To contact us Click
HERE
After the holocaust of WWII, a number of significant studies were performed to try to understand how civilized people in Germany and occupied France and Poland could descend, almost overnight, into a state where they could kill their own neighbors.These studies unanimously found that, when the threat of negative consequences (punishment) is removed, ordinary people are capable of extraordinarily cruel and evil acts.
The murder of Trayvon Martin by a wanna-be cop is an excellent example of this idea. Empowered by the knowledge that a newly-passed (2011) Florida law would allow him to use "deadly force" if he or she "reasonably believe[d] that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;" and inspired by his own vision of himself as a "protector" of his community, he felt safe in hunting down and killing an innocent boy who he considered merely to be "suspicious."
The 2011 law eliminated two things. It eliminated the burden of proof that would have required Mr. Martin's murderer to actually show that he was under attack, and it eliminated the burden of proof that a citizen acting to protect himself or others would have to meet to show that he was acting to prevent the commission of a felony. The only proof required was "reasonable belief," something that cannot be disproved, and is, by definition, hidden within the mind of the believer.
In doing so, it removed the barrier of punishment, so the wanna-be cop could act as he pleased.
That would not be the case had the wanna-be cop been a real cop. Florida's "stand your ground" law aside, other state and federal laws apply to actual law enforcement agents actually performing law enforcement functions. Not only is "use of force" regulated by both laws and agency-specific regulations, but also other acts - including the mere question of whether to even confront a citizen who, apparently, has done nothing more than walk faster when being followed. Real Law Enforcement Officers acting in an official capacity, have to meet real burdens of proof, including a substantial evidence standard for reasonable cause.
Had the wanna-be cop been a real cop accused of killing a minor - accused of walking fast and wearing a "hoodie," armed only with a packet of candy - he would have been immediately relieved of duties (at least temporarily) and all aspects of the matter investigated in a transparent manner. Regardless of the outcome, there would have been consequences. Consequences that have yet to be applied to Trayvon Martin's murderer.
The State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) performs many functions, only some of which involve law enforcement. Its agents are Federal Special Agents trained in law enforcement. When they actually perform law enforcement functions, they generally perform them well. They have an impressive record of arrests of overseas fugitives, and a reasonable record of success developing cases for prosecution. When DS performs a real law-enforcement function it has to meet the same burdens of proof that other law enforcement agents must meet, and conform to the same investigative standards. In law enforcement matters DS overwhelmingly tends to comply with those laws and standards.
DS, however, has other functions, including the performance of administrative investigations and security clearance adjudications. These, by and large, tend to be much less properly performed - involving frequent violations of law and regulation. These include improper searches and seizures, entry into premises under false pretexts, interviews conducted without appropriate warnings, and routine falsification of information in Reports of Investigation. In security clearance cases, this routine DS malfeasance is aggravated by routine failure to apply the most basic rules of adjudication, including regular failure to perform "whole-person reviews."
When performing law enforcement functions, DS Special agents perform them legally, because they face the same threats of punishment that other LEAa do should they fail to comply with the law. However, despite dozens of documented examples of fraud, false statements, and investigative improprieties in administrative investigations, DS has never disciplined a single agent who conducted such acts in an administrative or security-clearance-related matter. When DS performs functions that Law Enforcement Agencies typically do not perform (functions normally performed by trained Human Resources personnel)DS employees do not face any barriers to improper behavior, and are allowed by DS to act as they please.
Florida's "stand your ground law" created a legal loophole which could be abused by any Floridian to murder anyone they pleased, as long as a reasonable pretense could be created that the individual felt threatened.
In administrative matters, the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security exploits similar loopholes to destroy the lives and careers of Foreign Service Officers, without any of the protections DS would apply to drug dealers, pedophiles or spies.
Ultimately, the blame lies at higher levels in State - which continue to allow DS both to perform functions it should not be performing and to perform those functions illegally. Step one would be to remove the authority for those decisions from the wanna-be cop who controls them now, and to enforce regulations holding DS to the same standards in administrative matters as are applied to its real law enforcement functions.
