Chicago Police Bodycam Utterly Vindicates Officers in Fatal Shooting of Harith Augustus
Turnabout is fair play: Police bodycam kept its lofty promise in south-side encounter with armed man.
In the hysterical atmosphere which unfolded in the wake of the shooting death of Michael Brown by a Ferguson, Missouri, police officer in 2014, professional critics of law enforcement intensified their rote calls for more “accountability” and “transparency” for police officers. Although an exhaustive probe of the Ferguson incident conducted by the Department of Justice eventually upended the mountain of lies concocted by opponents of law and order depicting former officer Darren Wilson as an armed racist who acted with malice during his encounter with Brown, angry mobs baying for police blood remained in a state of bitter discontent. An episode in which conclusions drawn by the Justice Department relied heavily on forensic evidence and testimony from Wilson before being determined to be a justifiable use of force against Brown, in the aftermath of the Ferguson riots, it became an article of faith among anti-police and civil-liberties groups that the high-tech solution of police bodycams was necessary to eliminate a presumed bias and ambiguity in policing.
Two months following the death of Brown, the shooting death of Laquan McDonald by a Chicago police officer touched off weeks of protests and inspired frenzied calls for reform of the Chicago Police Department. Despite some parallels between the Brown and McDonald incidents, the most glaring contrast amid the fatal police shootings in Ferguson and Chicago was the fact that a police dash-cam recorder mounted in a Chicago police vehicle captured the encounter with Laquan McDonald. To the anti-police posse, the death of McDonald preserved for an eternity by videotape was ironclad evidence of police misconduct of which no extenuation or special pleading could possibly account for the use of lethal force.
Posing himself as the cavalry coming to the rescue of the justice system, in a monumental cave-in to irresponsible hypercriticism of police in December 2014, then-President Barack Obama announced $263 million in federal funding to allow law enforcement agencies to acquire bodycams. A program rolled out with the stated purpose for police departments “to purchase body-worn cameras and improve training,” the Obama Justice Department’s underlying purpose was to “catch cops in the act” and punish officers’ alleged use of excessive force. As of 2018, a majority of members of the Chicago Police Department are equipped with bodycams to record police-civilian interactions.
Despite police critics’ blind faith in the accuracy of bodycams, the fatal shooting of an armed man, Harith Augustus, by officers in Chicago’s Grand Crossing Police District on July 14 inspired predictable results: Charges of police brutality, murder, racism, a demonstration, and utter calamity. Captured on tape, the incident on July 14 shows officers approaching Augustus on 71st Street across from Jeffrey Plaza. As officers surrounded Augustus, one officer pointed to Augustus’ hip to which Mr. Augustus responded by backing away. When officers attempted to detain Augustus, he resisted and reversed, careened into police vehicle and, his midriff uncovered, clearly exposed his concealed firearm holstered to his hip. After recovering his balance, Augustus continued his attempted flight, and, with his right hand, without doubt, attempted to remove the firearm from the holster. Police later recovered Augustus’ semi-automatic pistol and two spare magazines at the scene.
Although the police department swiftly released bodycam video revealing the fatal confrontation with Mr. Augustus, it did not dissuade protesters from hurling vile slander at and abusing police officers during anti-police demonstrations. In a remarkable stroke of good fortune for Chicago police, the bodycam revealed a demonstrably armed Augustus attempting escape and preparing to draw his weapon.
Repelled to discover the police bodycam had furnished the abstraction of catching an armed man engaged in criminal behavior, anti-police agitators experienced a sense of betrayal: They were deeply offended by the truth and accuracy of police bodycam of which they had once placed immortal trust to ensnare police engaged in wrongdoing. In the absence of video revealing police practicing barbarities against the public, these self-serving scolds who routinely ignore innocents mercilessly gunned down or caught in the crossfire on Chicago’s streets discarded damning evidence of a man threatening officers and adopted the ludicrous and hypocritical position police interference or connivance led to Mr. Augustus death.
Specialists in the defamation of police who unfailingly think on the fly, the source of demonstrators’ fury was over the meaningless fact no audio accompanied the bodycam’s release and the ridiculous question over what triggered police inquisitiveness to stop and interview Mr. Augustus. Absurd queries framed by demonstrators as a crisis, the fact the police bodycam offers compelling evidence Mr. Augustus was armed and maneuvering to use his firearm should render protesters’ disputes over why Mr. Augustus was stopped and the lack of audio pointless. Moreover, these risible questions should destroy what remains of the anti-police movement’s reputation.
The attempt to interview Mr. Augustus was the result of vigilant policing.
Despite the bid by the anti-police gang and media to paint Augustus’ death as another example of police as aggressors with homicidal instincts, the grounds for officers’ questioning Augustus was a hunch. Otherwise known as vigilant policing, it is the unique ability among sworn officers to bind suspicion and experience, and identify irregularities they detect while on the streets. Once dubious behavior is recognized, vigilant policing obliges officers to act on what they determine is a subtle wrong and discover an explanation for suspected criminal behavior. Dismissed by critics of law enforcement as a cheap form of intelligence, racial profiling, or unwanted meddling in the affairs of residents “minding their own business,” vigilant policing is the foundation of potent, granular-level enforcement of the law. More importantly, vigilant policing has prevented countless crimes and saved innumerable civilian and police lives.
But because ruminations following police shootings typically involve a chorus line of academics, attorneys, anti-police social activists or armchair sociologists, none of whom have a background in law enforcement, a pernicious narrative has developed whereby modern police tactics border on murderous. Over the past four years alone, a string of police shootings nationwide has resulted in panels of so-called experts serving up wild tales of police behavior as predatory, police routinely harassing minority communities, and the creation and addition of the term “police violence” to the English lexicon. A bevy of lies, to overcome this false yarn depicting police as the neighborhood bully requires an articulation of police procedure in a way which posits police taking a defensive posture as a means to safeguard vulnerable citizens and fellow officers when confronting an armed Mr. Augustus.
Explaining the Augustus incident as a classic example of impeccable, proactive police work, a violent crimes detective serving with the Chicago Police Department offered this analysis of Mr. Augustus’ stances:
“The guy (Augustus) was stopped because they (police officers) suspected a gun. He didn’t follow verbal directions to stop and he pulled away. He went for the gun, which was clearly visible, while still disregarding commands and facing officers. Officers were in fear of their lives, and they (police) fired until the threat was eliminated, as per use-of-force order.”
In sum, police officers were alerted to a bulge on Augustus’ right waist suggesting a concealed weapon. A reasonable basis for suspicion, officers at the scene sought to carry out a field interview, which is a proven strategy materially reducing the prospect an individual can commit a violent crime. Responding to police inquiries with hostile and threatening conduct, Mr. Augustus was determined to be a grave threat to both civilians and police, and a police officer was sadly compelled to use deadly force.
While no evidence exists suggesting Mr. Augustus was a member of a gang or had a violent past, it is known Mr. Augustus did not have the legal right to carry a concealed firearm. What motivated Mr. Augustus to flee remains a mystery; however, his bearings, resisting police, attempted flight, and aiming to remove his firearm, were defensibly determined by police to be a grievous threat to officers and civilians. Furthermore, there is no evidence to indicate police officers responding to Mr. Augustus’ aggressive behavior abused their authority in any way nor is there any proof to believe Mr. Augustus was shot for any reason other than he resisted, attempted flight, and endeavored to remove his semi-automatic pistol in the presence of police officers.
Mr. Augustus would be alive today had he obeyed lawful commands from officers at the scene.
Mr. Augustus’ death should be viewed with anguish, but not regret. Viewed objectively, at every critical juncture Mr. Augustus’ movements signaled an attack on police officers and the police response which led to his death was entirely within the bounds of police rules of engagement. His death a direct result of his willful disobedience to clear and realistic police requests, if there is any lesson to be culled from this incident, it is citizens and visitors to the City of Chicago must learn to obey lawful commands from police officers. Trained in the theoretical, police officers are exposed to briskly-evolving, tense, and uncertain circumstances every day. While much debate has surrounded fatal encounters with police over the past decade, deaths during encounters with law enforcement have placed an burden on police of which unneeded reform and “de-escalation” training ensues.
It is, however, the public which is in dire need of training in the art of de-escalation when coming face-to-face with law enforcement. When encountering a police officer engaged in official duty, it is imperative citizens enlist a measured response during pedestrian and vehicle stops, and investigative contacts. Those who yield to police commands, do not resist detention or arrest, will drastically reduce the chances of experiencing difficulty with police. Citizens need to understand police officers do not create problems, but respond to problems. Residents need to recognize the street is not the appropriate venue to settle disputes with the law; this is a matter for the court system. Regardless of one’s attitude toward police, citizens need to listen to and obey lawful commands from police rather than arguing, reciting what they consider their rights may be, or directing hostility or threatening behavior toward police. Fundamentally, citizens stopped by police need to behave as responsible adults, answer questions, avoid quarreling, and comply with the law.
Had Mr. Augustus tempered his behavior when stopped by Chicago police officers on July 14, he would be cutting hair today.
[Photo courtesy CPD/Daily Mail]
