What would happen if a police officer struck someone with a helmet, or another blunt object, at the end of a pursuit without provocation? In today’s world, the answer is almost certain: the officer would likely face charges of felony assault. Zealous prosecutors would likely compete to represent “the people” in what would be portrayed as an egregious example of police brutality.
Millions of sports fans witnessed the altercation during a game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and Cleveland Browns. An NFL player used his helmet as a weapon. This incident highlights the disparity in how society views violence, depending on the context.
I’d like to thank the NFL for this timely brouhaha. They helped support an opinion that I articulated in an article just a few days before the game was played; Overkill is the punishment du jour for police officers.
I wrote that editorial after a Charleston police officer was arrested for slapping a handcuffed suspect on the head at the conclusion of a foot pursuit and subsequent wrestling match. He was charged with third-degree assault and battery. This case highlights a perceived lack of fortitude and backbone in police leadership. Law enforcement is inherently messy, and courageous leaders are needed to support officers who may have stepped out of bounds.
“I’m not excusing the officer’s behavior, but let’s put it in perspective,” I asserted.
Here’s a breakdown of the known details:
The emotional element involved in an arrest is often overlooked. While maintaining professionalism is crucial, officers are not robots. Context is vital when determining punishment. Similar cases I handled as an internal affairs investigator resulted in penalties ranging from written reprimands to suspensions without pay.
Society’s views have evolved. However, a harsh reaction is only justified if the officer truly inflicted significant harm. That doesn’t appear to be the case in Charleston.
Consider these points:
Let’s examine the Browns-Steelers incident, where a player used his helmet as a weapon. Here’s a summary:
Joe Buck, broadcasting for Fox Sports, called it “one of the worst things I’ve ever seen on a professional sports field.”
The NFL issued the following statement (according to TMZ Sports):
“The Pittsburgh Steelers and Cleveland Browns organizations have each been fined $250,000 and three players — Cleveland’s Myles Garrett and Larry Ogunjobi, and Pittsburgh’s Maurkice Pouncey — have been suspended without pay for their actions in Thursday night’s game.” “Garrett has been suspended without pay indefinitely — at a minimum for the remainder of the regular season and postseason — and must meet with the Commissioner’s Office prior to a decision on his reinstatement. He was also fined an additional amount.” “Garrett violated unnecessary roughness and unsportsmanlike conduct rules, as well as fighting, removing the helmet of an opponent and using the helmet as a weapon.” “Pouncey has been suspended without pay for three games and fined an additional amount for fighting, including punching and kicking an opponent.” “Ogunjobi has been suspended without pay for one game and fined an additional amount for unnecessary roughness, specifically for shoving an opposing player to the ground during an altercation.” “Additional discipline for other players will be forthcoming through the standard accountability process, including those players that left the bench to enter the fight area.” “Under the collective bargaining agreement, the suspensions may be appealed within three business days. Appeals are heard and decided by either Derrick Brooks or James Thrash, the officers jointly appointed and compensated by the NFL and NFLPA to decide appeals of on-field player discipline.”
The Cleveland Police Dept. is NOT investigating Myles Garrett for assault stemming from the helmet attack on Steelers QB Mason Rudolph. A spokesperson told TMZ Sports that no criminal complaint was filed.
I’m not advocating for Garrett, Ogunjobi, or Pouncey to be criminally prosecuted, even though the veteran broadcaster described the melee as “one of the worst things (he’s) ever seen on a professional sports field.” Nevertheless, let’s be clear; these men committed crimes, … while in their respective uniforms, … on the field of play, … during the emotional heat of battle.
How do their actions compare to those of the Charleston officer? There is no comparison, yet the officer is being prosecuted, the athletes are not. Furthermore, the athletes will all return to the field of play—eventually. The career of the Charleston officer is likely over.
Is this part of the justice reform everyone is clamoring about? How should circumstances like Charleston be handled? The law enforcement leaders in Charleston should have handled the alleged misconduct via the internal affairs process. If the officer’s conduct violated policy, it should be handled with departmental discipline and/or the civil court process if the suspect (victim) felt the need. The prosecutor should view this unspectacular case as a “rejection in the interest of justice.” For the uninformed, trivial criminal matters get rejected in volume in every courthouse in America daily. So why are we making “examples” out of cops? It’s not because we are being held to a higher standard, it’s because too many leaders lack courage.
– Jim McNeff