Crime POTWR 2019 Vol 1: Shots Fired! Examining Police Shootings In America

[nhbbear]

Thanks for that thoughtful contribution. It’s going to take me a while to read through your posts (unfortunately a busy week). I will respond with something thoughtful, though probably not as lengthy, later this week.

In the meantime, I’m assigning everyone reading this thread to consider three U.S. Supreme Court cases:
1. Graham v. Connor (excessive force)
2. Tennessee v. Garner (deadly force)
3. Plumhoff v. Rickard (limits of deadly force)
These cases help show the general Constitutional framework for police shootings, as well as other uses of force. Be forewarned that deadly/excessive force law is some of the most fact-intensive out there. Little facts make a big difference. I’ll follow up later this week!

I am not familiar with the third, so I will check that out.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

In my experience, officers do often lie about threats they confronted in order to escape liability.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Pretty much, have to neutralize the potential threat so you don’t end up with multiple victims instead of one.

For sure. But then I wonder how hard it is to differentiate the perpetrator fleeing the scene and a potential victim.

 

[nhbbear]

Most black males don't commit felonies, much less serious violent crimes, and yet you will still defend racial profiling of black males. If you don't want police judged by their worst elements, then maybe don't do the same for blacks especially when you're vested with the authority by the state to rob them of their freedom and even kill them.

Btw when you talk about violence in their communities, that also applies to the cops. Some cop on the beat in some retirement town is usually not the kind of cop people are worried about, its the ones working in the militarized and alienated police forces of the large cities that present the most threat. Ya know, like the ones who will assume their suspect is armed and resort to lethal force

I completely get what you are saying, and I know that most black males are not criminals, but there are those that are committed to very violent lifestyles and are dangerous. In bad neighborhoods, the odds of running into such a person is greatly increased, and that is always on an officer’s mind. Likewise, there are thuggish cops that are total pieces of shit, and I would not want to be pulled over by them, and i am a pasty white male.

I did not mean to imply that being black equals being a criminal. I just get frustrated when there is a justified police shooting, and the guy is a total scumbag, yet there are protests and a lot of anger directed at police, but police shootings are very rare in comparison to the violence in some communities and the hundreds of thousand interactions with police for every one shooting.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

My point is that the police militarization seems to be in response to the threats facing police officers. War vets also bring with them another level of that as well.

Interesting observation. Foreign policy coming home to roost domestically. That's probably not an appropriate tangent here, but certainly worth noting.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It's the fact that one officer yells out "gun, gun, gun," when in reality he could not see. That's basically like saying "open fire"—literally shooting first and asking questions later.

When in doubt should they yell "Take cover!" instead?

 

[nhbbear]

This is shaping up to be a very American discussion, and maybe that's ok because most poster on this board are American, too, and the police violence discussion is largely an American one as well.

Therefore, I am going to make some points and ask some questions to those involved.

1) The subjective element

I learned in this thread that the judgement of whether use of force (especially shootings) is justified is based on the facts available to an officer at the time. Now in the U.S., bodycams have become a thing, and I think that's good for everyone involved. False accusations by suspects can be countered, but also cops who go too far or otherwise would go on a power trip can be kept in check. At the same time, this is always going to be a tough concept to apply. We had a case in Germany where a Hells Angels member shot and killed a SWAT team member through the closed alabaster door. Police had tried to raid his house and had failed to identify themselves; there is no such thing as the castle doctrine in Germany, but the Hells Angels dude credibly stated he had assumed a Bandidos attack on his life.

Conversely, there also has been the case of Iain McLeod who was an innocent Scotsman living in Germany, who was shot and killed during a raid in 1972 as a suspected RAF member. He was killed with shots through the closed bedroom door; the cop claimed he had feared for his life. The case was never brought to trial.

The subjective element is crucial and still so problematic.

2) Culture of violence

I get a really, really bad feeling when I read what @SpAzNeT is writing. I can well understand where he is coming from; it doesn't feel right to put your life on the line for some dipshit criminals, and his experience as a member of SWAT teams certainly has strenghtened that position. But his stance - escalate violence - to me is very illuminative of the larger issue. Sure, every situation is different, and there certainly are instances where this is exactly the right approach to end a situation quickly. But at the same time, there are certainly also situations where standing down, clearing the area, waiting for backup, deescalating etc. is also a possible approach - see the very measured stance @nhbbear has. I think a lot of the issues come down to the culture of violence in the US. To me, it seems that yes, US police has a violence probem and should be trained better (I just LOL whenever I hear about 10-12 week training courses, training should at least be 3-4 years). But the larger problem is the US culture of violence, which includes the reasonable assumption that suspects carry guns, and also the assumption that police must immediately establish dominance and end even non-immediate threats. The rule of law does not crumble instantly if you try to deescalate.

3) Personnel situation

One further issue that gets way too little attention IMO is the personnel situation. Just a short Google search tells me that there are about 800k sworn cops in the United States; that is about 0.25% of the population. Germany has about 275k cops, which is about 0.33% of the population. That means Germany has ((0.33 / 0.25)-1)*100)=) 33% more cops. And that despite the fact that violent crime is much more of a problem in the US than in Germany. Take a look at the facts here:

(Source: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime)

Why am I mentioning this? Well, in my opinion, there are a number of factors to consider.

First, if you are stretched thin and have potentially to wait longer for backup, you will be more likely see yourself compelled to "force" an end to a tense situation.

Second, and maybe more importantly, cops are never alone in Germany. They always have a partner when they are on patrol. This is crucial for many situations and introduces a different dynamic than when people are on their own (as I understand is often the case in the U.S.)

Of course, this does not come for free. And here I believe the U.S. obsession with low taxes comes into play. A well-trained and well-staffed police force comes at a price. Are you willing to pay it?

I will respond to two aspects you mentioned. The culture of violence that you mentioned, in relation to spaznet’s comment-American police have traditionally been taught the 1+1 theory, that states that the officer is to respond to a resisting or combative subject with one level of force higher than the suspect. If they come at you with fists, you use a baton. They have a knife, you use a gun. Training has been evolving to get away from that concept, but it was taught to me, and I, in turn, taught it to officers for a while.

As for the the number of police, it is so difficult to find good recruits. This is directly related to the negative attitude towards police, which we certainly deserve to some extent. The low pay in most departments for such a difficult and frustrating job is another factor. The quality of recruits is a serious issue. We get too many applicants that are removed from the list because they used drugs(many, just weeks before being interviewed), or for other crimes.

When I tested, there were three hundred people taking the test. Now, there are rarely more than thirty. Many do not pass the physical requirements, which eliminates them from taking the written test, which again, many fail. So we end up with 15 candidates, and many are disqualified for the reasons I listed.

One way to change this is to increase pay, add incentives for college grads and military, or offer some assistance with student loans. Otherwise, we are left with subpar candidates and departments may have to lower stabdards. We heavily recruit females and minorities, but we get very few female or minority applicants, and most of the applicants fail somewhere in the process.

 

[nhbbear]

I don't know that there is a rule that covers all with regard to this phenomenon. Depending on the case, it could be that the prosecutor is putting their thumb on the scale for the police or it could be that the prosecutor is trying to make waves. I agree that that is something that is puzzling and seems to happen fairly often, but I could only speculate why.

The public pressure put on prosecutors to file charges, and often overcharge, is why you see first degree murder charges in some cases that are questionable shoots. Knowing that first degree murder requires forethought and planning right there in the code, baffles me that a split second shooting.

 

[sleepwalk]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you as to the "armed" shooting, at least partially. There are many armed standoffs that turn into police executions because of the popular belief among officers that "gun + suspect = FIRE AT WILL." Aside from depriving suspects of Constitutional rights, sometimes these suspects are not complete pieces of shit. Sometimes they are in fact the victims of police overreaction / escalation. I still expect law enforcement officers to act as professionals and not precipitate the crises they react to.

We all want to avoid unnecessary loss of life. But, I have a problem with the underlined. In an "armed standoff" (and really the vast majority of armed encounters) the armed subject has the ability to end the encounter peacefully at any time. They don't even have to know how themselves, simply be able to follow the instructions being given to them to the best of their ability.

In the italicized, I'd agree that most if the people who I end up arresting aren't complete pieces of shit. A lot of them are screw ups or people who reacted poorly under a stress. But how good of a person you are doesn't come into play much in an armed encounter. We had a guy in town who was known as a happy dude, liked to barbecue and watch soccer over some beers. He ended up killing his wife and sons before himself. If he had decided to turn it into a stand off instead of putting a bullet in his own head, his funny jokes and bad softball-playing would have (and probably should have) been the least thing from my mind.

But as to the unarmed shootings, yeah that's a huge problem. Unless someone is aiming a realistic fake gun at officers, officers should never be "mistaken" about the threats posed by innocuous objects such as cell phones, waistbands, or garden hoses.

I have extremely high standards for officers. I expect that they show restraint when a mentally ill person attempts "suicide by cop" and I expect them to intervene effectively during an active shooter situation (e..g, the Parkland Shooting).

As a society, we should have a high expectation of competence and integrity in law enforcement. The bolded, however, I feel is sometimes taken to an unreasonable level. An EDP is a less predictable and more dangerous subject than a hostile criminal. This doesn't mean that they are to be approached without compassion or restraint. It simply means that, even if officers have been told or they themselves believe the subject is acting with the goal of being shot by police, acting in a manner that would justify being shot by police makes that course of action a prudent option.

I don't expect them to be perfect, but I do expect them to be professional. Deadly force must always be the last resort. Instead of using the "objectively reasonable" test, I would adopt something closer to the "damn fucking sure test" (well, maybe something a little more practical than that).

I think I get where you're coming from here but "objectively reasonable" is, by the very nature and definition of the term, the standard by which we (the people) expect anything to be judged.

I never lose sight of the fact that when an officers kills someone, that person has parents, children, siblings, relatives, and friends who are affected.

Absolutely. One thing that was drummed into us from academy day one and in regular training throughout our careers is that, "That person, no matter what they act like, what they say, or what they've done, is somebody's brother, mother, son, daughter, husband, whatever. Handle them the way you'd expect your own family to be handled."

In my opinion, the law is far too lenient on police uses of deadly force.

The courts may be. The law, I'd say, does its job pretty well.

 

[nhbbear]

That's a tough one. I want to say render first aid. Seems like you'd have to pursue though.

If I shoot someone, i am sticking my fingers in the wound to try and save them. I have responded to shootings where I tried to render aid, and was threatened and i simply could not render aid. There was one instance where i was rendering aid and someone ran up and shoved me. The bystanders actually grabbed him on that one and were yelling at him, and defending me for trying to help. But in my opinion, officers should always attempt to render aid if the threat is neutralized, even if they have rudimentary training.

 

[nhbbear]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you as to the "armed" shooting, at least partially. There are many armed standoffs that turn into police executions because of the popular belief among officers that "gun + suspect = FIRE AT WILL." Aside from depriving suspects of Constitutional rights, sometimes these suspects are not complete pieces of shit. Sometimes they are in fact the victims of police overreaction / escalation. I still expect law enforcement officers to act as professionals and not precipitate the crises they react to.

But as to the unarmed shootings, yeah that's a huge problem. Unless someone is aiming a realistic fake gun at officers, officers should never be "mistaken" about the threats posed by innocuous objects such as cell phones, waistbands, or garden hoses.





I have extremely high standards for officers. I expect that they show restraint when a mentally ill person attempts "suicide by cop," and I expect them to intervene effectively during an active shooter situation (e..g, the Parkland Shooting). I don't expect them to be perfect, but I do expect them to be professional. Deadly force must always be the last resort. Instead of using the "objectively reasonable" test, I would adopt something closer to the "damn fucking sure test" (well, maybe something a little more practical than that). I never lose sight of the fact that when an officers kills someone, that person has parents, children, siblings, relatives, and friends who are affected. It's like Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven:



In my opinion, the law is far too lenient on police uses of deadly force.

That said, the USA is a violent, deadly place. There are many reasons for this, and that's perhaps a good subject for another sticky thread.

You stated that you have to disagree with me, but I don’t think we said anything completely opposite of each other. I certainly disagree with the “damn sure test” because of the obvious reason that these are rapidly evolving situations where the officers have incomplete information, and have to respond to a perceived threat. I, nor any other officer, is going to wait until a suspect is shooting as us before we use lethal force.

I agree that person +gun=lethal force. I never stated that was the case. Without any threats by the subject, or attempt to aim the firearm at the officer, there should be no lethal force used. The case of Philando Castille is one example where a citizen was shot without cause. I am explicitly stated that training should be increased for dealing with mentally ill or suicidal subjects. Sometimes suicidal subjects force the issue. It is pretty damn easy to force a police officer to shoot a subject that wants to commit suicide by cop. You simply make threats and point a gun. But no person should be shot for pointing a gun or knife at themself.

 

[JamesRussler]

Agree. But the community can’t or does not want to understand totality of the circumstances

He yells it out because that’s what he perceived it to be based on the totality of the circumstances and his training and experience, and he doesn’t want his partner to step out and get blasted. If he was alone he wouldn’t have yelled out gun and the result would’ve been he same I think.

"Totality of circumstances" is not a magic phrase. It means something different in every case. In deadly force, we basically have different lines of cases for each factual circumstance (e.g., "refusal to drop the knife" cases, "armed fleeing felon fence jumping" cases, etc.). Some facts to justify force, some tend to mitigate the necessity of force. Some facts are neutral. The case we're talking about here (the Clark case) is a fleeing unarmed felon holding something in his hand. What are the relevant circumstances there? Here are the ones I read about:

1. Report of Suspicious Activity → Justifying
2. Suspect reportedly carrying crowbar → Mitigating
3. Running from Police → Justifying
4. Jumped fence → Justifying
5. Dark / poor lighting → Neutral / Mitigating
6. Cornered in backyard → Mitigating
7. Advancing toward police → Neutral / not enough info​

Obviously running from police puts them on greater alert, especially after a report of criminal activity. Same with jumping a fence. However, those facts are insufficient under Tennessee v. Garner and other cases. Police need some further indication that a weapon was involved. I read that the suspect was reported to be carrying a crowbar. If that information went out over the radio, then it seems a little bit of a stretch to assume that this unknown object was gun. The fact that he was cornered in a backyard suggests that his possibility of escape was low. The fact that he advanced toward the officers (allegedly) may justify or militate use of force, depending on how he was approaching.

We appear to disagree on the significance of the dark lighting. IMO, the fact that it's dark is an extremely strong reason not to shoot. Aside from the suspect, there may be other people present—perhaps innocent people. There may even be another officer, if another officer went around the other side of the house. I'm not saying it's not a tough situation for officers to be in. I don't envy the officers there. But it doesn't appear that any actual facts under the "totality of circumstances" even indicate that this man was armed. Like I said, Stephon Clark sounds like a real POS, but I just don't see any objective circumstances to justify the officers' use of force, aside from perhaps a crowbar.

If I had to place blame, it would probably be on the guy who yelled "gun" repeatedly. He presumably knows that that's basically telling other officers to open fire. He didn't actually see a gun, as we now know. There's perhaps a question about whether he was reasonably mistaken. I'm pretty skeptical of that, having seen the bodycam.

Just my opinion on it. Definitely a difficult situation to be in.

 

[JamesRussler]

You stated that you have to disagree with me, but I don’t think we said anything completely opposite of each other. I certainly disagree with the “damn sure test” because of the obvious reason that these are rapidly evolving situations where the officers have incomplete information, and have to respond to a perceived threat. I, nor any other officer, is going to wait until a suspect is shooting as us before we use lethal force.

I agree that person +gun=lethal force. I never stated that was the case. Without any threats by the subject, or attempt to aim the firearm at the officer, there should be no lethal force used. The case of Philando Castille is one example where a citizen was shot without cause. I am explicitly stated that training should be increased for dealing with mentally ill or suicidal subjects. Sometimes suicidal subjects force the issue. It is pretty damn easy to force a police officer to shoot a subject that wants to commit suicide by cop. You simply make threats and point a gun. But no person should be shot for pointing a gun or knife at themself.

We don't disagree that much. There are few situations I have in mind where officers precipitated armed standoffs then basically sniped the suspects, or reneged on the terms of surrender.

Philando Castille I actually think is a closer case than the Stephon Clark because Castille actually had a gun. The officer freaked out after seeing the gun, and thought he was reaching for it when Castile reached for the seat belt. To me, that's a much more precarious situation for the officer, because maybe Castille was reaching for that gun.

What do you think of this case right here?

 

[sleepwalk]

It seems you and I have very similar career paths. Similar city size, training.

You smashed up that many police cars?
J/k.

 

[JamesRussler]

We all want to avoid unnecessary loss of life. But, I have a problem with the underlined. In an "armed standoff" (and really the vast majority of armed encounters) the armed subject has the ability to end the encounter peacefully at any time. They don't even have to know how themselves, simply be able to follow the instructions being given to them to the best of their ability.

The cases I'm thinking of are the sort where they shoot the guy as he surrenders, or snipe him during negotiations.

In the italicized, I'd agree that most if the people who I end up arresting aren't complete pieces of shit. A lot of them are screw ups or people who reacted poorly under a stress. But how good of a person you are doesn't come into play much in an armed encounter. We had a guy in town who was known as a happy dude, liked to barbecue and watch soccer over some beers. He ended up killing his wife and sons before himself. If he had decided to turn it into a stand off instead of putting a bullet in his own head, his funny jokes and bad softball-playing would have (and probably should have) been the least thing from my mind.

Yeah, definitely every situations is different. You have a very tough job.

As a society, we should have a high expectation of competence and integrity in law enforcement. The bolded, however, I feel is sometimes taken to an unreasonable level. An EDP is a less predictable and more dangerous subject than a hostile criminal. This doesn't mean that they are to be approached without compassion or restraint. It simply means that, even if officers have been told or they themselves believe the subject is acting with the goal of being shot by police, acting in a manner that would justify being shot by police makes that course of action a prudent option.

In my circuit, shooting / killing mentally ill was a big problem. There's now a published case that says a suspect's mental illness, once it is made known to officers, is something they must take into account before using deadly force. IMO it makes sense because mentally ill people are, by definition, unable to react normally. That doesn't mean I expect police to not stop an active shooter just because he's mentally ill, but certainly if someone is insane you have to be resourceful enough to not choose deadly force as a first resort.

LOL I guess I'm just a bit of a bleeding heart on that subject.

I think I get where you're coming from here but "objectively reasonable" is, by the very nature and definition of the term, the standard by which we (the people) expect anything to be judged.

People confuse subjective thoughts / motivations with objective circumstances often enough.

FYI (and kinda off topic), if you ever do a special needs search (e.g., a DUI checkpoint stop), your subjective motivations do actually matter in those circumstances. It's one of the few areas in criminal procedure where the law will probe your intent to conduct a search / seizure.

Absolutely. One thing that was drummed into us from academy day one and in regular training throughout our careers is that, "That person, no matter what they act like, what they say, or what they've done, is somebody's brother, mother, son, daughter, husband, whatever. Handle them the way you'd expect your own family to be handled."

The courts may be. The law, I'd say, does its job pretty well.

Touche!

 

[JamesRussler]

Well, also in my experience, officers who use force correctly don't get sued, so perhaps I'm dealing with a self-selecting sample here

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

In an "armed standoff" (and really the vast majority of armed encounters) the armed subject has the ability to end the encounter peacefully at any time. They don't even have to know how themselves, simply be able to follow the instructions being given to them to the best of their ability.

Well put. Made me laugh. Can't then but help think of that kid crawling on his knees in the hotel hallway getting shot. What did you think of that one?

Absolutely. One thing that was drummed into us from academy day one and in regular training throughout our careers is that, "That person, no matter what they act like, what they say, or what they've done, is somebody's brother, mother, son, daughter, husband, whatever. Handle them the way you'd expect your own family to be handled."

Very nice to hear.

But in my opinion, officers should always attempt to render aid if the threat is neutralized, even if they have rudimentary training.

Of course. But if the threat isn't neutralized then...

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

As far as officers escalating a situation, this case always stuck with me.




The kid does some stupid shit for sure by reaching into the ol' waistband, but what leads to that is the cops rolling up on him like it's a drive-by or something. Seems a little more reckless than is necessary for public safety at the time. Can some officers please comment on that?

 

[sleepwalk]

Well put. Made me laugh. Can't then but help think of that kid crawling on his knees in the hotel hallway getting shot. What did you think of that one?
...

Can't say that I'm familiar but it sounds horrific. If it's as simple as that, it sounds like a poor decision or malicious behavior by the officer rather than a recrimination of the laws and procedures in place, though. I.E., "fuck that guy" as opposed to "fuck the police."

 

[Trotsky]

Well put. Made me laugh. Can't then but help think of that kid crawling on his knees in the hotel hallway getting shot. What did you think of that one?

I believe this actually resulted in a murder conviction.