The deadly shooting of people, especially minorities, by police is a searing and complicated phenomena. It is widespread, growing. and suggests the need for increased police training in handling dire situations.Witness descriptions of these actions vary widely. Police accounts are often skewed in favor of the need to use extreme force. Video or audio is seldom available. And if it was, would there be fewer shootings? Moreover, recordings could help exonerate police officers who are wrongly accused of overreacting.
Of course, there are myriad encounters when police need to come out shooting. Such as public in danger, sniper fire, chasing criminals who are on the run or hidden and firing, and myriad other circumstances requiring a kill-or-be-killed ethic.
Deadly Force or Disabling Force?
However, many police appear to lean toward shooting to kill when there is time for other maneuvers. Police handguns like the Glock, Beretta and SIG Sauer are powerful weapons (and when you're given a gun you're given a lot more than a gun). When individuals, despite their size and strength, are shot in the leg they are typically put on the ground and incapable of further action. And usually they are no longer a menace, nor are they dead.
Is it possible that when police are threatened by an armed assailant that they can, in some instances, aim low and not mortally wound? Clearly, if the attacker is still capable of killing an officer, then deadly force is appropriate. Or is a shot to the other leg a possible choice? It seems logical that intense and protracted police training can achieve or at least introduce this sort of flexibility.
The argument is made that when an officer is in peril there is no time to debate or to consider options. That is a strong argument, especially when the case is made that the officer was acting within the law. However, when someone signs up for police work they assume risk and also moral and ethical responsibilities. They are also sworn to serve and protect. And these duties are the officer's first priority.
Situational Analysis.
Although not as life-threatening, NFL quarterbacks are constantly facing shifting defenses and weighing offensive decisions. This requires split-second thinking, reaction and execution. Proficiency is achieved through relentless practice in game-simulated situations.
I wonder how many police forces practice reacting to critical showdowns with assaulters such as: How are they armed, or are they unarmed? If they are unarmed, could the billy club, or mace, or taser, or pepper spray, or the use of a stun gun be employed? What is the weapon they face, if any? And what is it, a knife, gun, other? Is the attacker moving toward the officer or away? How far away are they when the altercation first occurs.
Action Independent of Appearance is Essential.
The simulation images used on a police training practice range should run the gamut of ethnicity, skin color, gender, age, size, clothing and facial expression. Police must be trained to react to the situation, not to what the suspect looks like or says.
Shooting to kill is often necessary and justified. However, with the exceptions listed above, it should not be the first option. It should be the last option when all others are exhausted. Fatal shootings instantly claim two victims: The putative aggressor and the officer for whom it often means the loss of reputation and a job. Fatalities also impact the families of the participants in heart-rending and long-term ways.
Case Studies.
In the 2014 Ferguson, Missouri shooting of an unarmed man, the police officer said in a later interview that shooting to kill was his only option and that either he wasn't carrying alternative disabling equipment, or that he chose not to use it. I wonder whether he was adequately trained to use force other than shooting to kill. True, he was attacked in his car. But should he, as alleged, have challenged the suspect from the patrol car to get off the street or gotten out and calmly talked to the man.
Did he precipitate rage, or attempt to avoid it? Or, even after having been allegedly attacked while in his car, should he have called for backup instead of getting out of the patrol car and firing ten or so rounds. Did his anger over being attacked escalate a problem that needed to be controlled. Or, giving the officer the benefit of the doubt, could he have shot at the man's legs and not his torso and head? Perhaps more effective training can help police manage cascading situations rather than letting the situations manage them.
In the 2014 Cleveland, Ohio shooting of a 12-year-old black boy carrying a fake gun, video showed the officer hopping out of his car, yelling "Drop that gun," or words to that effect and immediately shooting the boy in the stomach. And, could he have shot the boy in the leg? On the way to the scene, the white officer asked the dispatcher whether the boy was white or black. The video showed that the boy wasn't pointing the gun in the direction of the patrol car. It appeared that in the seconds before the police arrived that the boy was walking around play acting with the gun. No other person, at least on camera, was visible in the vicinity. The officer later claimed that he had no other option. Note: The officer in question was fired from his previous police job for exhibiting unsteady behavior while on the firing range.
In another deadly confrontation, a black man bought an air rifle at a Walmart, and while carrying it to checkout he was shot dead by a white police officer
In a NYC incident, police were searching for someone in a an apartment building. An unarmed black man appeared and was shot dead by a white police officer. He was not the man the police were seeking and committed no offense other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
In another NYC incident, in 2014, a black man selling loose cigarettes on the street was confronted by an officer, then wrestled to the ground by several more officers. One officer put the man in a choke hold and maintained that hold while the man was held in obvious control by other officers.
The man died and no indictments were issued; even though the death was ruled a homicide, and choke holds were banned by the NYC police in 1993. In a classic case of blame the victim, several politicians said that the man would have lived had he not been obese.
A video of the conflict showed that none of the many officers on the scene attempted to help the immobile man on the sidewalk. Emergency medical personnel arrived; and they appeared to take no life-saving action, even though passerby were yelling, "Give him CPR."
I wasn't there and do not know all the circumstances.
But I do ask whether the police officers facing these and other
controversial shoot-to-kill incidents would have benefited from more
intensive training on how to handle a variety of threatening encounters
that too often end in death?
The Need To Understand Disparate Value Systems.
Cultural training is also required. Police should never use language that disrespects people. The words of choice, even in extreme situations, need to be temperate and crafted to defuse, not elevate tensions.
When suspects or offenders use bad language, police need to be restrained and not overreact. Is this asking a lot, maybe? But moderation is the key to controlling heightened emotions. That's all well and good you say, but are police expected to take a lot of guff. No, they shouldn't have to. But they must keep in mind that the people they deal with are often unbalanced, uneducated, unmedicated, living by street rules and not capable of participating in any kind of low-level discussion.
I've observed NYC and Chicago police, men and women, some of the toughest cops in the world, dealing with aggressive, often homeless, often hopeless street people in gentle, forbearing, but persuasive tones. I was struck by their patient, tolerant, temperature-lowering behavior and thought: I could never do that.
Know the Culture and How to Deal with it.
As the U.S. population becomes more diverse and more stratified along economic lines. And as crime grows, as it does when more people feel disenfranchised and are poor, police and all crime-fighting organizations, need training in handling physical responsibilities in dangerous circumstances.
And this must be accompanied by training in understanding and dealing with cultural mores, or binding customs across a wide spectrum. And that requires police to get out of their vehicles and get know the local people, especially those that are potential troublemakers. This will not be easy, police are spat upon, cursed, injured and killed. Although necessary, achieving more tolerance is not easy and occasional intolerance is understandable, but killing as the first option is often not.
That said, this article may well come across to some as an indictment of police. If so, I have not succeeded. Nationwide, the vast majority of police practice professional, constructive behavior and are keeping us safe. My intention is to initiate discussion of police hiring, training, supervision, local community leadership and the adoption of practices directed toward toward higher-quality service to our entire population. Finally, police, like teachers, deserve better pay.
Richard J. Noyes
(See my books at: http://amzn.to/19QmSVH
