Hank Greenspun — Where I Stand 1969: Citizens review board needed in community

Friday, Nov. 17, 2000 | 2:04 a.m.

Note to readers: This column by Sun founder Hank Greenspun appeared on February 15, 1969

When a human being is cut down by a bullet and no one questions the justification of the act, you and I are imperiled.

There should be an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the recent death of a 17-year-old boy who was fatally wounded by a North Las Vegas policeman.

The probe should be conducted by qualified citizens, because it is especially important in times like these that facts be established and rumor and speculation dispelled.

Charles Kellar, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, has asked for such an investigation, which in itself makes any such request suspect.

There are many people in the community who view Kellar as a troublemaker, which I feel certain will not deter the West Las Vegas lawyer from pursuing what he considers to be a rightful course of action.

As president of the NAACP, he has a job to perform and there is little use in questioning his dedication or sincerity. He will relentlessly continue on his quest.

And if anyone -- be he a lawyer, judge, public official or ordinary citizen -- underrates Mr. Kellar, he is a fool.

Kellar is a competent, highly intelligent and well-trained attorney and few can match his articulation or legal ability. He has no peer in his devotion to civil rights.

We therefore agree with the demand of Mr. Kellar to clear the air, although we do disagree with his intemperate reference to the shooting as murder.

The law is very clear. A policeman should not use a gun against a man unless the man is armed. He shouldn't use a club unless the person he is attempting to restrain has a club. He can legally use only the force required to subdue a prisoner, and certainly killing a suspect is the last resort, unless the policeman's life is threatened.

This is how policemen must be trained for their jobs. They are taught how to subdue a prisoner and must fulfill their duties with restraint and calm judgment.

It places a tremendous burden on law enforcement, but it is in the interests of the public and law enforcement that proper procedures are followed.

It isn't up to the district attorney to make a judgment of justifiable homicide. We and the community cannot accept the word of one man alone. He can make the decision whether to prosecute but an independent board alone should act in these matters.

The sensitivity of the situation today and the proneness to group reaction over individual incidents like this demand that some kind of body be impaneled to render fair and objective verdicts.

Such action would be as much in the interest of the police officer as the public because no policeman would want to take a life indiscriminately. This could become a weight on his conscience and he may never get over feeling the despair for having killed someone.

The decision of the review board would stop innuendoes, rumors and idle speculation that arises in the absence of any formal hearing and gathering of evidence. And it doesn't take much speculation to foresee that mischief can come from rumors.

Groups of supposedly law-abiding people have been turned into sadistic, psychopathic mobs that left a trail of killings and pillage in its wake because of some unfounded and baseless accusation and rumor. And it happened in very recent times in some of the nation's largest cities.

It is in the interest of all law enforcement to have a permanent body created to sit and make determinations of fact in matters of this nature.

There are civilian review boards at work in other communities but I hesitate to use the term because it has fallen into disrepute as impeders rather than helpers of the law enforcement effort. Often they are composed of social workers and others who take an entirely different approach than the average citizen.

They might have too much compassion for the victim and not enough calm judgment for the policeman who is attempting to protect their life and property.

The independent body I would suggest would have trained people to make the determination at public sessions so the people can judge whether it is a whitewash or a persecution.

In the present instance, if there is no independent investigation, the policeman is the only one who really knows what occurred and until one is in the same position of crisis, it is difficult to judge whether the action was justified.

The test is whether other law enforcement officers would have acted similarly under the same set of facts.

As long as this climate of racial sensitivity exists, steps should be immediately taken to examine witnesses and make judgments based on credible evidence.

The board could even be comprised of the district attorney, who should have full knowledge in case action is warranted, but should also include a district judge and possibly the public defender.

This would ensure law enforcement that trained people are sitting in judgment and would be sufficiently civilian in nature to satisfy the need for a calm, competent evaluation of the justification for the killing.

Human life must not be dismissed lightly. It is too precious a commodity.

The board must act quickly and fairly to prevent any sores that could fester and poison the life of our community.