Must we ‘believe cops’ even when they shoot a pregnant woman after an alleged shoplifting? | Opinion

In a sane world, Ta’Kiya Young would be alive.

In a just society, the man who shot Young dead would be behind bars awaiting trial.

But this is America. Because of that, her name has been added to the much-too-long list of people unnecessarily killed by an armed-agent of the state.

Earlier this year, we lamented a growing trend of residents being shot for seemingly benign reasons. A black boy was shot after accidentally knocking on the wrong front door while looking for his younger brothers. A white cheerleader was shot after mistakenly getting into the wrong car in a supermarket parking lot. A North Carolina man shot a 6-year-old girl and her parents after a ball rolled into his yard. A group of friends in New York wound up in the wrong driveway. One of them was promptly shot dead.

Each of those incidents illustrated the absurd and untenable situation we’ve created by having in circulation more guns than people and passing “stand your ground” laws that embolden people to pull the trigger first and ask questions later, if at all. That’s not the only way that absurdity shows itself.

As Young was trying to leave a Kroger parking lot in Blendon Township in Ohio, an employee flagged down a police officer who claimed the pregnant woman, who was expected to give birth in November, had allegedly stolen bottles of alcohol. One officer began yelling, telling her to get out of the car, saying she had been accused of shoplifting. She did not comply, yelling back, saying she had stolen nothing. (A lawyer representing Young’s family said an eyewitness saw her put the bottles down before leaving the store.) Another officer showed up, gun drawn, standing in front of Young’s car, also yelling.

Before explaining how an unproven allegation of shoplifting resulted in the death penalty for the accused, I want to remind you of a dubious partnership between press and police long ago. It came in the form of “shoot don’t shoot” simulations. Earnest reporters would be invited to take part in police training. They’d be given fake guns and put in scenarios like ones that had happened in real life, such as a 911 call about a man casing cars in a parking lot or two men fighting each other. Invariably, the untrained reporter would shoot an unarmed target or be shot and sheepishly look into the camera and declare, “Man, a police officer’s job is tough. I didn’t realize how hard it is to make split-second life-or-death decisions.”

I haven’t seen such reports recently, though not so long ago, they could be found on local TV news broadcasts and national shows about crimes throughout the country. I never participated in “shoot don’t shoot” simulations though know former colleagues who have. The closest I came was donning firefighter gear before being led through a simulated house fire training exercise.

The “shoot don’t shoot” message was clear and unsubtle: believe police – and without question. That message wasn’t just coming from police, but from professional journalists. Those simulations were training our audiences to not question decisions cops make in unpredictable predicaments. Those officers are there to protect us from bad people. Those officers have a right to protect themselves to make it safely home to their families.

It’s a message some journalists have sold and the public has long bought. It’s why talk of scaling back the funding of police departments – or scrutinizing that funding the way we scrutinize every other governmental agency – is frowned upon even by self-described fiscal conservatives. It’s why juries find it hard to find cops guilty of crimes while on duty, even when those crimes are caught on video.

Everything must be understood solely through the police officer’s perspective.

There’s never been a period in which professional journalists were put into simulators that showed the perspective of those staring down the barrel of a cop’s gun.

The officer’s fear matters; ours doesn’t.

Blemishes on their records are often shielded from public scrutiny by union contracts and laws. Blemishes on our records are instantly broadcast to the world as “context” to help audiences supposedly better understand who the officer was up against.

The officer’s mistakes are too often excused, used as mitigating factors to prevent them from experiencing unpaid suspensions, let alone criminal charges.

Our mistakes are used to blame us for causing our own deaths, for essentially forcing the poor-helpless well-armed servant of the law to shoot us for the good of the public.

That’s the context in which Young found herself last month in that Kroger in Ohio. From her perspective, she had done nothing wrong, was simply trying to leave the parking lot when she had a gun thrust in her face. The officer fired one shot into the windshield, hitting Young as she was moving forward and turning the steering wheel away to leave the scene, all while refusing the officers’ commands.

She died at the hospital.

In a sane society, she would be alive.

In a just society, the person who shot her would have been arrested and charged.

But this is America. In this country, we send armed agents of the state after alleged shoplifters.

In this country, we are OK with those armed agents of the state using deadly force when alleged shoplifters refuse to comply.

In this country, we label the armed-agent of the state who did the killing the real victim, like in this case, which is why officials in Ohio said they didn’t have to release information about the officers. The officers are considered crime victims because of a supposed attempted vehicular assault, a claim absurd on its face given the clear video showing Young was trying to leave rather than run the officers down.

The usual excuses have been used by police officials and their defenders.

Young ignored their commands to get out of the car.

Young tried to drive off.

Young had previous run-ins with the law.

Young may have stolen bottles of alcohol. (I have seen no reports proving she did.)

In short, Young was no angel. Never mind that the officer broke his own department’s written policy to “when feasible, officers should take reasonable steps to move out of the path of an approaching vehicle instead of discharging their firearm at the vehicle or any of its occupants.”

In a sane world, we’d demand policies that say it is criminal for a police officer – or anyone – to shoot someone for refusing to listen to commands after an alleged incident of non-violent shoplifting, that such a show of force must be reserved for alleged murderers and the like.

In a just society, we’d ask why an armed-agent of the state felt the need to un-holster his weapon and point it in the face of someone who allegedly committed a non-violent crime, and why his bosses felt the need to talk more about the dead woman’s past and missteps than the officer’s.

But this is America, where punishment for being accused of shoplifting liquor while black could be death.

This story was originally published September 5, 2023 at 5:00 AM with the headline "Must we ‘believe cops’ even when they shoot a pregnant woman after an alleged shoplifting? | Opinion."