Indianapolis Police Officers Will Not Be Criminally Charged for Shooting Unarmed Black Man
But the police chief recommends the officers’ dismissal
A special prosecutor has chosen not to bring charges against two Indianapolis police officers who shot and killed an unarmed black man, Aaron Bailey. Despite that decision, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Chief Bryan Roach has recommended the dismissal of both officers, claiming they did not need to use deadly force to subdue and arrest Bailey.
Last month Special Prosecutor Kenneth P. Cotter announced he would not charge Officers Michal P. Dinnsen and Carlton J. Howard of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department for the death of Aaron Bailey. According to the Indianapolis Star, his report found insufficient evidence to refute the officers’ statements that they shot Bailey because they feared for their lives. AsIn Justice Today previously reported, the two police officers pulled Bailey over for a traffic stop around 2 a.m. on June 29 and then engaged in a high speed chase with him after he tried to drive away. When Bailey’s car crashed into a tree, the two officers got out of their vehicle and fatally shot him.
The case has become a flashpoint in Indianapolis, sparking major protests across the city. Many leaders of the city’s minority communities have questioned why an unarmed Bailey needed to be shot in the back. The FBI recently announced it will launch an investigation into the incident.
“It is a human and civil rights issue. When there are no systems for accountability, safety is affected and anyone can be a victim,” said Chrystal Ratcliffe, President of the Greater Indianapolis NAACP.
Cotter, the St. Joseph County Prosecutor, took over the case after Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry recused himself. His recusal followed criticism from the Bailey family and other community members that his close ties to the Indianapolis police prevented him from making an impartial decision.
Cotter’s report stated that Bailey was unwilling to cooperate during the original traffic stop, appeared nervous and then drove away after police had instructed him not to leave. It also noted that Bailey was a suspect in a series of robberies, and that the passenger in his car was wanted in connection with a homicide. Police and the passenger agreed that Bailey didn’t raise his hands after he crashed his car into a tree, and instead reached into the center console of the vehicle.
However, many community members believe that the investigation illustrates, once again, why police officers are so rarely charged with crimes, even when the victim is unarmed. Reverend David Greene, President of a city ministry, noted that this incident follows a national pattern. “Obviously, we want to have great police and community relationships, but when no officer ever gets indicted, it makes it hard…because it seems like there’s a double standard.”
Despite Cotter’s decision, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Chief Bryan Roach said the shooting was not justified and that deadly force was not necessary to arrest Bailey. Roach has suspended both officers without pay and has recommended their dismissal to the Civilian Police Merit Board. An IMPD press release stated that the officers’ actions rise “to a level so far removed from accepted professional practice and community expectation that it severely damages public trust of its police department.”
Bailey’s daughter, Erica, told the Indianapolis Star that she was happy with Roach’s action. She had previously expressed outrage after Cotter declined to bring charges. “I gained a little more trust back with the chief of police,” she said. “He didn’t only think about his people. He went in there and thought about us, too, and the community.”
Bailey’s adult son, daughter and sister are suing the city of Indianapolis, the police department and Dinnsen and Howard, claiming that Bailey’s constitutional rights were violated.
“Officer Howard’s actions in using excessive force against Mr. Aaron Bailey and violating his bodily integrity shock the conscious and constitute a violation and deprivation of Mr. Bailey’s rights under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” the lawsuit said.