Polis bunu hep yapiyor

We cannot take them at their word
'Police sources' routinely vilify victims and excuse police actions
Simon Hattenstone
Thursday August 18, 2005 The Guardian

When the Metropolitan police promptly apologised for killing Jean Charles de Menezes, it looked as if this could signify the new era of openness promised under Sir Ian Blair's leadership. After all, the police had never issued such an unequivocal apology after a death in custody.
This week leaked documents suggested that the story the Met had told about the shooting, and the media had dutifully reported, could not have been been more different from the truth; the "suspected terrorist" was not wearing a suspiciously heavy or padded jacket, let alone with wires sticking out; he never ran from the police; he didn't jump a ticket barrier. Worst of all, it emerged that Mr de Menezes had already been restrained when shot seven times in the head at point-blank range.
Now let's return to the initial reports. The press were pretty much as one - this was undoubtedly a tragedy, but the police had at least apologised for the enormity of the error, tensions were high after the bombings, the police had a hellish job and, to be fair, Mr de Menezes was hardly acting like a law-abiding citizen. No newspaper or broadcaster seriously questioned the validity of the reports from "police sources".
If the allegations contained in the leaks turn out to be true, this would not be a one-off. The police and the media have a distinguished history of misrepresentation in such cases; there have been more than 1,000 deaths in police custody in Britain in the past 30 years - most involving restraint, either in the cells or during arrest - and many of these people have subsequently been demonised.
In 1994 Richard O'Brien died after being restrained by police at a party they had been called to - reports focused on the fact that he was overweight (ie vulnerable) and had just been in a fight. In fact, the fight had involved two women.
In the same year Shiji Lapite was stopped by two police officers for "acting suspiciously". Half an hour later he was dead. The cause of death was asphyxia from compression of the neck, consistent with the application of a neckhold. One officer told the inquest that Mr Lapite was "the biggest, strongest, most violent black man" he'd ever seen. In fact, he was 5ft 10. At the inquest an officer admitted kicking him twice in the head as hard as he could, and said he was using reasonable force to subdue a violent prisoner.
In 1999 Roger Sylvester died after being restrained on his stomach by six police officers. He was portrayed as a feral, naked black man prowling the streets of Tottenham - in fact he was an average-sized naked man with mental health problems locked outside his house. He was also described as a crack addict, although no traces of cocaine were found in his blood or urine. Newspapers published first and apologised afterwards.
Scotsman Harry Stanley was killed by police after leaving a London pub in 1999. It was a particularly controversial case - he had been shot, well before the police began to operate their shoot-to-kill policy. The police had received reports that an "Irishman" with a suspicious package that looked very much like a wrapped-up sawn-off shotgun was on the loose. Mr Stanley was actually carrying a table leg. He was not a black man so he was demonised in a different way - portrayed as a feckless drunk.
It was reported that he raised the table leg as if to shoot. One story even suggested that he was depressed because he had cancer, so it was all an elaborate suicide attempt - in fact, he was in recovery and hopeful for the future. It was reported that Stanley was facing an officer with his "gun" - they had no choice, it was them or him. The entry and exit wounds to Mr Stanley's head later suggested that this was unlikely.
In 2003 Mikey Powell, a man without a criminal record, died after police officers drove their car at him, sprayed him with CS gas and restrained him. Soon after, an article in a local paper said that the police had driven their car at him only because he pointed a gun at them. He was actually holding a belt. When the family complained to West Midlands police, they were told it had been a mistake made by a source close to the investigation. By then the damage had been done. In the public mind, Powell was a crazed gunman who deserved to die.
Few deaths at the hands of the police have been as clear-cut as that of Jean Charles de Menezes. None has been as high profile. But the subsequent police distortion is all too familiar. So how should a responsible media treat these official statements or unofficial "police sources" that invariably excuse police actions or vilify victims? With caution, at the least. We know that the reality is so often complex and multidimensional. The police should be regarded as one player in the story. Just as witnesses are "reported" or "alleged" to have seen an incident, so should the police - rather than being allowed to issue reports (often anonymously) as if they were objective purveyors of the truth.