Shooting The Unarmed Suspect

Oct. 6, 2014
The officer mush not only subdue and control the suspect, but he must also safeguard his weapon.

In August 2014, a confrontation occurred between Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson and an individual named Michael Brown. Although we don’t know all the facts, it appears the officer contacted Brown while Brown was walking in the middle of the road. Unknown to the officer at the time of contact was that Brown and his companion had just committed a robbery at a local convenience store.

That lack of knowledge notwithstanding, we do know a physical confrontation took place. Brown assaulted the officer as the officer attempted to exit his vehicle, and continued to assault him as he pushed the officer back inside his patrol car. Brown apparently inflicted injury upon the officer and then began to flee. Officer Wilson pursued him, and at some point Brown turned and charged toward the officer who then shot Brown. Brown was unarmed.

Officer Wilson recognized the danger a violent unarmed suspect poses. Having already been injured (Brown committed a felony by attacking Officer Wilson) the officer could hardly allow the suspect to escape. Recognizing that Brown had already injured him, and that the suspect was possibly attempting to re-engage, Officer Wilson justifiably fired his weapon at the charging felon.

Why is this a justifiable shooting? Officer Wilson was fearful that Brown may inflict great bodily injury upon him, and/or disarm the officer and perhaps use his own weapon against him. While no national statistics exist regarding how many times cops have their guns taken from them, the FBI estimates the number to be around 8 per cent. Between 1994 – 2003, of the 616 officers killed on duty by criminals, 52 were killed with their own weapon. In 2011, the FBI reports 63 officers killed with firearms - 3 of those involved the officers’ own weapon. The danger is clear and present.

It’s easy to recognize that a suspect with a weapon is considered an immediate threat. What some cops don’t process correctly is that the unarmed suspect is a potentially armed suspect by virtue of his non-compliant aggressive behavior toward the officer.

In the case of Colston v. Barnhart*, the suspect, Colston became violently aggressive during a traffic stop. The man knocked both officers down, at which point Officer Barnhart fired a shot while lying on the ground that missed Colston. The suspect moved toward the police vehicle where the officers’ shotgun was located. Recognizing the potential danger to both officers should Colston gain control of the shotgun, Barnhart fired 2 additional rounds that struck the suspect.

Colston sued, and in an appellate court ruling, the court explained the shooting in this manner: “At the time Barnhart drew his weapon and fired the first shot, Colston was standing between the officers in a position to inflict serious harm on the officers with or without a weapon. When Officer Barnhart fired the two shots that hit Colston, Colston had moved only two steps from Barnhart, toward Barnhart’s patrol car, where the shotgun was located . . . Barnhart had no way to know whether Colston intended to flee or inflict further injury or death on the officers. We cannot say that a reasonable officer in Barnhart’s place would not have believed that Colston posed an immediate danger of serious bodily harm or death . . .”

The court recognized the officers did not have to hope Colston would not go for their shotgun. They ruled that theirs was a reasonable belief that both officers’ lives were in jeopardy, and that the unarmed suspect posed an immediate threat.

Think about this: law enforcement has adopted a variety of retention holsters and has gone to great lengths to train its officers in weapon retention. Departments and agencies recognize the potential danger if close physical combat occurs between the officer and a suspect. The officer’s weapon means both combatants are armed. The problem, however, is the officer is at a distinct disadvantage, in that he must not only subdue and control the suspect, but he must also safeguard his weapon.

Nevertheless, as much as we train to thwart weapon takeaways, and despite the advent of retention holsters, officers may still be susceptible to having their gun taken. Why? For a variety of reasons: thugs overpower smaller, weaker officers, thugs surprise officers while the officers’ guards are down, etc. However, one of the biggest factors is failure of the officer to recognize the danger of the violent encounter with an unarmed suspect.

In Davenport v. Causey*, Tennessee Officer Causey stopped a vehicle for traffic. The violator, Davenport, immediately exited his car and approached the officer who ordered him to get back inside his vehicle. Davenport refused and remained standing outside his car with his arms folded. Despite the officer’s continued commands to comply, the suspect refused and subsequently began striking the officer, knocking him to the ground. Causey tased the suspect, but it was ineffective. A backup arrived and was also struck and knocked to the ground. As the suspect continued to strike the backup officer, Causey shot Davenport.

Davenport sued, alleging excessive force on the part of Officer Causey. The appellate court ruled that because Davenport knocked both officers down using closed fists, the court’s view was that, “closed-fisted blows . . . may constitute deadly force.”

Officer Wilson’s case is similar. He faced a much larger and stronger adversary, who clearly demonstrated his intent to injure the officer. When Officer Wilson sensed a potential second attack was imminent, and that he might be in danger of losing both the confrontation and possibly his weapon, he used force necessary to stop the threat.

It’s important that we recognize the danger involved in physical confrontations. The uniform and badge are no guarantee we will win each battle. On the contrary, non-compliant suspects we are compelled to engage constitute a serious threat to our lives. In the words of the Federal court of appeals in the Davenport v. Causey case: “The Constitution simply does not require police to gamble with their lives in the face of a serious threat of harm.”

Stay Safe, Brothers and Sisters!

Links: Law Enforcement Officers Killed & Assaulted 2011

*In Defense of Self and Others, Issues, Facts & Fallacies - The Realities of Law Enforcement’s Use of Deadly Force (Second Edition) by Urey W. Patrick and John C. Hall

Sponsored Recommendations

Build Your Real-Time Crime Center

March 19, 2024
A checklist for success

Whitepaper: A New Paradigm in Digital Investigations

July 28, 2023
Modernize your agency’s approach to get ahead of the digital evidence challenge

A New Paradigm in Digital Investigations

June 6, 2023
Modernize your agency’s approach to get ahead of the digital evidence challenge.

Listen to Real-Time Emergency 911 Calls in the Field

Feb. 8, 2023
Discover advanced technology that allows officers in the field to listen to emergency calls from their vehicles in real time and immediately identify the precise location of the...

Voice your opinion!

To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of Officer, create an account today!