The crisis in Ferguson is heartbreaking. No one with experience in law enforcement or as a civil rights advocate can watch the scenes from that community without thinking about our own responsibilities.
We’ve seen how tragedies like these can spiral out of control when the community sees the police as opponents. The police in Ferguson responded terribly. Information was unnecessarily withheld, they escalated with an unnecessary show of force, and they panicked with the entire country watching. These actions made a bad situation much worse. The underlying distrust evident in the community has made it even harder to progress.
Make no mistake, local law enforcement have challenging jobs, particularly so in charged situations like these. But our mission must be ensuring public safety while upholding people’s civil rights. These are not mutually exclusive prerogatives. They go hand in hand.
I understand how to achieve both of these goals based on my experience as a civil rights lawyer and as a prosecutor. As a civil rights lawyer during the better part of my career, I brought cases against people or entities who discriminated, sometimes based on color or race, in housing, in lending, and beyond. I have fought against the real challenges communities of color confront every day.
As a lawyer with experience in law enforcement, I have also worked closely with police on a range of issues from domestic violence to access to reproductive health care. I have trained police on how to respond to hate crimes and bullying and I have met with local law enforcement and community groups on efforts to reduce racial profiling.
In order for law enforcement to be effective, people need to trust the police. That trust must come from handling crisis situations effectively, holding the police accountable for misconduct, and through relationship building before an incident occurs.
If I were in Ferguson, I would immediately take over the investigation of the shooting to ensure independence and transparency in the review. I would provide information to the community frequently. I would open up a civil rights investigation regarding the treatment of protestors and the media covering the events. And I would thoroughly investigate the reaction by the police to the incident and to the community’s response.
In Massachusetts, I will prioritize stopping crises like Ferguson before they occur. I will ensure that law enforcement’s connections to communities of color are made stronger by enhancing community outreach and engagement. I will prioritize statewide trainings and guidance that combat racial profiling, abuse of force, and other violations of civil rights. Right now, police departments don’t have the resources they need for these types of training. Ferguson is a wake up call, and we can’t wait any longer to make them happen.
The militarization of police forces is also a real concern. Law enforcement must have the tools it needs to respond to disasters, whether it’s a hostage situation or an incident like the Marathon bombings. But military weaponry deployed by a civilian police force can also elevate a crisis, as it did in Ferguson. I join President Obama in his call for a review of this issue. If our local police do have access to these weapons, we must carefully consider the rare instances when they will be deployed and how they will be utilized.
And, I’m aware of complaints about the transparency of the regional SWAT teams. We need transparency to ensure accountability. Poor decision-making that gets covered up can’t be improved upon in the future. As Attorney General, I’ll make sure everyone in law enforcement is accountable, and the buck will stop with me.
As the next chief law enforcement officer, I will work and meet with community groups and law enforcement together to ensure that we’re working in partnership. Only mutual trust and communication can solve these problems, and so many others facing our state. As Attorney General, I’ll begin that conversation immediately and continue it throughout my time in office.
Very glad Maura took the time to answer this question here. I know it comes up often and her thoughtful and thorough response demonstrates exactly why she has my vote!
Thanks for posting.
This seems like evading the issue, though.
I’m very glad to see Ms. Healey actually addressing these crucially important issues.
I join doubleman in seeking more specifics regarding the militarization of police. Let me, in turn, attempt to be more specific:
1. What, in your view, are the criteria you use to determine whether or not requested equipment is needed by local law enforcement?
2. The inventories of such equipment by various local law enforcement agencies are available on-line. Please enumerate the specific equipment that, in you opinion, fails to meet the criteria you describe in (1), and please describe what steps you propose to dispose of these threats to Massachusetts residents.
2. What, in your view, are the criteria you use to determine when such equipment should be deployed and used?
3. Regarding regional SWAT teams, what do you mean by “transparency”? What specific steps do you recommend to provide and assure accountability? For each of the existing regional SWAT teams, please describe whether or not that team meets the transparency standards you propose, and for each that does not, please describe what steps you would take as AG to remedy the threat that entity presents.
Finally, what is your opinion about the continuing presence of Aaron MacFarlane in the Boston FBI office? How satisfied are you with the investigations made into his killing of an unarmed witness in Florida? What is your opinion of his claimed “disability”, and what is your comfort level with the apparent dissonance between the full disability pension he receives from the Oakland CA police department and his current full-time employment by the FBI?
These are nice questions to have answers to but it’s unusual for political campaigns to dive down to that level of detail. Sometimes policy questions have surprising answers, require special investigation, or need careful thought. That’s not going to happen so much during a campaign except in broad outline, and so some deferring would seem sensible.
Her statement said …
“Law enforcement must have the tools it needs to respond to disasters”
and
“military weaponry deployed by a civilian police force can also elevate a crisis, as it did in Ferguson”
Those two statements are each self-evident (though I’m glad she at least voiced the second). By construction, there is a middle ground between them. I’d like to know something about where that middle ground lies for Ms. Healey (and Mr. Tolman, for that matter). It’s fine with me if the answer is a fuzzy region rather than a line, but I think it’s reasonable to get SOME additional guidance.
Similarly, her “awareness” of “complaints” about the “transparency” of regional swat teams is a far stretch from a statement about her own view of whether and how they are appropriate at all.
I appreciate her acknowledging that these questions exist. Having crossed that bridge and opened the discussion, I’d like to know more about her own stances towards these matters.
Are you suggesting that we are to wait until AFTER someone is elected to learn this? It seems to me before, rather than after, the election is the most appropriate time to learn the stances of the candidates.
Pointing out the issues is not the same as taking a stand on them. I’d like to know how she views this issues rather than just being aware of them.
I say this as someone leaning toward Healey already. Give us what you think, not just what you are thinking about.
These not this.
is thinking about the right questions, though. So I found her statements at least encouraging.
Why are you so sure our elected Massachusetts District Attorneys couldn’t handle this?
Are you that sure you are better than them?
especially for those of us who seek education and information on the proper jurisdiction for action and the candidate’s rationale for AG interdiction.
IMHO it is not necessary to skewer either AG candidate as their skills and talents far exceed the leading choices for Guv. But, let’s ask for clarification and where the opponent’s position in these complex and critical matters lay?
Good questions, but in this context a bit too much “the perfect [as] the enemy of the good,” in my opinion.
I’d like to know what Warren Tolman thinks as well, and don’t forget that there is a Republican candidate for this office, John Miller. Mr. Miller has not spoken out specifically on this issue. Currently, there are two statements on his web site regarding public safety. One is a reference he made to a proposal regarding housing the immigrant children involving “an expanded role for sheriffs to monitor children who might be sent here.” The other is this general statement from his opening video:
“Too many families in the Commonwealth are personally touched by crime.
I will pay attention.
I will work hard with the district attorneys and the sheriffs to combat crime.”
If this is where the other side is at the moment, I don’t know that it makes sense for Maura Healey to discuss all these operational details of her positions.
Glad you’ve raised these issues.
The regional SWAT team issue especially — while Ferguson has raised some critically important issues, there have been so many abuses of SWAT teams around the country that have led to severe injuries or deaths of innocent people., including children.
Thanks for looking into this issue — Massachusetts could easily be the next state where an innocent person is maimed or worse because the SWAT team got the wrong house or didn’t realize innocent children were inside because they stormed in at night.
In Framingham and it was a SWAT team no less.
The New Bedford Standard Times’ endorsement of Maura Healey is as well-reasoned and well-written an endorsement as any I’ve seen. (And I’m no spring chicken.) Here ’tis:
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20140824%2FOPINION%2F408240308
With someone who embraces the law as her primary focus while protecting civil rights is a strong position to take. At this juncture candidates can play a political game dealing with some popular detail, but what is more important is hearing the principles they will use to run their office. I like that.