POLICE JEOPARDY

Turnpike shooting probe raised right questions All that we know, perhaps
all we will really ever know for sure, is that the indictment of two state
troopers on attempted murder charges is a sad thing, sad for three young
men who were shot, sad for the troopers and sad for the New Jersey State
Police and the public they are sworn to serve and protect.

The only good that seems to have come out of this mess is that serious
rethinking seems to be going on about how the State Police go about their
jobs, with particular emphasis on the acknowledged practice of "racial
profiling," or motorist stops based on the race of the driver. Former
Attorney General Peter Verniero deserves credit for setting up the lengthy,
detailed and very expensive investigation that led to the indictments, even
as the fuss over profiling threatened his successful nomination to the
Supreme Court. Also deserving credit are those from the Attorney General's
Office, the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office and the State Police who
conducted the probe.

For it is very difficult to consider bringing charges against an officer
sworn to uphold the law. It is even more difficult to indict.

But, thanks to remarkably thorough and patient police work on the
shootings, there are more than enough questions for a jury to decide.

There are also more than enough questions for the rest of us to think
about. Have we reacted so positively to political rhetoric about a "war on
drugs" that our federal and state agencies have become inured to crossing
the critical line between policing and rousting blacks and Latinos at
random? One trooper's lawyer intimated something just short of that in his
defense of his client as only having followed orders, although that defense
is somewhat compromised by the fact that the troopers are also charged with
Iieing about the races of people they were stopping in official reports,
indicating that they knew something was wrong.

But the lawyer's claim, however it may or may not fit into this case, has
some merit.

Have we as a society gotten so excited about this drug threat that we
encourage good young officers to at least bend the law severely in its
enforcement if they expect professional advancement and commendation? Do we
really want them endangering their own lives and those of others through
aggression without reflection—or even common sense?

Reaction to these indictments has been discouraging. It has ranged
predictably from those who distrust the police ("about time") to those who
support everything they do ("a stab in the back"). It is neither.

This investigation was entirely too thorough for kneejerk responses. The
very nature of the responses may shed some light on the central problem.
Blacks were singled out for stops because of a dubiously founded idea that
they are likely to be criminals who are transporting drugs.

If you believe that, are you not likely to start shooting at a vanful of
young men when it moves toward you?

In the other direction, black drivers have some reason to believe that
encounters with police will be dangerous and negative and that there is a
good chance of being treated badly.

If you believe this, might you be frightened, more likely to put the car in
the wrong gear when stopped? Fear is the core of the problem, whether it is
fear of police officers or fear of black citizens.

Nobody is capable of their best in situations fraught with tension and fear.

This trial will pick a winner.

Trials have to do that. And one side or the other will have its prejudices
reinforced by the result.

If we are not paying enough attention to what the evidence in the trial
will teach us, what went so sadly wrong, the fear and the stakes will be
even higher next time.