Hubris: it’s an unfortunate part of all policy decisions, the misguided confidence that assumes whatever change affected is the singularly “correct” answer for all involved. Oftentimes, the consequences of this stubborn, single-mindedness are disastrous, but not irremediable. A politician or corporate executive may enact toxic policy without the feedback of any dissenting voices, but those voices will soon make themselves heard through a unified chorus of ‘I told you so”s calling for reform.
Tragically, in the case of David Joseph, whose life was taken by an APD officer for the crime of streaking, there truly is no remedy. There is nothing the City of Austin or APD can do that will bring Joseph back to the family and community who cared for him. This is the deadly consequence of hubris, as it was hubris which took David’s life, and as it is hubris which continues to destroy Texan lives and socially stratify local police from their communities.
Outright critics of Black Lives Matter, many of which felt the need to comment on David’s case based on pure bile bias alone, would argue that it was hubris which brought David into his situation in the first place. Certainly, streaking through a neighborhood while intoxicated requires more than a smidgen of chutzpah. However, considering that, audacity aside, David’s act constituted as little more than a frat-boy prank, one must wonder why now-former APD officer Geoffrey Freeman felt that lethal force was necessary to subdue his suspect. In 1974, during the 46th academy awards, a streaker was made momentarily famous as he rushed nude across the stage while host David Niven quipped on his “shortcomings.” How would audiences react if Niven had shot the streaker dead in his tracks on the basis of feeling threatened?
I would thus submit that it is not David’s hubris that brought him to a tragic end, but officer Freeman’s. The only problem being that Freeman wasn’t working off of any loose cannon type hunch when he pulled the trigger, he was following his training. Yes, it would seem that despite the APD’s attempts to stem the flow of officer involved shootings through policy changes (including new SOP policy affecting how officers may approach heavily intoxicated suspects), there remains a culture in officer training that promotes a “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality. The academy instructor who trained Freeman, a fourteen year veteran of ten years training experience, has already been considered for reassignment after an interview with investigators in which he revealed his gung-ho philosophy on approaching suspects. He went on record to say that Freeman violated none of his training in the shooting of David Joseph, even going so far as to say “I can understand why he did that.” Again, just as a reminder, "that" means shooting an obviously unarmed, nude teenager.
This is why hubris is so cancerous in regards to policy. Officer Freeman thought he was in the right to shoot a naked, unarmed teenager, and didn’t bother considering whether he might be wrong in making his lethal decision. Why would he? He was trained by an academy instructor who possessed equal hubris in thinking every suspect must receive some type of aggressive action to ensure the officer's survival. Neither man allowed themselves to consider that they might have an outdated and dangerous view on policing. It is hubris all around that killed David Joseph, and which will continue to others if there is no systematic change in personality, not just policy.
It may be hard to accomplish, but for police chiefs scratching their heads as to why their community denigrates them as oppressive oligarchs, they may want to give it shot, rather than giving one to the next David Joseph.
No comments:
Post a Comment