Archive

ShareThis Page
Trib editorial: State police must change self-investigation policy on use of lethal force | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Trib editorial: State police must change self-investigation policy on use of lethal force

webStatePoliceLogo

Who polices the police? When Pennsylvania State Police fatally shoot people, troopers police themselves — under a policy of keeping control of investigations that’s drawing sharp criticism from the district attorney and a grand jury in Northampton County.

The grand jury found two troopers were justified in fatally shooting a man who threatened to ignite fireworks strapped around his neck last May. But at DA John Morganelli’s behest, the grand jury also investigated that policy.

It found troopers have “a somewhat arrogant opinion of their own superiority” — and that the two troopers involved in that fatal shooting weren’t interviewed by investigating colleagues until 30 days later, and after being allowed to view dash-cam footage of the incident. They received “courtesy not afforded to others who are the subject of a criminal investigation,” the grand jury said.

It does not reflect well on state police that the agency went to court to suppress those grand-jury findings. Thankfully, a judge rejected that attempt to deny the public’s right to know.

Independent investigations of any police use of lethal force help boost transparency and avoid conflicts of interest — which, as Mr. Morganelli notes, are especially important considerations at a time when police are coming under increasing scrutiny. As Pennsylvania’s leading law enforcers, state police must be accountable to the public, not just themselves. They must drop their fatal-shooting policy in favor of one that requires independent investigations.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.