How to find a new way on police shootings
Names of those shot by police are written on a San Francisco sidewalk, underscoring community concerns over how shootings are investigated.
In 2004, a police officer stopped a vehicle driven by Michael Bell Jr., 21, as he pulled up to the house where he lived with his mother and sister in Kenosha, Wis. Bell got out of the vehicle and was confronted by the officer. A dash-cam video recorded the initial encounter, but then the two walked off camera where multiple police officers tried to arrest Bell. As the mother and sister watched from the house, Bell was shot in the head and killed.
The officer who fired the fatal shot believed that Bell was trying to disarm another officer — an assertion the Bell family has disputed. Toxicology tests later showed Bell had been drinking.
Within 48 hours, the Police Department investigated the shooting and determined it was justified.
As a result of a civil lawsuit for wrongful death, the Bell family received a $1.75 million settlement in 2010, but no admission of wrongdoing on the part of the police. That same year, Bell’s father, Michael Bell Sr., used the settlement money to launch his own investigation and fund a grassroots campaign. Four years later, and 10 years after the death of his son, Wisconsin became the first of only three states in the nation to require that all officer-related deaths be independently and transparently investigated by outside agencies.
The effort to enact this groundbreaking law began with the unlikely collaboration of two antagonists — the head of the state’s largest law enforcement group and the outspoken father of a young man killed by police. That is, us, the authors of this commentary.
The aftermath of an officer-involved death has become familiar in America, regardless of where it occurs. A family suffers the immeasurable loss of a loved one; community members question whether they can trust the police; and officers feel as though the public doesn’t support them or recognize the risks they confront every day.
Although many people acknowledge the need for a public dialogue on these sensitive issues as a way to strengthen the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve, few know how to start that discussion. Though it was very difficult for us at times, our hopeful experience shows how very different viewpoints can be respected and used to facilitate healing and change.
We came together, undertook difficult discussions and eventually worked as one to help pass what many consider to be one of the most progressive recent police reforms in the country.
The new “independent investigations” law has been widely embraced in our state, and was even highlighted as a model reform by President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. As police shootings continue to inspire serious and deeply seated community concerns across the United States, our experience may offer some guidance to others. Here are the first steps we took: Cultivate a relationship: After several years of contention, we recognized the need for a functional relationship. Even though police shootings had become increasingly controversial and there was a growing public concern over whether law enforcement agencies could be trusted to investigate one of their own, it was clear that reform could not be the product of a unilateral effort.
We both accepted that change was needed, and we understood that it would have to grow out of a process that included many diverse interests in order to be legitimized by both law enforcement and citizen advocates. Be empathetic: NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton recently asserted the need of people to “recognize each other’s humanity.” But what does that mean? For us, despite significant rancor, we spent most of our first meeting discussing the one thing we shared — that before we were anything else we were fathers.
That proved to be a critical turning point. It allowed us to better understand both the perspectives of the police officers that risk their lives every day and the experiences of those tragically affected by law enforcement actions. Beginning our discussions from a place of common ground helped
us appreciate the basis for our differences. Maintain a meaningful dialogue: Our discourse was both open and discreet. While we made the public generally aware that we had begun meeting for the purpose of exploring reform, we also adopted some important ground rules to maintain a certain level of confidence in one another.
We agreed not to release the details of our discussions to the media unless done jointly, as we wanted the ability to candidly propose ideas and raise questions without concern that our views and intentions would be distorted or used in any way that wasn’t mutually agreed upon. Adhering to basic guidelines helped us learn from one another and nurture a necessary sense of trust.
These suggestions may seem obvious, but the national landscape surrounding policing in America offers little evidence to that effect.
Given the tensions that stem from grieving families, complex community dynamics, and the dangerous demands confronting law enforcement officers, perhaps that’s understandable. But in light of the tremendous need for healing in our country, perhaps our experience will be instructive.
Our work was grueling at times, and there were many who questioned our efforts. Yet we forged a relationship on the principle that good things can come when we appreciate that the need to listen is just as important as the desire to be heard.
We believe that our experience offers some guidance and hope that our efforts can be replicated and improved upon elsewhere. And they must be, because it is possible, and the need for this kind of restorative collaboration is great.
Jim Palmer is the executive director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association. Michael Bell is a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force. His son was killed in a police shooting in 2004. To comment, submit your letter to the editor at http://bit.ly/SFChronicleletters.