The recent police involved shooting in North Florida
where behavioral therapist Charles Kinsey was “accidentally shot” by one of
the officers as he tried to assist a 22
year old man with autism during a meltdown has raised a new level of concern
for Black families that have special needs children or adult members. It is
possible and justifiable for law enforcement to use lethal force to resolve a
non-violent mental health crisis.
This generated excuse is an insult to the intelligence of
anyone who has seen the footage of this incident. The young man was sitting on
the ground next to Kinsey with a toy truck in hands. He was not making any
threatening moves towards Kinsey or the police.
My middle son expressed his concern after reading the
explanation given for the shooting. He is the father of a son with autism. He is very aware of how important advocacy is
for his son's overall well-being. The idea that his child could be shot during
a meltdown did not set well with him or with our family.
Moving the focus off of race and onto the special needs aspect of a Black individual is a backdoor excuse for implementing the same policy of shooting as an acceptable way to end an encounter between citizens and officers.
The first question that I find necessary to raise is how
did this officer actually assess this situation? Kinsey made it clear that he
was dealing with a mental health crisis. That is what a meltdown actually is; a
moment when an individual cannot process what is happening and is expressing
their inability to do so. They have lost self-control and need help regaining a
sense of calmness.
Lethal force as the first and only tool of intervention is not a solution that we should settle for in a situation where special needs people is involved. This was a mental health situation and should have been handled in that manner.
Neither Kinsey nor the young man was engaged in any form
of physical confrontation with each other. Neither one of the two of them was
making any moves towards police, so what actions were deemed as threatening?
This needs to be clearly explained because quite frankly, I didn't see a reason
to fire a weapon "accidentally" three times as a resolution to a
non-existent situation.
According to information about this incident, police were called with a
report that there was a man threatening to commit suicide. This is definitely a
mental health crisis and whatever encounter that was going to occur should have
been based on this reality.
Once the officers arrived on the scene and the situation
was explained by Mr. Kinsey was there a need to continue to consider using
weapons to help defuse the situation? There was no weapon in the hands of the
22 year man, so what was the real danger here?
Mr. Kinsey was very clear about what was going on while trying to trying to protect himself and the resident from being harmed because he recognized their mutual vulnerability as two Black men in a situation where officers already had their weapons drawn was the real danger.
It is obvious that neither officer had any training prior
to this incident about how to deal with mental health related issues. I base my
statement on how the officers did not respond once the explanation was given
about what was going on. It would have made more sense to holster their weapons
and allow Mr. Kinsey to work on deescalating the situation. He identified
himself as a professional who was in charge of dealing with the crisis. The officers made no allowances for the
deescalating process to continue to determine if it was working. Nor was any
attempt made to call for any assistance from mental health resources within the
community.
Once again I must question why lethal force was the first choice to resolve the crisis?
There is no sustaining evidence that Mr. Kinsey was in
any immediate danger from the resident's actions. Was shooting actually the
most reasonable way to end the situation? I find that difficult to accept
because there is a considerable amount of research and training available on
how to handle a mental health crisis without resorting to shots fired. These
techniques are used by families, in classrooms when teachers are properly
trained on how to implement them, and also by mental health specialist as a non-violent
form of intervention. Not one move made that day indicates that the officers
knew or wanted to have the best outcome for Kinsey or the 22 year old man.
I know what a meltdown is like when it is on full blast. I am the grandparent of two children with autism.
Having children within our immediate family who have
autism has required our entire family to do some serious re-thinking about how
we should respond during those moments when they are not processing what is
happening well. We have had to educate ourselves on what is reasonable during
these moments as well as offer support each other's efforts to defuse the
situation.
The idea that using lethal force or excessive force on a special needs person is good crisis intervention is an indication that the diversity training program in North Florida needs to be reviewed and clear policies need to be drawn up on how an officer should proceed during a mental health crisis when there is no evidence that anyone is in harm’s way or danger.
As we continue to advocate for an end to policing that
results in “accidental shootings” and immediate death sentences for Black
people we have to insist that any new policies include procedures on how police
should respond when it is obvious that a mental health crisis in progress. We must also demand that when officers use lethal or excessive force in this type of situation be held accountable for using an inappropriately response.
Lethal force as the first and only tool of intervention is not a solution that we should settle for in a situation where special needs people are involved. We have to be aggressive advocates for the rights of Black people with special needs as a part of inclusive advocacy for all of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please share your views or tips so that readers can benefit from your perspective.