The explanation provided by local police strains credulity by a factor of I don't know how much!! How does a person shoot himself in the temple with his hands cuffed behind his back? I just tried to mimic this situation and I couldn't get either hand anywhere NEAR my head, let alone point an object at my temple. I only can get my hands up to just below my shoulder blades.
Let me get this straight: A young man is stopped by police, who find $10 worth of drugs on him; he had twice been searched by officers and then double handcuffed behind his back and placed in the back of a police car; yet, somehow, he retrieves a gun that both searches failed to find and uses it shoot himself in the right temple?
That is what police in Jonesboro, Ark., say happened on the evening of Sunday, July 29, to Chavis Carter, a 21-year-old African-American man from Southaven, Miss., a suburb of Memphis. They say he committed suicide with a hidden gun while handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser. According to a local CBS News report, his mother was told that he shot himself in the right temple, but she claims that Chavis was left-handed.
~ from The Curious Case of Chavis Carter by Charles M. Blow ~
But don't take my word for it, try it out yourself. Pretend that your hands are cuffed behind your back and then see if you can get either hand anywhere near the vicinity of your head. I'm guessing that you won't be able to manage this feat, so how could poor Mr. Carter?
But here's the thing. As cockamamie as this explanation sounds, it won't surprise me a lick if the police officers involved are exonerated fully. In this day and age, the police have been granted a license to kill and they certainly take advantage of this license. Time and time again, regardless of how suspicious the circumstances might be (even when the situation is recorded), the police officers involved walk free.
How often do we see news articles in which an unarmed person is gunned down by the police? It happens all the time! There were several noted in a snippet I utilized for a post a few days ago and that was nothing more than a small sample.
What police tend to say about so many of these situations is that the officer[s] feared for his/her life. How does that work exactly? You have a gun and, in many cases, other armed officers are present and yet you are afraid of the person without a weapon?
I'm sure SOME of these people may have been acting wild or aggressive, but that doesn't give the police a license to kill them! People in other walks of life deal with wild and aggressive people frequently -- my 5' 3" wife has such experience -- and they learn how to utilize submission holds. How is it that our peace officers are not taught or don't use such strategies?
What's even worse is that some of the people killed by police are pinned on the ground or handcuffed. How can a person genuinely fear for their life when the person you're scared of is in no position to inflict any serious harm?
I hate to say it, but in many of these situations, the police come off sounding like cry babies. They utilize the fear card so often that I'm left to wonder if their own shadows give them the heebie-jeebies? I fully acknowledge that being a police officer is a dangerous job and that police officers are killed in the line of duty. That said, it does come with the territory and, if you get scared every time somebody says BOO, maybe you shouldn't be in this line of work.