I have recently seen some defenses for the indefensible: The take down of an unidentified Black girl by Ben Fields, an officer of the Richland County Sheriff's Office and the School Resource Officer at Spring Valley High School in Spring Valley, South Carolina.
Let's put aside for the moment the question of racial bias. The defenses put forth are that this is a disciplinary situation and the officer has the right to use force if he sees fit. I have several questions for anyone who dares offer these defenses. Feel free to use them yourself if the need arises.
First, do you suppose this officer deals with his own children this way if they act up? Does he take them to the ground and handcuff them? And would you approve of that?
Second, to bring the question closer, do you (the apologist) deal this way with your children? Do any of your relatives so deal with their children? An affirmative answer to that, in most places in the US, would be an admission of child abuse, especially since the child in this case was unarmed and non-aggressive.
Disclosure: At least one on-line report (ABC) indicates that
"[T]he Richland County sheriff said investigators had a new video of the incident Monday, apparently showing the female student hitting the male officer, but the investigation will focus on the officer's actions."
This
Chicago Tribune video does seem to show the girl getting in two licks on the officer's arm (25 seconds into the video) as her chair is being tipped backwards.
Third, assuming the answer to the last question is, "No, I'm not a child abuser," what then is the difference between you and an officer of the law? Now we start to get to the heart of the matter. The response is liable to be that an officer of the law has the right to control the situation and the right to expect compliance with his lawful orders. In some places, there's even a misdemeanor for "Disobeying a lawful order by a law enforcement officer."
But this isn't a law enforcement situation. The child broke no law. The school authorities decided to call in an armed officer because they couldn't handle an ordinary school discipline situation, as school authorities have since the first little red school house was built. (I don't advocate many of the practices those authorities used to maintain discipline.) He then reacted as he was trained to, with an order, possibly given more than once, then with brutal force.
Now why so much force? Why a takedown, which is intended to prevent fighting back (the natural instinct, by the way), by pinning the subject under the officer's (or several officers', if present) weight, followed by a handcuffing? Why not just pull the girl out of the seat and remove her bodily? Or even pick up the chair with her in it? Could it be because this law enforcement officer saw her as a threat? Couldn't be because she had a weapon. Couldn't be because she was aggressive without a weapon. Could it be because she was Black, and he's learned, either from police culture or civilian culture, that Blacks are always to be considered dangerous? The "moment" of putting racial bias aside is now up.
So did this LEO commit on this eighteen-year-old Black child violence he would not have on his own child? What about on any White child?
Note: Later reports indicate that the officer has been fired.
Also, I realize that the moment the girl touched the officer, she could be considered to have committed assault on a law enforcement officer. (Yeah, touched. Even unintentionally. Even without harm.) That might be the reason for the handcuffing, although I do think the officer had a very short fuse.
And one more point: Not only was the girl brutalized, but every Black child in that room received a lesson in subjugation by authority. Now what they do with that lesson is another story.
Update 3:35 PM CDST: Corrected age of the subject from thirteen to eighteen