Forgiving the One who Punished the Innocent

Innocent until proven guilty or better safe than sorry? To kill one innocent, or to watch the countless innocent lives you failed to protect suffer? “Identities”, a short story by W.D. Valgardson takes advantage of the stereotypes and biases that have been ingrained into the human mind to illustrate this question of morality. It details the experience of a man who ventures out of his suburban neighbourhood and into a ghetto. The different thought process of the higher-class man, as well as his easily profiled appearance, causes him to be stopped and killed by an inexperienced police officer. Murder is seen as an unforgivable sin, but in certain situations and circumstances, not only can it be excused, but also justified. In the case of the police officer in “Identities”, his actions at the end of the story are understandable and forgivable. He has been trained by society to subconsciously stereotype others and has been further trained by a police academy “to see an unshaven man in blue jeans as a potential thief,” (Valgardson 3). Although on the surface it may appear that he is at fault for using superficial biases to judge the protagonist, by digging deeper it becomes evident that it is the police training methods and humanity that are ultimately at fault. In addition to this, the suspect did not stop moving despite being asked to halt. Instead, he “reaches his hand toward his wallet,” which is inside his jacket (Valgardson 3). This action can be easily mistaken as reaching for a weapon. From the officer’s point of view, this action gives him all the more reason to be wary, as the equivocal man would not have moved if he had nothing to hide. In response to this, the policeman assumed that the man was reaching for a weapon, and acted accordingly. One may argue that he should have aimed somewhere innocuous rather than killing the innocent man a blatant disregard of the consequences, but this can be easily disproven. Police officers must always be alert and after an entire day of not knowing what could happen to them — especially one “who is inexperienced, who is nervous because of the neighbourhood,” (Valgardson 3) They may make mistakes easily when in a situation that feels threatening. This stress, paired with inexperience, caused the officer to pull the trigger without further thought, as well as decreased his ability to aim somewhere less harmful. One must also consider that the non-lethal areas of a moving body are incredibly difficult to hit compared to the vital-organ-filled torso. Moreover, the police officer knows that there are other civilians nearby. In the case that his suspicions were correct, he would choose to end the confrontation as quickly as possible for fear of anyone being caught in the crossfire. In the life or death situation the officer perceives it as, he has more proof and reason to stop the man as soon as possible over ignoring his duty to protect the innocent. The police officer who is under the pressure of a new, incredibly dangerous job, sees a man that fits the profile of a thief that he had been taught and bravely told him to stop. Seeing that the suspect did not listen and began to reach for a weapon, he decided to take his best shot at stopping the man. It is the same need to do what is right that made him become a police officer that also made him stop the thieving man. If a Good Samaritan can be punished for trying to help, then those with bad intentions deserve much worse.