How Private Prosecutions Could Help Stem Police Brutality

Police brutality remains in the news this week, as it has been off and on since 2014. People--disproportionately people of color--continue dying at the hands of law enforcement at a rate of approximately 3 per day. It's true that not all of these deaths happen under suspicious circumstances that suggest wrongdoing. But many do seem thoroughly unjustified, including two that we wrote about recently.

In the most egregious cases, like that of Walter Scott, there's a chance of police being charged with a crime. But this is the exception, not the rule. In 2015, eighteen officers faced charges of manslaughter or murder related to an estimated 990 individual deaths, which was actually a significant uptick from 2014. No officers were convicted on such charges during the year, though some, such as the Scott case, remained pending. Given that the United States criminal justice is not renowned for leniency, these are rather remarkable statistics. And the numerous individual cases, high-profile and otherwise, in which officers evaded convictions or even charges attest to the fact that something is deeply wrong. In spite of massive, regular protests in the wake of each new tragedy, the solution remains elusive.

Many good ideas have been proposed to help address the problem of police brutality, such as the slate of reforms promoted by Campaign Zero. But few people are talking about the most promising reform of all: Legalize private prosecution for police brutality cases.

Self-interest and Prosecution
This may sound at first like a radical idea, but it is not. In fact, it is not even a new idea at all. Under the English common law system, private prosecution was the norm. And this system was largely replicated in the American colonies. Thus, private prosecution was the dominant method of seeking redress in the US through the first half of the 19th century. It was only later that the role for government prosecutors gradually expanded and usurped the role of private prosecution. Today the practice is largely nonexistent in the US, even in states that still allow it in some form.

While idea of having a lawyer prosecute and punish people for profit may seem ripe for abuse, these risks are constrained in an adversarial justice system like ours. In principle, it's not different than the role of a private defense attorney. In our system, the prosecution is asked to present the best possible evidence in support of conviction; the defense is asked to make the best case that their client is not guilty; an impartial judge oversees the proceedings; and the jury (or judge) decides which side is right. In theory, we may think of the public prosecutor as pursuing some vague notion of justice. On Law & Order, it might work that way. But we can look any number of facts and events in the real world that would disabuse us of this idealism.

For instance, it is a completely standard practice to offer accused criminals a lesser sentence if they plead guilty to a crime than they would face if the case went to trial. This practice makes no sense at all if prosecutors are merely interested in justice--why in the world would justice require a different punishment for the same crime based on whether or not the prosecutors had to win at trial? Clearly, it would not. Additionally, prosecutors routinely cite conviction statistics when running for the reelection. But "justice" doesn't care how many people were convicted; it would only care that they were treated fairly. From this, it's fair to say that justice is not the core driver of prosecutors today. Rather, many of them are motivated by something else, probably self-interest just like the rest of us.

So when a public prosecutor litigates a case, they are (generally) making the most compelling case they can to get a conviction. This is precisely what we would expect a private prosecutor to do in the same circumstances. In order to fulfill their client's wishes, the private prosecutor must present the best case possible to bring the defendant to justice.

Conflict of Interest in Police Brutality Cases
While the incentives for private and public prosecutors may alignaligmany cases, they are likely to diverge sharply when it comes to prosecuting police officers. Here, the public prosecutor knows that they must maintain a good working relationship with the police department, and they may even have personal relationships with some members of the police force from their day-to-day work. Just as important, police unions are powerful political entities that wield considerable influence in local elections. All of these forces make it much less likely for a public prosecutor to go after individual cops, even under circumstances that indicate wrongdoing. It might be the right thing to do, but it is likely to directly contradict their own self-interest. Going up against the police union is not a battle they are likely to win.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that many police killings result in no charges whatsoever. Frequently, these cases involve extraordinary legal procedures to reach their conclusion.

Take, for example, the case of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. While there was no video footage in this killing, there was eyewitness testimony and sufficiently suspicious circumstances that the death sparked outrage and national attention. In this case, the prosecutor took the case to a grand jury and proceeded to present evidence in support of and against indicting the officer involved. The offending officer himself testified at length in the proceeding, effectively getting to present his defense. This contrasts markedly with a typical grand jury proceeding, in which the prosecutor presents one side of the story and the jurors return the requested indictment. The purpose of the grand jury process is to throw out completely baseless charges, not to assess guilt of the defendant. And given the one-sided nature of the proceeding, prosecutors almost get the indictment they request--out of 162,000 federal grand jury cases in 2010, only 11 were declined.

But the Michael Brown case was different. There, the prosecutor involved didn't really ask for an indictment. Instead, he turned the grand jury into a makeshift trial of sorts, with no side honestly advocating on behalf of the victim. And so he got the result he wanted; the officer was not charged and the result had a thin veil of legitimacy because some kind of legal process occurred.

The case of Eric Garner followed a similar path. After an incredibly incriminating video of his killing circulated, a grand jury process was conducted, and no charges were filed. The grand jury records in that case remain sealed, so no one knows for sure whether the prosecutor completely phoned it in for that case. But the statistics above, and the appalling nature of the video, make it more likely than not. It also doesn't help matters that the prosecutor charged with overseeing the case, Dan Donovan, decided to launch a successful bid for Congress shortly after the decision. Cynics could be forgiven for suspecting politics were involved in the non-prosecution of Eric Garner's murder.

Other examples could be cited as well. The picture they paint is not a pretty one. At least in this area, it appears that public prosecutors have consistently failed. The police officers involved do not get punished (which may or may not be appropriate), and the overall process lacks enough legitimacy to satisfy the public that justice was served and the rule of law exists. So police brutality continues to occur, the protests continue apace, and more recently, some troubled individuals even resorted to killing individual police officers to exact some kind of collective punishment. In short, the current system is working for no one, except the few officers who commit crimes and get away with them.

The Remedy of Private Prosecution
Now consider the remedy that allowing private prosecution in these cases could provide. The victim's family and supporters would hire a reputable attorney that they trusted, and the attorney's sole job would be to pursue justice for the victim, as it should be. That would probably mean aggressively prosecuting the officer involved to the fullest extent of the law. Some cops may ultimately still walk free in some cases as the laws themselves are very favorable to officers. But the final outcome from a private case would be far more legitimate than the ones we've seen so far, because the central conflict of interest has been removed.

It's also likely that removing the conflict of interest will lead to more cops getting successfully prosecuted and convicted. This, in turn, would influence police behavior for the better. Cops currently face very little risk of prosecution for excessive force, as the cases cited at the beginning of this piece amply prove. In this environment, we should not be surprised excessive use of force is commonplace. But as the threat of punishment becomes credible, we should expect the situation to improve. After all, our justice is based significantly on the idea that punishment deters criminal behavior. If we believe that is true for private citizens, we should expect it to be true for police officers as well.

Many proposed solutions to police brutality implicitly acknowledge the conflict of interest problem that exists currently. But rather than propose outright private prosecution, they typically envision a special prosecutor, still funded and selected in some way by the government. This is likely to be an improvement over the current system, but it is inferior to the private solution for a few reasons.

First, allowing private prosecution doesn't cost the government any additional money--in fact it actually saves money. This means it immediately bypasses one possible legislative hurdle. Second, it confers a greater sense of legitimacy and independence on the prosecutor if the victim's advocates have a direct role in selecting them. Finally, special prosecutors are appointed to all kinds of things in government (like torture, for example) without consistently producing legitimate results, so it's not obvious that police brutality would turn out differently.

One possible objection to the solution I've outlined is that poor people wouldn't be able to afford a private prosecutor. This is a legitimate concern given that many of the victims of police brutality are poor in addition to being minorities. However, the intense focus on this issue of late suggests that these cases could attract top lawyers to prosecute them, either on a pro-bono basis or with donations. Even if that didn't materialize in a specific case, the victim would be no worse off than they are now. In the absence of a private prosecutor, the government would handle the prosecution as they do currently.

Summary
Police brutality is an issue that has plagued the US for some time. While there are many different aspects of the legal system that contribute to this problem, nothing is more central than the conflict of interest between the public prosecutors and the police department. If everything else was fixed and this went unchanged, police brutality would still occur and the perpetrators would still get away with little sanction.

Allowing private prosecution in these cases is a simple and costless remedy that can begin having a positive impact immediately. By increasing the probability of conviction for excessive force, it will create a powerful disincentive for officers to resort to those tactics unless it is absolutely necessary. By removing the conflict of of interest, the resulting legal outcomes will have a level of legitimacy and fairness that the current situation desperately needs. And by letting victims choose an independent and competent advocate in the courtroom, it will at least give them a fighting chance at obtaining justice, a chance they do not currently have.

Civil Disobedience, the First Amendment, and Private Property

Protests against police brutality remain strong this week, and the response remains about as militarized as we might expect--riot gear, tear gas, sound cannons, and so on. The picture below captures the mood pretty well I think.

Some of the protests are permitted while others are not. Aside from sporadic reports of projectiles being thrown at police, the protests have been largely nonviolent across the country, which is commendable and typical of the Black Lives Matter movement.*

In spite of this, many protesters are being arrested (and not just the few that were violent). On the surface, this seems not to make sense. After all, the First Amendment guarantees a right to "peaceably" assemble. It would not be unprecedented for the government to violate the constitution, of course, but is that what is really going on?

In individual cases, probably so. But in general, we must understand peaceably means more than simply nonviolent. A moment's reflection on the matter reveals why this must be so. You could nonviolently stand on someone's private yard and refuse to leave when asked. You could nonviolently stand in someone's shop and refuse to leave. Or you could nonviolently sit in the road, and assuming you have enough friends to do it with you, you might be able to prevent all traffic from passing. All of these behaviors are nonviolent. However, they are not truly peaceful because they violate others' rights. The right to use their private property as they wish in the first two cases; the right to travel on the public road in the second. Peaceful actions don't infringe on the rights of others. Thus, marching on the sidewalk is probably totally fine; marching in the road and impeding traffic probably wouldn't be.

There are exceptions to this general rule. To facilitate free speech (in theory), local governments can create rules and offer permits to say march in the road to protest, for a reasonable amount of time. While this act would still be violating others' rights to use the road in some sense, it would no longer be illegal.

As it happens, blocking traffic appears to be a preferred tactic of the Black Lives Matter group, and they are quite adept at it. Given this, it should not be surprising that many are being arrested.

The reason we call it civil disobedience is precisely because laws are being broken. They might be bad laws, but laws nevertheless. If laws weren't being broken, it would just be called civil obedience, which I can think we can all agree is decidedly less appealing.

We should hope that disproportionate force and punishment is not meted out against protesters who break the laws in the name of protest--and we should probably assume that hope will not be fulfilled in reality. But we should not be appalled, in general, that arrests are occurring. At least in the activist circles I used to frequent (all of which were on the political left), arrests were an explicit part of the strategy of civil disobedience. Arrests bring publicity and media attention to a cause that might not otherwise get it. One can debate the effectiveness of such a strategy in producing real political change, but it does not make sense to object to protesters being arrested when and if they break the law. There are ways to protest without breaking the law; the rest is civil disobedience.

With all that said, however, we would be remiss to imply the cops have been following the letter of the law in response to the protests. A particularly interesting example of this recently occurred in Louisiana, when a group of protesters ended up leaving the street for private property. The protesters reportedly had the property owner's permission, and thus were fully within their rights to remain there. In spite of this, the cops eventually evicted them with a highly militarized response, even as the property owner tried to object.

The thin rationale used to justify this action by the police was that the protesters had already broken the law previously by walking on the road. Based on the sequence of events summarized by Reason, however, this does not make sense. Here's the relevant excerpt:

She says the protesters held a peaceful rally outside the state Capitol, then a portion of them attempted to march along the Interstate highway (a common Black Lives Matter tactic) but were blocked by the police and diverted to a city road.

Reason is citing one of the protesters here, so there's no reason to assume she's an objective observer. Still, the group clearly managed to get from the interstate (where they allegedly broke the law) to private property in what appears to be a subdivision. If the walking on the interstate was illegal, the police could have arrested them at that time.

Instead, they chose follow them to private property and arrest them there. For this to be legitimate, we would have to assume the police actually tracked exactly who in the protest group did and did not violate the law. Then in the chaotic mess that followed in the front yard, they judiciously identified those same people for arrest. Watch the video below, and then see how likely you think that explanation is.

What seems more likely is that, in the most generous scenario, the police may have observed some people breaking the law in the group and opted to use this as a pretext to invade private property. This response probably had nothing to do with identifying the actual individuals who violated a law, and everything to do with sending a message. In other words, it would appear to be thinly veiled collective punishment, with an innocent property owner's rights violated in the process.

Summing Up

It may be worth debating the usefulness of civil disobedience as a tactic, but it should be relatively easy to know when it occurs. And arresting protesters based on their violation of laws is not suppressing their First Amendment rights. It's just the logical outcome of protest actions that involve civil disobedience, for better or for worse.

But we'll end on a slightly more optimistic note. In the example cited above, a group of generally left-leaning individuals appropriately invoked private property rights only to see the government officers gleefully violate them with impunity. For libertarians, that's a perfect metaphor for government action writ large. Maybe some good will accidentally come from more people seeing that.

*It probably goes without saying, but the tragic police shooting in Dallas last week which claimed the lives of 5 officers was not affiliated with the protest that preceded it. The attacker used the event as an opportunity, but there's no evidence of coordination. People have used the event to assign blame to Black Lives Matter based on unassailable collectivist logic--the attack occurred in the vicinity of a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest, the attacker was black, ergo, Black Lives Matter is at fault. It's not clear whether the assailant was even sympathetic to the Black Lives Matter movement before he decided to commit the crime. Even if he was, it still would not warrant smearing the entire organization. A group cannot be justly judged based on the actions (or opinions) of its craziest members; otherwise none of us could ever bear to identify as anything. For example, I couldn't call myself libertarian now that the Iraq War-supporting Bill Weld has adopted the moniker. I also probably couldn't call myself vegan, given that some Canadian vegans went off the deep end and got a ruling passed that prevents discrimination against vegans. I deeply wish I made that up, but sadly, I did not.

I'm digressing in a footnote now, which may be a new low, but the point here should be clear. It is not correct to judge an entire group based on the actions of a single member. And this is particularly true of groups and identities that one does not voluntarily adopt (their race, national origin, religion (arguably), etc.).

More Needless Police Brutality

Philando Castile had his life tragically cut short by a police officer in Minnesota yesterday. What began as a routine traffic stop (over a broken taillight) in a quiet suburb quickly escalated as the police officer shot Castile multiple times. Castile remained in the driver seat throughout, and he would later be pronounced dead at a local hospital. Explicit footage of the shooting itself has not been released (and may or may not exist). However, Castile's girlfriend, Diamond "Lavish" Reynolds was in the car at the time, and she began filming the encounter shortly after the officer shot Castile. Among other things, the video depicts a clearly panicked and hysterical police officer trying to justify his actions.

Earlier this week, a somewhat similar story emerged out of Louisiana. Another man, Alton Sterling, was killed by police responding to a call about a person matching Sterling's description pointing a gun at someone in front of a convenient store. Video has emerged of the actual shooting event in this case, and it's about as bad as it could be. Two officers are seen pinning Sterling to the ground and then one of the officers shouts that Sterling has a gun. The officer draws his own weapon and fires on Sterling multiple times at point-blank range. It's not whether the other officer also fired shots. Sterling died on the scene.

Both of these events follow the formula we have come to expect. Both of the victims were black, and it appears none of the police officers were. At the time of the shootings, neither of the victims appear to have posed a threat to anyone. And at least in the case of Castile, the reason the police encounter even occurred was completely mundane--a broken taillight. Offhand, I can only think of one other police murder case where the initial "offense" was even more benign than this--in that case, the victim flashed his brights.

Given these facts, there is a natural inclination to emphasize the racial component of these stories. This is understandable, and it is true that the victims of police killings are disproportionately black. In the Castile case, it also seems relatively certain that racial prejudices played at least some role. I find no other way to understand how a police officer can go from "that car has a broken taillight" to "the driver is going to try to shoot me".

Having said that, however, the fundamental issue here is not about race. Yes, it's true that there are racist cops. Yes, systemic racism does exist in at least some parts of the criminal justice system. And of course, we all know it's true that cops routinely get away with killing innocent black people, and face no sanctions or punishment whatsoever.

All of this is true. But on the last count, that fact is not exclusively true for black victims of police violence. Rather, the unfortunate reality is that cops almost never get punished for anything, except in the most heinous of circumstances. The primary explanation for this reality is not racism, but privilege--specifically, the extraordinary legal privileges that have been granted to cops that all but preclude their prosecution.

This is a critical distinction strategically. Focusing on the racial aspect of these stories has the effect of limiting its appeal to the usual confines of left and right. Modern liberals would line up behind Black Lives Matter while most conservatives reflexively defend police action. One side says racism is a problem, while the other denies its existence. The walls stay up, and nothing changes.

By contrast, arguing against the legal privileges of cops has much more potential appeal. I would argue this is generally true, but it definitely true right now after Clinton Email Scandal. The Clinton story has had the incredible effect of making everyone on the political right clamor for the rule of law, at least rhetorically. We discussed this case at length earlier this week, but the broad contours are straightforward:

• A powerful government official committed actions that would clearly be illegal if anyone else did them.
• The government conducts an ostensibly "independent" investigation by a different branch/agency into the official's conduct.
• The investigation finds insufficient evidence of wrongdoing and the government official gets away clean.

There are many problems in the Clinton case. But the fundamental problem is that the government is terrible at prosecuting itself. And that problem extends from the federal government all the way down to the local police department.

This week offers a golden opportunity to help thousands of people to discover this perfectly logical connection for themselves. The question we need to emphasize is not whether we think cops are bad or racist. The question is whether or not we believe in the rule of law, whether we think that government officials should be held accountable to the same laws as everyone else. By design, those questions may as well been rhetorical.

Explicit or implicit racism can help us account for why the victims of police brutality are disproportionately. But it cannot explain why cops (and many other powerful government officials) suffer no consequences in all but the most extreme cases. That outcome stems from a justice system that gives deferential treatment to government agents, no matter what the alleged crime or who their victim may have been. Dismantling those legal privileges must be the primary focus of any reform effort, both strategically and practically.

The Connection Between Police Brutality, the War on Drugs, and Gun Control

The War on Drugs has claimed another innocent family among its victims. Fortunately, no one died in this latest episode. But an 18-year-old teenager has been arrested and charged with attempted murder for actions that any reasonable person should view as self-defense. Here's what happened.

In April, a SWAT team from the Austin Police Department raided the house of teenager Tyler Harrell and his parents. The raid took place before 6 a.m. in the morning and proceeded in a typical shock-and-awe fashion. Police officers breached the door and threw flash-bang grenades into the house with the intent of disorienting the occupants. Meanwhile, a loudspeaker announced that the organization conducting the raid was the APD.

It's difficult to imagine the stream of thoughts that must go through one's head when they wake up to a series of loud noises, explosions, and screams of family members. In this case, Tyler Harrell claims, not unreasonably, that he believed his family's home was being invaded and that he and his parents were in danger. So he grabbed his (legally owned) rifle and shot at the intruders down a stairwell, hitting a police officer in the leg. Another officer unsuccessfully returned fire, and the SWAT team soon retreated from the house. Harrell came out and surrendered peacefully shortly thereafter, according to the write-up from the Austin American-Statesman.

Harrell claims to have heard the intruders shout that they were APD only after he had fired on the men. Meanwhile, the police are effectively claiming he must have known the officers were police, given that they were announcing it over a loudspeaker. Thus, they are accusing him of willfully trying to kill a police officer and have charged him with attempted capital murder.

The purpose for this raid was that police suspected Harrell of dealing drugs, specifically marijuana and possibly cocaine. During the raid, police found 34 grams of marijuana, which is not even enough to merit a felony in the state of Texas. But in order to root out this unspeakable crime against humanity--namely, the possession of a particular dried plant--the police conducted a violent and dangerous raid, which left one person to the hospital and now has the potential to ruin a young man's life.

The only real good news is that it appears the crime Harrell has been charged with will be almost impossible to prove. Based on my brief research, the crime of attempted capital murder would seem to require Harrell to know, at the time, that the person he shot at was a police officer conducting his lawful duties. Given the circumstances of this event, and the fact that Harrell surrendered himself peacefully a few minutes later after the SWAT team retreated, this is implausible. It would mean that Harrell knowingly made the decision to try to fight off the APD SWAT team by himself, but then decided to surrender a few minutes later, after they had retreated. Clearly, this narrative makes no sense. And one hopes, for his sake, that jurors won't believe that preposterous story is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Stepping back from the specifics, there are a few broader issues to unpack here.

Media Deference to Authority
The first issue is how absurdly deferential local media can be towards the police when covering stories like this. For example, this article from KXAN, the local NBC affiliate, cites exactly no information from the perspective of the accused or his lawyer, and then wraps up with this gem from the police chief and president of the local police association (emphasis added).

"Although people have tried to take two lives of our officers, our folks still come to work day in and day out in the mission of keeping Austin one of the safest big cities in the country,” said [Police Chief] Acevedo. “I hope the public takes some time to help me help lift them up in these challenging weeks.” 

The president of the Austin Police Association also made a point to mention, all officers are on high alert as they deal with a culture that seems to be bold enough to shoot officers.

Yeah, maybe it's the culture. Or, maybe it's the fact that you storm people's houses while they're asleep and lead with explosives--explosives whose whole purpose is to disorient the target. Nah, probably the culture thing. Video games corrupting the youth and what not.

This is unhelpful. When police do stupid things, like needlessly escalating a situation before trying any alternatives, they should be called on it. Maybe that will discourage them from doing it again in the future. Maybe it could also influence jurors or the prosecution not to destroy Harrell's life over this.

(Note one of the "two lives" mentioned in the quote above relates to an unrelated incident that had occurred shortly before the raid.)

The War on Drugs is Awful
The intensity of the raid conducted in this case seems disproportionate for almost any suspect. Perhaps if someone was known to be a dangerous murderer / terrorist / rapist, an argument could be made. The fact that it was actually about a little over an ounce of pot makes this story even worse.

And yet, this is what happens in the War on Drugs all the time. It's not clear that Harrell even was a drug dealer, as the authorities initially suspected. But even if he was, would that justify launching a military-style raid on his parent's house?

Which leads us to another issue. To a far greater degree than other law enforcement matters, the War on Drugs has to deal with a lot of ambiguity. This is the nature of victimless crimes. In a consensual sale of drugs, neither the seller nor the buyer has any interest in reporting the crime; indeed, since they're both breaking the law, they have a clear incentive to be as quiet as possible about it. In turn, this makes the police's job considerably harder. They can't get leads from a victim or a crime scene, because neither of those exist. Instead, they have to set up sting operations and take more action based on less evidence. That's not a formula that's likely to turn out well. In this case, the APD may have thought they were conducting a raid on Austin's equivalent of Scarface, a person dealing narcotics and armed with automatic weapons. Instead, they probably just found a teenager who likes to smoke pot. That's a serious margin of error.

Stigmatizing Legal Gun Ownership
We mentioned earlier that Harrell's gun was legally owned. This seems like a small detail in the context of this story, but it's actually critical.

You see, the reason the APD made (and now defends) the decision to use a paramilitary SWAT approach stems from their initial investigative work. They sifted through the personal garbage of the Harrells and allegedly found three items of note: a plastic bag with marijuana residue, a substance that tested positive for cocaine, and empty ammunition boxes. This last item is what justified the SWAT team.

But why should that be the case? If Harrell owned the weapon legally, why is it reasonable to assume he's any more prone to violence and criminality than anyone else? I confess I don't know much about guns myself, but it seems to me the police probably should. And given that the gun was legal, it follows that the ammunition they found was compatible with legal weapons. Surely, people who deal with weapons and gun laws on a daily basis would know something like this. In spite of this, however, Reason notes that the police have continued to inaccurately refer to the weapon as an AK-47, in an effort to vilify Harrell.

This same issue is seen at play in the broader story of police brutality in the US. Of the stories that broke into become national news stories, most involved individuals that were unarmed--Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Akai Gurley, etc. In cases where the victim had a gun or another weapon, authorities use it to imply criminality and avoid accountability.

This general pattern is also evident in the statistics that are used to track police brutality incidents, as compiled by The Guardian. Here, events can be filtered based on the type of weapon owned by the victim, if any. But it doesn't attempt to draw any distinctions between whether the weapon was legal or not, or whether it was pulled out. The Guardian's tool is a fantastic resource, but this is a major limitation. The question of whether a police shooting was justified shouldn't hinge on whether the victim happened to possess a weapon. It should depend on whether the victim was actually a threat to anyone around them. Those are not at all the same.

In the discussion that ensued following our earlier post this week on the Orlando Shooting, I suggested one possible reason to oppose gun control is that it can create a stigma around legal gun owners. In turn, this can be used as a justification for disproportionate force to be used against otherwise peaceful people. This is not just a theoretical argument. It's the reason Tyler Harrell and his family woke up to a violent assault on their house one April morning instead of a knock on the door.