Evanston Pays $1.25 Million to Man Accused of Stealing His Own Car

  
Lynn Clark, Psy.D.
Secretary of the Board 
Unity Partnership

“Change Begins With Ordinary People”


At Unity Partnership, we have worked diligently to look at the challenges police face and to educate the public about how they can ensure their own safety.   We feel police and citizens both have responsibilities in this regard.  In a program about traffic stops, which UP developed in conjunction with two of the DuPage County police chiefs, we cite an example of an investigative stop.  We stress that in situations such as these, citizens must “comply,” then “complain.”  In his article, Evanston Pays 1.25 Million to Man for Stealing His Own Car, Jonah Meadows explores a controversial investigative stop in detail. It is a cautionary tale in that it illustrates how a bad situation can be made much worse.  Once Mr. Crosby was identified as a suspect, a process unfolded which was troubling from many perspectives.  In reading Meadow’s account and viewing a compilation of audio and video recordings of the incident, I question how much the police officers involved in this situation were taught to use utilize critical thinking and situational decision making. In the beginning of the released footage, a Sergeant of the Evanston police mounts a defense of the officers, stating that their use of force was completely in compliance with protocol.  However, he goes on to say that the department is now revising the policy that suspects be “proned” in these types of stops, citing problematic issues such as location, weather, and the fact that it “gives a bad perception.”
 
Why did it take another incident which garnered national attention, reinforced the negative narrative about policing particularly in regards to people of color, and resulted in the payment of a huge settlement, for the department to institute a change?  Even if we accept that the officers’ followed protocol initially, their recorded comments and actions both during and after the arrest demonstrate a lack of professionalism and a seeming desire for retaliation.  These include the comment, “I didn’t shoot you mother f...., you should feel lucky for that.” When one of the officers became aware that Mr. Crosby had his own dashboard camera, he tells him,” if you are going to put us on trial, we are going to put you on trial.”  Why did the police persist in pursuing charges they acknowledged would likely not be sustained?  Even after the charges were dismissed, the article notes, the police continued to vilify Mr. Crosby, which impacted the size of the final settlement.  This incident fosters a sense of mistrust and suspicion of the police, which sadly has become part of the public narrative.
  
How many departments are actively engaged in educating the public about their role and the rationale for procedures, and are also open to hearing and responding to the public’s concerns?   The candid feedback and questions from the participants in our traffic stop programs demonstrate how essential these sessions can be to correct misunderstandings and diffuse tensions. Once an incident occurs, departments are often unable or unwilling to admit any wrongdoing. That appears to be true in the Crosby case.  Change, like the policy shift Evanston adopted, is important; however its impact can be far greater when it is proactive rather than reactive. The willingness of departments to openly  discuss their policies and practices, to invite public scrutiny, and to explore together the possible impact of the racial and the implicit biases that we all share, would go a long way toward establishing a foundation of trust. These discussions, as difficult as they can be, are often profoundly transformative. While we as the public must always “comply,” that compliance is more likely to occur in a climate of mutual understanding and respect.  This will prevent future such instances from occurring and ensure the safety of both citizens and the police.
 
 

---