In 2005, a Harlem woman named Tammy Johnson was struck in the arm with a bullet fired during a police shootout that left Johnson and a 78-year-old retired cop injured and the suspect dead.
Johnson and the former officer brought action against the city of New York and the retiree accepted $250,000 in compensation. Johnson took her claim to court, but found her case didn’t have the legs she had hoped. Johnson originally sought $7 million by claiming involved officers had not made sufficient effort to check the area for innocent bystanders before opening fire. This has led to some interesting arguments about the role officer discretion plays in deadly force situations.
At issue were police guidelines I believe to be fairly universal that require officers to refrain from discharging their weapons when doing so can unnecessarily put innocents at risk. Officers involved in Johnson’s case testified that they did not observe any bystanders prior to engaging the shooter. Two officers admitted they didn’t check for bystanders before the shooting took place.
Critics, always swift to analyze police response in the calm after the storm, claim that responding officers should not have put the bystanders in harm’s way, and that returning the gunman’s fire was a step too far when it came to exercising officer discretion. Like most of the public, those claiming the officers shouldn’t have returned the gunman’s fire have limited knowledge of what goes into those split-second life and death decisions cops are forced to make.
Nor do they acknowledge the potential harm in allowing the gunman to escape.
Officers receive extensive training on when and how to return fire when the occasion demands. No officer heads for work with the hope they’ll get the opportunity to fire their service weapon. It’s also worth noting that making the commitment to discharge one’s sidearm carries with it implicit responsibilities towards the public’s safety.
It’s easy to judge something from the sidelines or, as I said, from the comfort and safety of calm after officers have been involved in a shooting. It’s another thing entirely to be fired upon and make the appropriate response, especially since officers know they will be held liable for every move they make.
In addition to assessing the shooter and his position, an officer must determine the best position from the vantage of cover and concealment, notify dispatch and other officers in the area and make certain the shooter doesn’t slip away while at the same time protecting the public and coming to the best decision for those in the shooter’s immediate vicinity.
Courts thus far have sided mostly with officers in recognizing they do their best to neutralize dangerous situations and they do it under very stressful circumstances. Police know that letting an armed individual escape can end tragically, but they also don’t want to put innocents at risk. This is basic training and police on the street keep this in mind any time they draw their weapons. Taught to react reflexively while under fire, cops know there are always those who will second-guess their reaction.
Departments would do well to review their shooting policies, and in particular, the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situations that occur in public standoffs before courts become involved.
Editor's note: Links to the cases mentioned in the article above can be found below-
