Law enforcement is an institution that holds immense power—the state’s monopoly on the use of coercive force is placed in the hands of law enforcement. The public has created institutions of law enforcement that everyone must rely on in the most dire of situations. With such power comes a responsibility to the public: persons serving in law enforcement must act with honesty and transparency. In return for holding the public’s trust and the power to use violent force, law enforcement personnel have obligations. The public should be able to trust in the assumption that those of us who are docile and without armed protections can rely on law enforcement to serve and protect our communities.
Yet, in the event that we feel we may be in grave danger, it has become more of a liability to civilians to rely on law enforcement to protect us. We are harassed by the same people we sought to protect us. We are arrested for (non-existent and unconstitutional) “crimes” of insulting the ego of police officers. We are murdered in our own homes by the hands of law enforcement, who we called to keep us from harm, whose hands we put our lives in in exchange for protection, and then made out to be a “crazy fucking bitch” when we are literally executed in a situation where we felt we could banter with these people as normal human beings.
Some may say these claims are far-fetched and anti-police. The reality is that these are occurrences that are unnervingly common. The question is, how did we get to this point? Law enforcement officials are required background checks and references, meaning the public should generally feel secure in the choices the Police Department makes when it comes to hiring police officers. As previously mentioned, there is an assumption that law enforcement has the responsibility to the public, the very people they are hired to serve, of trust and transparency. But what happens when an officer exhibits bad behavior, questionable tactics, and overall reveals themselves to be a danger to the public? Does the police department have a duty to the public to disclose such information?
The easy answer to that question is, yes. Law enforcement has a legal duty to report legal misconduct by a police officer to the department, which should force the department to either act to reprimand, or rehabilitate said officer, ensuring no other misconduct continues. The unfortunate reality is that often these procedures are not followed as required. When they are not followed, dangerous misbehavior falls through the cracks. Rather than addressing issues that can be corrected so that the public maintains the feeling of safety and trust we should have in police officers, misconduct is not reported and results in dangerous individuals choosing their position of power over protecting the safety of the public. This is all too true in the case of officer Sean Grayson and Illinois resident Sonya Massey.
Sean Grayson, a former officer who worked for the Sangamon County Sheriff’s office, worked at four different police departments before executing Illinois Resident Sonya Massey in her own home. Before landing his position at the Sangamon County office, there were multiple allegations of misconduct that had gone unreported that allowed the former officer to freely transfer from department to department before his final fatal act of the shooting of Massey. Grayson successfully switched police departments after an unlawful arrest of a citizen who he lied to about a warrant for their arrest (which never existed) in order to illegally arrest him, leaving the civilian with to deal with the repercussions of unfounded allegations that left them with months of legal fees, missed work, and a community completely derailing his reputation. Grayson’s misconduct was never reported nor questioned, leading to the fatality of Sonya Massey.
Unfortunately, the lack of transparency between police departments is not uncommon. Law enforcement seems to be more concerned with protecting their “brothers in blue” than executing the mission they were hired to complete, which is protecting civilians and the general public. Government agencies do not set high enough standards to report police misconduct, or bring consequences to police departments who blatantly disregard the responsibility to their agency and to the public to report misconduct to prevent loose cannons from pointing a gun at your face because you said something they didn’t like. The same people who are paid by the public to protect the public ultimately have free reign to do what they want, when they want—and to shake things up, we give them a gun to solidify the power they already assume they have over everyone else who is not part of the kinship we call the police department. From start to finish, law enforcement needs to be deconstructed to be reconstructed to serve the people in a way that does not make us fear for our lives when we need help. Transparency in police misconduct is paramount to prevent officers from misbehaving and transferring unscathed from one department to another. There needs to be consequences for departments that have knowingly withheld legal misconduct of police officers to prevent another unnecessary, unjustified death of an innocent person. Although we cannot change the past, we can choose to force law enforcement to not only take accountability, but correct behaviors that could lead to fatalities—such as the unjust murder of Sonya Massey.
Our blissful ignorance of secrecy within law enforcement cannot continue.
The public is at risk.
Our complacency in allowing law enforcement to hide misconduct about the same individuals who use their badge as a shield to do whatever they want is a detriment to society.
The public is at risk.
The very people who are paid by us to protect us are clearly not feeling a sense of responsibility to us to keep us safe.
The public is at risk.
Doing nothing to help create policies to ensure law enforcement is not abusing their power puts the public directly at risk. This is inexcusable, unfathomable, and desperately needs to change.
Sources:
Farrah Anderson, S. S. and D. O. (2024, September 17). Holding police accountable. Illinois Times. https://www.illinoistimes.com/news-opinion/holding-police-accountable-19035307
Farrah Anderson and Sam Stecklow, for I. I. and the I. R. W. (2024b, September 13). Deputy charged with murder had issues during previous employment. Illinois Times. https://www.illinoistimes.com/news-opinion/deputy-charged-with-murder-had-issues-during-previous-employment-18843001
This is more like a formal essay or editorial than a casual one-hour writing exercise to do a personal reflection, but that's fine. Perhaps you are just someone who has collected her thoughts and considered what needs to be said on this issue. It seems clear that police departments that had hired Mr. Grayson had a legal and ethical duty to report his misconduct and problematic behaviors to a state database, and this information should have been available to the Sangamon County Sheriff's office when they were making the decision whether to hire Mr. Grayson. It also seems that the Sheriff's office had not adequately created a culture of service and respect for civilian civil rights, as the body-cam footage from the murder of Sonya Massey shows that the officer did not stop Mr. Grayson's escalation of the situation. Also, Mr. Grayson had been through sixteen weeks of extra training after being hired by the sheriff's department, and evidently the training did not allow his trainers to spot his problems, nor did the training correct his problems.
In addition to the Illinois Times articles you've referenced, I'd like to add some links to websites that may be of interest.
The Marshall Project's articles about police accountability.
The Henry A. Wallace Crime Public Database run by the Police Integrity Research Group.
The 2015 report on the investigation of the Ferguson Police Department (Department of Justice Civil Rights Division)
For information on how to file a complaint and what federal laws may protect people from local law enforcement officers, consult the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
On a personal note, someone in my family worked at the federal law-enforcement level for some years, and basically did two types of tasks: intercepted and interrupted the importation of controlled substances into the United States; and he organized and took part in operations to arrest corrupt local police. Later on, this person may have participated in other activities outside the United States corresponding to some of these roles. I have had conversations with this person about his opinion of local law enforcement, and my impression is that he has a very low opinion of the quality of local law enforcement and the way local police and sheriffs may violate the rights of citizens. He's a strict "law-and-order" sort of person with very high ethical standards, but he is not a knee-jerk supporter of police; in contrast, he is suspicious of local police and always ready to question and doubt their claims.
