Hindsight from The New Gun Week March 10, 1999
Side Effects of Zero Tolerance
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
Back in April 1993, a lot of Americans-both conservatives and liberals-were not very troubled by the scorched-earth, military-style ending to the standoff at the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, TX.
The general reaction among much of the public was that David Koresh and his followers "got what they deserved." Indeed, more than a few were quick to say then that they were surprised the government forces took so long to use enough force to write the final chapter to that "challenge to law and order."
That knee-jerk reaction has changed for some Americans, particularly those who have taken the time to learn more about the history of that event, or who have seen the Oscar-nominated film "Waco: The Terms of Engagement."
But the original impatience with which Americans first reacted to the Waco raid and standoff is symptomatic of a popular national attitude about any defiance of any law. Americans have zero tolerance of crime. In fact, that widely held intolerance and impatience with respect to crime of any kind has spawned a zero tolerance attitude for almost every crime or suspected crime, from kids taking guns to school, failure to pay child support, so-called hate-crimes and drunken driving.
Pandering to this public attitude, local and federal officials have enacted new laws and formulated administrative policies which push the envelope of freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights. The public's early response has been to support all sorts of unfair and intrusive laws and law enforcement strategies that invade or limit individual liberty in the name of greater security. Lawmakers like to promote such laws because they get headlines and appear to be dealing with problems of general concern.
Americans seem little worried, however, with government eavesdropping on their phone or Internet communications without probable cause. Nor are they bothered by the government demanding more and more information about their bank accounts, sources of income, and right to property-not to mention flagrant misuse of Social Security numbers. As long as their assets are not the ones being seized by government agents, they think asset forfeiture is pretty neat. And they see nothing wrong with having to prove their innocence before they can purchase a firearm.
Police State
The problem is that as the public demands more and faster action from law-enforcement agencies, as we demonstrate zero tolerance for more and more things, we inch closer and closer to a police state.
Few people stop to think about the consequences of this public attitude-the side effects of zero tolerance.
Then someone like New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani announces that the automobile of anyone suspected of drunken driving will be seized by city police and forfeited to the Big Apple without trial or a showing of guilt. The very means by which motorists are stopped randomly and without probable cause for sobriety tests is applauded by everyone who has not yet personally experienced such a "sobriety" test.
Widespread illegal drug trafficking and its related violent crime offspring probably first helped condition Americans to their present attitude. The intolerance of drugs, violence, and guns-and fear about domestic and international terrorism-push public attitudes even further.
Today we expect police to instantly and aggressively respond to every problem. We are impatient for action, and that impatience puts pressure on law enforcement agents whose daily tasks put them in constant stress and personal risk. There is constant pressure for police to act quickly and decisively. But haste isn't always the answer, and it may complicate the problem.
The intolerance of the public and the demand for instant results may be a proximate cause of some recent high profile incidents which at first may seem far removed from Waco.
Suddenly we have cases like that of 19-year-old Tyisha Miller, a black woman who was shot to death by four police officers in California as she sat unresponsive in her car, allegedly with a gun in her lap but not overtly threatening police. An autopsy reveals that she was hit by 12 shots in the fusillade fired at her.
Initially, the officers-three white and one Hispanic-said Miller fired at them with the handgun, but later said she grabbed at the gun after an officer broke a window.
"Will our skin color be a bait or a magnet for police crime? We must end the violence," the Rev. Jesse Jackson said at a news conference in February.
"You turn to police and you call them for help and help comes firing bullets. That's like death squads. That's like tyranny. People deserve better."
The county district attorney's office is conducting a grand jury investigation and the FBI is making a preliminary inquiry, but will these probes merely blame or exonerate the police officers involved, without discovering what social forces created the atmosphere for their actions.
Racism Issue
The alleged brutalizing last fall of a suspect, also black, by New York City police in a station house while the young man was in custody was followed more recently by an even scarier incident, also from New York City.
Four police officers fired over 40 shots at an unarmed man, killing him on the doorstep of his home. (See Gun Week, Feb. 20, 1999) First reports indicated that they may have suspected him of being a rapist they were seeking. They hit him 19 times.
The racism issue has been raised in these incidents as it was by the Rev. Jesse Jackson in the California case, and it may be that racism is part of the problem as well. However, Jackson and other black leaders who focus on the racial aspect of these incidents seem to be missing the broader picture. Because of the white on black aspects of these three incidents, they have at least raised voices of protest in their demand for investigations.
Few other leaders have raised similar concerns when the victims of overly aggressive law enforcement policies and practices are white, or non-black. Jackson and the NAACP at least express outrage when their constituencies are involved. No one else seems to be asking many questions.
As in the post Waco period, unless personally involved, the public is intolerant of law-breakers and impatient for police to deal with the problem.
The public doesn't seem to care what happens after the shooting, the arrest or whatever. They don't even pay attention to the trials which follow to see if justice was done. Only in high profile incidents as in so-called hate crimes, against blacks or homosexuals, does the media turn its camera lights on the aftermath of these notorious cases.
There are serious side effects to this zero tolerance attitude so many people are proud of, and they may get worse as the government further militarizes civilian law enforcement, and further intrudes on the lives of law-abiding citizens.
One of the problems with all this is that it doesn't help professional law enforcement either. People want the police to be swift and tough, but they can turn on the police community, too.
The recently announced investigation by the FBI into whether or not Maricopa County, AZ, Sheriff Joe Arpaio is too tough on prisoners is a case in point.
Everyone wanted Arpaio to be tough, practical and frugal. They made him a national figure when he gave the public what it wanted. Now others are blaming him for doing just that.
Some people are now complaining about the "get-tough" police policies and practices in New York City, not because some young black men were violated in police stations or gunned down on their doorstep, but because the people with zero tolerance complex might have their cars confiscated after partying at a tavern or friend's house sometime in the future.
The car is apparently more important than the right to privacy and the freedom to pursue a normal law-abiding life.
Curiously, Geraldo Rivera and other TV talking heads are exploring some of the questions posed by the police shootings. But as usual, they want easy answers. They'd like to see individual cops disciplined for each incident, but they seem reluctant to support any policy which would put limits on the zero tolerance and aggressive policy policies promulgated in New York City or elsewhere.
"After all," Rivera said on a recent program, "serious crime is down in New York City and we like that product of aggressive policing."
Yeah. That's what the people in Munich and Berlin said 60 years ago. And that's what a lot of Russians miss about the good old days of communism.
The New Gun Week is published three times a month by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on the 1st, 10th, and 20th. Hindsight is a commentary written by SAF President and Gun Week Executive Editor Joseph P. Tartaro. This commentary may be reprinted so long as credit is given to the author and the publication. For more information or to subscribe, write Gun Week, PO Box 488, Buffalo, NY 14209, or call 716-885-6408 Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST, or inquire on Compuserve to John Krull, Production manager-JohnSAF@Compuserve.com or gunweeksaf@broadviewnet.net
Also, check out the New Gun Week at http://www.GunWeek.com
