Use of Deadly Force article

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/use-of-deadly-force-police/402181/

Just read this and thought it was interesting for the forum.

Not offering an opinion - just an FYI.

[LSP972]

Interesting, perhaps, in that it is yet another hand-wringing bleat by a professional writer who has never been on the pointy end of the stick.

Interesting as in thought-provoking? Pardon me while I yawn...

.

[voodoo_man]

The concepts he talks about, by citing case law, random officer's and law professor opinions is interesting, it lacks substance however - why not interview officer's who have documented use of justified deadly force? He seems to talk to everyone except them for this article. He also focuses primarily on sharp weapons and vehicles, but not firearms. It is also very clear to me that he has zero experience dealing with anything physically confrontational and even less relating to police procedures and use of force, some of the points he makes are very moot. IE; he cites policy from the NYPD and PPD about not shooting at fleeing persons or moving vehicles, but both of which are allowed to be done given specific circumstances, even within those PD's policies. He forgets, or maybe overlooks, one specific aspect of all police policy, no policy is written in stone, policy can be disregarded due to a specific occurrence. Example of that is the Garner choke hold allegation, while it was clear it did not occur (meaning he did not die of a choke hold), NYPD policy states no choke holds, period. Except plenty of officers have justifiably used choke holds in the line of duty, and will continue to do so without punishment. He makes a point to mention that police officer's shoot people driving cars and not the cars in order to stop them. Again, shortsighted, because you always try to stop the person, not the weapon. If someone is trying to shoot you, you shoot them back. If someone is trying to stab you, you shoot them. You do not try to shoot the gun or the knife, you have no duty or expectation to do so. Furthermore, it becomes a police catch-22 because many PD policy states officer's shall not shoot at a moving vehicle, but when use of deadly force is used by an officer, shooting the vehicle to stop it would definitely mean they were acting against policy, even if they shot the vehicle in a manner which would automatically incapacitate it and arrested the person with little, to no, resistance. I do not remember the state, but there was a video of a trooper shooting at a vehicle to stop it after having a physical confrontation with the occupants, I believe he was either fired or suspended for his actions, which per this author should have been completely lawful, and justified since he did not attempt to shoot the people to stop the vehicle.

The author's opinion that an officer should put themselves in any danger when use of force is threatened against them is completely shortsighted and lacking perspective. Any logical person would tell you that if another person is standing there, with a knife in their hand, refusing to put the weapon down and acting aggressively towards them that threatening an equal amount or greater force is perfectly justifiable in an attempt to defuse the situation, then using that force is perfectly justifiable. There is a theme here however, since the officer's he mentions routinely give verbal commands to the person and their blatant and obvious regard for lawful police commands to drop the weapon is, in its very nature, a threat against the officer's and against the general public.

He refers to tasers as though they are non-lethal gifts from god. Fact is, they do not always work, multiple reasons for that and when they do work they do not always incapacitate the person enough to remove the weapon from their hands. There are other less-than-lethal options but they are not always available. Not every officer in the US has tasers and even less have less-than-lethal shotguns or the like. So the author saying that that the officer's should have gotten closer to the person that's threatening deadly force with a knife to try to use a less-than-lethal device that may or may not work with the cover of lethal force is something beyond the scope of safe operating practices for most officer's.

His last paragraph really embodies his misunderstanding of use of deadly force:


No permission granted by the people to agents of the state is of graver consequence than permission to take life. It is often exercised under the sway of adrenaline and powerful emotion. By pitting the state against the citizen, it carries with it the ineliminable possibility that abuse and caprice will not be held properly to account. Given all of this, it is difficult to justify authorizing the use of deadly force for anything but unambiguous and compelling reasons. This principle seems to be at work in the public’s reactions to recent police killings. Perhaps legislators, the courts, and the police are ready to apply it.

Of course, there is adrenaline and powerful emotion, that's where the training kicks in and that is why courts use the "reasonable officer standard" and not the "Jason Lee Steorts standard" for determining if deadly force was justified. While he may believe police officer's use deadly force in anything but unambiguous and compelling reasons, the courts disagree, which is confirmed through case law.

[Coyotesfan97]

I don't know anything about the incident other than what's in the article. I will say I wonder about moving away from your cars to confront the suspect in the parking lot. Although that's what the expert recommended closing with a Taser/lethal force option.

Maybe they could have talked to a K9 expert about sending your dog on potential suicide runs on armed suspects rather than a SWAT guy. They sure are happy to get a dog seriously injured or killed and then you still have to deal with the guy with the knife.

So you send your dog and he bites the suspect who starts stabbing him multiple times. What do you do now Mr "K9 expert"? He's still armed and he just killed your dog. You just wasted the dogs life and the suspect is still armed.

If you can start getting several LL options going at the same time I'd consider it. Get some beanbags going as a distraction and it'd be more workable. Especially if the knife is dropped. At least getting the suspect turned away from the dog. But if he still has the knife you still have to consider what if the dog doesn't work...

Tasers and K9s don't mix well. If the dog gets tangled in wires and gets a shock chances are he'll view it as a correction and release off the bite.

Dogs are deterrents and a potential tool. The ACLU tool saying it was unnecessary and wasn't going to be used was laughable. It's the dog's fault. Give me a break.

It tells you something about the mindset of the suspect that he's willing to try to engage the dog and the handler with the knife. Note I said handler ie a person and his dog. If an armed suspect who threatened to kill someone is approaching me and my dog I'm in fear of my life. I don't know what his intent is. If he's close enough to engage my dog he's close enough to engage me. I've seen suspects moving around pretty easily with a dog attached to them. It happens.

The threat to a dog isn't justification for deadly force. You can't use it to protect a dog solely. In fact you can get charged for doing it. Now if that force is being projected at the dog, the handler, or other Officers it can be justified.

[Gadfly]

There is theory, and there is practical reality. This guy loves the theory side of things. His comments on police work are equivalent to, "I have read every manual on how to fly the 747. I have also seen countless videos of the 747 in flight. I have never actual flown a plane, but I am sure I can tell YOU how you should be flying because I read the flight manual."

Most reporters should be ignored unless they have served in a position that they are reporting about. Even something as simple as a half day use of force/simmunition class has been enough to change the views of dozens of politicians/community activists/and reporters. They simply don't know what they don't know.


The author of this article needs to stay in wading pool, and leave the deep end of the pool for those that know how to swim.