Tonight. Officers from your agency respond to a residential allotment where a homeowner has called on a “suspicious person” in the area. Upon arrival the officers search the caller’s property and in the dark behind a garage, confront a subject with what appears to be a firearm in his hand. The officers give numerous commands to “Drop the gun!” but in the poor light of the backyard the subject turns towards the officers and raises the pistol towards them. They open fire and the subject falls to the ground. Once they approach the downed suspect they find that, instead of a man with a gun, it is rather a teenager with an airsoft pistol. Paramedics are called but, despite valiant attempts to save him, the boy dies on the way to the hospital.
Instead of an implausible situation or encounter, we must prepare for this totally possible situation and the fall-out to come.
Does your agency have a plan, protocol or policy in place to deal with these types of encounters? Ready or not, here it comes and regardless of agency size – large, medium or small – whether your agency has had numerous officer involved shootings or this is the first, the microscope of the media will be focused upon you. Special interest groups as well as a public whose interest has been sharpened by the media will be tuning into the coverage on your agency. How will the chief, deputy chiefs, lead the agency and how investigators conduct a thorough and professional investigation under this intense scrutiny? Are they prepared? Does the chief even know use of force law? A chief of police recently told me, “Most police chiefs don’t know the difference between a Graham cracker and Graham v. Connor!”
Getting the Truth Out…Now
Agencies cannot wait until an incident has happened to build relationships and bridges with the media. Agencies must conduct training programs and media police academies to educate the local TV, radio and print media in the area. Although media personnel can seldom attend all of the training, positive news images and stories can be generated and lasting relationships built so that administrators and PIO’s – public information officers, can reach out to these people during incidents.
So too, citizen police academies must be conducted with the religious and civilian leadership of a city or county. Police use of force law and training can be explained as well as investigative processes in the use of deadly and non-deadly force.
An agency must explain the realities of use of force versus the misinformation that is purveyed by special interest groups. Sadly several former and active police officers have come out with contorted views on use of force.
For instance, a former three year FBI agent and 20 year police chief has opined:
“It can also be argued that police officer fear of physical harm is an “unreasonable fear” since the police profession is certainly not the most dangerous job. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics policing ranked #10 on the list of most dangerous jobs in 2012.”
(Melvin Tucker, Defense Against Edged Weapons Training and “Unreasonable Fear”; ILEETA Journal; 2014)
Mr. Tucker is looking at work related injuries not violence in the workplace and that difference is startling. According to the NCVS – National Crime Victimization Survey, “From 2005 through 2009, of the occupational groups examined, law enforcement occupations had the highest average annual rate of workplace violence (48 violent crimes per 1,000)…”
Mr. Tucker, an active “expert witness” who has worked on hundreds of cases against police officers and agencies goes on to state:
“It’s time trainers stop teaching officers the “21 foot rule” and start telling officers the truth about the real risks they face from a suspect with a knife. Why, because the fear of serious bodily harm or death from stabbing is an “unreasonable fear.”
When I recently presented Mr. Tucker’s comments at the 2015 ILEETA Conference the trainers in attendance were aghast for it is that same edged weapon awareness and training which has prevented so many serious police injuries. Even then untold numbers of edged weapon assaults take place in law enforcement and corrections each year.
Law professor Seth Stoughton states, “Use-of-force training should also emphasize de-escalation and flexible tactics in a way that minimizes the need to rely on force, particularly lethal force.”
(How Police Training Contributes to Unreasonable Deaths; The Atlantic; 12 December 2014)
The professor cites a 2013 Bureau of Justice Statistics report that states there was 63 million police / citizen interactions in 2011. However he ignores another B.J.S. report Contacts Between Police and the Public; October, 2011, which states, “During 2008, about 574,000 persons age 16 or older had force used or threatened against them during their most recent contact with police. This estimate represents about 1.4% of those persons who reported face-to-face contact with police in 2008”
What exactly does the professor think working police officers do on the street? Police officers use “de-escalation” and “flexible tactics” to minimize use of force every day. Consider this study published in the F.B.I. Bulletin:
“…70 percent responded that they had been involved in at least one situation where they could have discharged their firearm in the performance of their duties but chose not to fire.
“Only 20 percent of the sample had been involved in critical incidents where they fired their weapon during the incident.
“…80 percent responded that they had been assaulted at least once during their career. 27% responded that they had received an injury due to an assault that required time off from duty.
“…officers in the sample used restraint 93 percent of the time when not legally mandated to do so.
“If officers risk their personal safety by using restraint in deadly force, why has this phenomenon largely gone unnoticed in the media and research?
“In regard to the media, cases involving deadly force overshadow the actuality that police officers overwhelmingly employ restraint in their use of deadly force. Perhaps, this media focus on the use of deadly force helps create the misconception that police officers use deadly force more often than they actually do.”
Restraint in the Use of Deadly Force: A Preliminary Study; the FBI Bulletin; (June, 2012); Pinizzotto, Davis, Bohrer and Infanti
Prior to a press conference on a shooting, use of force or in-custody death, it benefits the chief or agency head to have a briefing on use of force law and agency policy by knowledgeable agency experts. Misstatements and blunders based on lack of knowledge are hard to overcome. The chief’s arrogance and pompous ego, i.e., “I am the chief,” “I know all that…,” or “I’m an expert,” (self-appointed of course) is a recipe for blundering and damage to an agency’s reputation for competency.
Policy
One of the most important policies an agency can have, is an OIDSI – Officer Involved Death or Serious Injury policy. This policy is not limited to just officer involved shootings. For instance, this policy would go into effect when: an officer shoots at, but does not hit a suspect; is shot at by a suspect; a suspect dies or is seriously injured during a police vehicle pursuit; in-custody death including Excited Delirium.
The OIDSI policy includes: the original briefing by the officers to responding detectives; dictates who is in overall command of the investigation; who will be present when the interview (at least 24 hours after the incident) takes place; issues of Miranda and Garrity; critical incident stress debriefing; fitness for duty evaluation; and more.
The OIDSI delineates the process and roles of agency personnel in interviews and investigations and prevents “winging it” which so often produces poor, unprofessional results and the subsequent stress caused to the involved officer(s).
By delineating the process and system beforehand, a more professional and systematic result is guaranteed and the agency can advise the media and public what the system is.
More Professional
Coming across like Andy Taylor, the Sheriff of Mayberry, may be quaint and make good family TV, but it does nothing to promote professionalism or inspire confidence. Too many chiefs and sheriffs have absolutely no clue about police use of force. In their arrogance they refuse to go to training programs and oftentimes excuse themselves from attendance. Further, too many refuse to be trained or counseled by “lowly officers or trainers” who have actual expertise in use of force.
It is no longer an option for agency administrators to know use of force law and practice. It is, in these uncertain times, the most important area in which they must have knowledge and competence. We must develop sound investigative systems for these incidents and properly train all agency personnel in use of force law and practice. It is no longer an option.
Kevin Davis | Tactical Survival Contributor
Kevin R. Davis retired from the Akron Police Department after 31 years with a total of 39 years in law enforcement. Kevin was a street patrol officer, narcotics detective, full-time use of force, suspect control, and firearms instructor, and detective assigned to the Body Worn Camera Unit. Kevin is the author of Use of Force Investigations: A Manual for Law Enforcement, and is an active consultant and expert witness on use of force incidents. Kevin's website is https://kd-forcetraining.com/
