theguardian.com
Police Cleared in Death of Restrained Man Despite "I Can't Breathe" Testimony
Kevin Clarke, 35, died in 2018 after a 30-minute police restraint; two officers were cleared of gross misconduct despite an inquest jury finding at least one officer heard his pleas of "I can't breathe", leading to family condemnation of a broken system.
- How does this case exemplify broader concerns about police accountability in cases of death in custody, especially when mental health is involved?
- The discipline panel found insufficient evidence to prove the officers heard Clarke's statement, citing muffled speech and a fast-paced, challenging situation. However, this contradicts the inquest jury's unanimous finding that Clarke repeatedly said "I can't breathe" and at least one officer heard him. The family's deep disappointment reflects a perceived lack of accountability within the system.
- What specific evidence led to the conflicting conclusions of the inquest jury and the police disciplinary panel regarding whether officers heard Kevin Clarke say "I can't breathe"?
- Kevin Clarke, 35, died in 2018 after being restrained by Metropolitan police officers for over 30 minutes. Two officers were cleared of gross misconduct despite an inquest jury concluding at least one officer heard Clarke say "I can't breathe". The family condemned the police discipline system as broken.
- What systemic changes are needed to ensure future investigations into deaths during police restraint accurately assess evidence and deliver accountability, especially in cases involving individuals with mental health conditions?
- This case highlights a critical flaw in police accountability mechanisms, where differing conclusions from an inquest jury and a disciplinary panel create a lack of justice for the family. Future improvements require addressing inconsistencies in evidence evaluation and ensuring effective mechanisms for holding officers accountable for deaths in custody, particularly when involving individuals with mental health issues.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing emphasizes the police officers' perspective and the discipline panel's decision, presenting their claims as central to the narrative. The headline and introductory paragraphs highlight the officers' acquittal, giving precedence to their version of events. The family's grief and concerns are mentioned, but relegated to supporting roles within the narrative structure, diminishing their significance. The article repeatedly mentions that the officers didn't hear Clarke's words, highlighting the panel's conclusion, which contrasts with the inquest jury's finding.
Language Bias
While the article strives for neutrality, the repeated emphasis on the panel's conclusion that the officers "did not hear" Clarke's statement subtly suggests a lack of wrongdoing on the officers' part. Words like "cleared" and "insufficient evidence" are used, which could be seen as implicitly favoring the police perspective. More neutral phrasing, such as "the panel found the evidence insufficient to prove gross misconduct" could be used.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the police officers' perspective and the discipline panel's findings, minimizing the family's grief and the inquest jury's conclusion that at least one officer heard Clarke say "I can't breathe". The article mentions the family's statement expressing their disappointment and belief that the system is broken, but doesn't delve into the systemic issues raised. The article also omits details about the specific training and procedures in place for handling individuals experiencing mental health crises in police custody. This omission prevents a complete understanding of the context surrounding the event and potential failures within the system.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by focusing primarily on whether the officers heard Clarke say "I can't breathe", neglecting the broader context of excessive restraint and potential negligence in handling a person with a mental health crisis. The narrative frames the issue as a simple question of the officers' hearing, rather than a more complex question of police conduct and appropriate use of force.
Sustainable Development Goals
The case highlights failures in the police disciplinary system to hold officers accountable for actions leading to a death in custody. The lack of accountability undermines public trust and confidence in law enforcement, hindering progress towards justice and strong institutions. The inquest jury