The reason why the upper echelons of state and local governments avoid prosecuting cops who clearly are guilty of excessive force, or in this example cold-blooded murder, is the power of police unions. The F.O.P., with more than 300,000 members nationwide, combined with many individual local police unions, such as New York City's Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, wield a substantial level of political influence in establishing rules governing police conduct ("Procedure.")
I can remember when in New York City a police officer was required to actually see a weapon in an adversary's hand, or to have some clearly definable cause to believe he was in immediate risk of death or injury, before his use of deadly force (the gun) was justifiable. Owing to some police deaths and injuries over the years that rule has been effectively altered. Now a cop may use deadly force when he believes his life is threatened.
At first glance this revised requirement for the use of deadly force appears to be reasonable, as it would be if every cop in America were ethical, honest and irreproachably moral. But what about the predictable percentage of cops who are not ethical, or honest, or moral -- and those who are psychopathic and simply like to hurt people? What should be expected from enabling them to casually commit first degree murder by simply claiming it was done in the interest of self-defense? Simply stated, this rule is a virtual license to kill.
Nonetheless it is the new rule and it is supported by legislation which the police unions were able to quietly promote. Consequently, if the command structure of a given police agency decides to punish a cop for using excessive force they can expect an un-official but union-sanctioned and protected "job action" in the form of both reduced summons activity, which cannot be identified as deliberate but will seriously affect revenue input, and failure to respond promptly to reported criminal activity. In other words, if a cop is punished their colleagues will simply stop performing their duties -- and without specific evidence to prove they are deliberately retaliating their unions will protect them in court against any punitive action by management.
