspects being aggressive and hostile, suspects being bigger or stronger than the officers on scene, etc. (in this case, the fact that Norbitt allegedly upon arrival saw an officer - the Chief - on the scene with his weapon out of its holster indicating the potential nature of the situation that might be encountered which would alert Norbitt to unholster his weapon) , an officer might unholster his weapon to have it at the ready.  This is relatively standard practice, which an officer may engage in at his own discretion without any intent or motivation to shoot someone. Typically, in many cases, an officer might unsnap their holster but leave the weapon in it instead of actually unholstering the weapon which represents to the officer a definite and deliberate crossing of a boundary between possible danger and likely danger; but just unsnapping the holster to enable easy access to the weapon versus actually removing the weapon will depend among other things on the type, nature, and location of the holster.  To ascribe intent or motivation to the act of an officer unholstering a weapon without taking into account such possibilities along with the possibilities of an officer's fear of personal injury or death is both purely speculative and malicious.  A more appropriate quest would be to seek more details and information concerning the facts of the situation presented to the officer and the grounds upon which they felt it was warranted to withdraw their weapon that made this situation different from other circumstances that the officer has encountered where they did not withdraw their weapon.


From: Jenifer Cartwright 
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 10:13 AM
To: Peace-discuss 
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Julia Reitz interview on PBR


      I just heard Julia Rietz interviewed on WILL AM 580, which may have been more extensive but abbreviated by PBR. But at the end of the interview, my questions -- for starters -- are:

      1- Why was Norbitt's gun out of its holster if the officer(s) didn't intend to shoot the kids?
      2- Why was there an investigation of Kiwane's whereabouts prior to his appearance on Vine Street?
      3- Why would Kiwane's behavior earlier in the day (or earlier in his life) have any bearing on his death at that particular moment in time?
      4- Did Reitz's investigation include the whereabouts of the officer(s) earlier in the day, or... 5- Did it include an investigation of the officer(s) earlier life? That would have be relevant, because it was the actions of the officer(s) that were being investigated. 

      As I say, those were just for starters. I was gratified to note that Ms Reitz stated that her investigation did not include things such as whether police procedures were followed... tho' shouldn't that also have been part of the State's Attorney's responsibility?
       --Jenifer    

     




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20091209/046715f1/attachment.html