The following is from an article today in the New York Times by Jesus Jiménez.
I have summarized it below. The account is disturbing in that it can happen today in a modern democracy. Imagine if the following scenario were presented to a group of senior police officers in your city as a case study. What would they say? What would you say?
Here is the summary:
A county sheriff’s deputy shot a woman inside her home. She was Black and had called the police early that morning because she believed an intruder had entered her home. The deputy, who was white, and another deputy, arrived at the woman’s home and searched the front and backyard. They then knocked on her door, and told her that they hadn’t found anyone outside. The deputies followed the woman inside and asked her for identification while she sat on a sofa. She then got up to remove a pot of hot water from the stove. As she was handling the pot, several feet away from the deputies, she said twice, “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.” The deputy told the woman she “better not” use expletives and warned her that he would shoot her in the face. Within seconds, he drew his gun, ordered her to drop the pot, and fired at least two shots at her, whereupon she died.
____________________
I would expect senior police officers would immediately question the officers’ training and experience as well as the actions of the second officer present. I think it would be clear to them that this was a “mental health” situation. If the deputy felt threatened by the pot of water, why was a lesser use of force not used, a Taser, for example?
[While this event was captured on body cameras worn at least one of the officers, we might also question that absent the video evidence, would the deputy have been charged? I mean, if the deputy had stated the woman was closer to him and immediately threatening him with a pot of scalding water, would he have been charged?]
Further information, the deputy now fired by his department and charged with murder, was certified as a part-time officer in 2021 and, since that time had worked for a number of police departments the area.
Appropriately, the sheriff’s department responded, “The actions taken by [the deputy] do not reflect the values and training of the [sheriff’s office] or law enforcement as a whole, Good law enforcement officers stand with our community in condemning actions that undermine the trust and safety we strive to uphold.”
Now you may ask, why do I get concerned about an incident like this? These shootings are not that common. While they are uncommon, they impact all of us when they occur — especially when we think they could have been prevented. For example, our nation’s president got involved and they will be protests in the area — another instance of a white officer killing a person of color. Many citizens will be left wondering if the woman was white, would she have been shot? These use of deadly force erodes the trust that is so necessary for police to maintain among those whom they serve (and, statistically, poor persons of color are much more likely than wealth white people to encounter police.)
I maintain (and continue to do) so that a police agency that is not trusted by the community is ineffective. Shootings like this destroy that trust. A questionable shooting can not only impact the immediate community — but throughout the nation as well. Even having impact throughout the world. Remember what happened worldwide after the actions of a police officer in Minneapolis led to the death of George Floyd?
The answer cannot solely be to put errant police officers in prison. The answer must be to improve the SYSTEM of policing our nation. It must improve how we attract, select, train, and supervise those we call to be our police.
Good policing matters. It affects the quality of life in our society. Police officers carry out their sworn duties to be guardians and peacekeepers when they intelligently enforce the law, quell public disturbances, are well-trained throughout their careers, and model the fundamental values of our great nation.
We can begin this by professionally compensating our police, expecting them to work with the community they serve, maintain emotional stablity, and be led by mature, competent leaders.
We must raise the current standard of police use of deadly force to the current standard of the European Union – “absolutely necessary.” For we kill far more many citizens than police do in other democratic countries.
Along with this, we must to develop effective, non-deadly methods for police to control violent and dangerous persons who are not brandishing a firearm and to enable police to electronically disable fleeing motor vehicles. These measures will go a long way to reducing the number of persons whose deaths are caused by police action each year (approximately 1,000 citizens).
This is not an unreasonable expectation. I have worked and led police who are able to do meet this model and do it extremely well.
To raise our expectations of our police and make these changes is a good way to begin.
p.s. More info on the officer involved: SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — The former sheriff’s deputy charged with murderin the fatal shooting of Sonya Massey, a 36-year-old Black woman killed inside her Illinois home, had been employed by a half-dozen police agencies since 2020, according to state law enforcement records.
Still more from The Atlantic. “This is the worst police shooting video — ever!”
How is it done? Here’s an answer.
Improving Police: A Necessary Conversation 
Here we go again, inferring that this deputy was a racist or worse, that the system is “systemically racist.” There are no facts offered in the coverage of this event that supports either premise. Painting this as racism only serves the interests of those who have a vested interest in promoting the racist narrative, we need to move beyond that.
Risk Management
When bad things happen, it is worthwhile to study the consequences. This will lead us to the proximate and root causes of those consequences. The “proximate cause” would appear to be that the officer felt threatened by a woman with a pot of boiling water making threats. Why would an officer feel seriously threatened by that? It’s not reasonable in my opinion, but I don’t know everything. Perhaps this guy was scalded by someone in the past?
In any case, a reasoned analysis here looks at the facts of this particular incident, makes reasoned inferences, and determines whether he was justified in feeling a level of personal risk likely to cause death or great bodily harm. I don’t see it myself, but I wasn’t there, and body camera footage can be misleading. What is certain, however, is that the officer could have just backed away. Creating distance should be instinctive in threatening situations. Instead, he “stood his ground,” without law full justification, inside this woman’s home where the full force and weight of constitutional protection exists for our citizens and, he killed her.
Conclusion – deploying a firearm was not called for here. Much less, use of deadly force.
Then there is “root cause” analysis. Here I must ask this question as a former chief and firearms instructor. “Why did this officer deploy his sidearm?” In my experience we too often defer to the judgement of officers in these situations stating, “If they feel threatened, they can deploy their sidearm.” What is worse is insisting that they do so in certain situations, such as clearing a school building late at night when there is no reason to believe anyone is present, much less anyone dangerous or armed. Years ago, my field training officer admonished me stating “When it’s a forcible felony, draw your weapon!” “No…I’ll draw my weapon when there is reason to believe I am in grave danger from an armed suspect,” I argued to no avail. I was counseled by the chief that I would be negligent from an “officer safety” point-of-view.
Conclusion – deploying sidearms is risky. Don’t do it unless you can articulate that there is a deadly threat. Train, train, train. Supervise officers closely in these situations and call them out to justify any weapon deployment. Require written documentation on all use of force events and track them carefully to determine if additional training, counseling, or discipline is necessary.
Are we hiring the right people? Probably not as evidenced by the employment record of this officer and the utter scarcity of qualified officers generally. In Illinois we are stealing certified officers from other agencies these days. In this environment, we must ask whether thorough background investigations are being done.
The sanctity of human life is our top priority, any recruit who has a history of not honoring that should not be considered for employment.
Conclusion – the demand for officers is undermining our standards. Only thoroughly vetted and qualified officers should be entrusted with this mission. If that means we have to not respond to calls that do not involve crimes, or to calls that typical cops are not adequately trained or equipped to handle, such as emotionally disturbed individuals, then so be it.
There are other root causes to explore but that is enough for now. What should be clear in all of the rhetoric since Travon Martin is that allowing passion to overcome reason is making things worse. Our police officers responded to millions of calls for service every year, 80% of these calls involve events that they are not trained or equipped to handle. It’s amazing to me that they don’t make more mistakes. How about some focus on that for a change?
LikeLike
We agree! “Conclusion – deploying a firearm was not called for here. Much less, use of deadly force.” Thanks for diving into this.
LikeLike
I agree that there must be a higher standard of deadly force usage by our law enforcement personnel here in America. But I will also submit to you that at least part of the reasoning behind the higher usage of police use of deadly force here in America than in European countries is that our citizens here in the USA have access to and are more than willing to utilize firearms (including many weapons designed only for war) upon our nation’s police officers. Very few countries outside of the US allow their citizens almost unrestricted access to firearms as opposed to the US under the guise of “Constitutional Carry.”
LikeLike
I agree. Guns are the problem. If you threaten a police officer with a gun, you may loose your life. What I am proposing is to re-think our tactics with regard to those who threaten police with an edged weapon or club. We can reduce those fatalities as they have done in Europe where the weapon of choice is a knife because guns are not so available.
LikeLike