The law does not require police officers to utilize the absolute minimum force necessary in a threat situation — only that the level of force used be reasonable to control a deadly threat.—Dr. Lawrence Miller
Ohio's Samuel DuBose and South Carolina's Walter Scott had a lot in common. Both men were driving their cars when they were stopped by police for an alleged traffic violation. Both men were unarmed. Neither man had been placed under arrest. Based on video footage, neither man appeared to present a threat to the officer or the community. But for reasons unknown, during questioning by the police officers, both men tried to flee and were shot and killed. Both policemen are charged with murder, and are currently awaiting trial.
It seems rare if ever that police use of deadly force results in the police being charged with a crime, According to the law, the police are allowed to use deadly force on anyone they reasonably deem to be a clear and present threat to them or to others. Use of deadly force is solely at the discretion of the police officer at the scene. Things can get murky when a police officer uses deadly force to subdue an unarmed citizen where there is no obvious or identified threat present, including that of self-defense. Police use of deadly force becomes a problem when a few law enforcement officers overstep the boundaries and intent of the law and execute innocent citizens.
Who can forget the New York police shootings of Amadu Dialo, the unarmed African immigrant who was shot at 41 times on his doorstep by four plain-clothes officers in a case of mistaken identity; or an unarmed Sean Bell who was killed under questionable circumstances when undercover cops fired 51 shots into the car in which Bell was a passenger. Police claimed they felt threatened when someone in Bell's party was thought to have a gun, except no gun was ever found. In both cases, the police were not held accountable for their conduct in the shootings.
The U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue of police use of deadly force by clarifying and restricting its use to certain circumstances. In response to the 1985 case, Tennessee v. Garner, the Court cited Fourth Amendment protections:
When a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Further, in his majority opinion, Justice Byron Clark wrote:
It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead,—Supreme Court Justice Byron Clark
Recent fatal police shootings of unarmed citizens for seemingly minor, non-violent offenses has called into question the use of deadly force. Either the police aren't aware of the Supreme Court's ruling on use of deadly force (highly unlikely) or a few officers have taken it upon themselves to shoot first and answer questions later. What's even more troubling is the police officers who have been caught lying about the circumstances that caused them to shoot and kill their victims. Without the benefit of police body cams and passersby videos, the officers would otherwise get away with murder, as some undoubtedly have.
The mega hit song, Inner City Blues, co-written by singer-songwriter Marvin Gaye and James Nyx Jr in 1971, is a fitting description of the tensions that exist between police and urban communities. The lyrics read in part—
Crime is increasing, trigger happy policing. Panic is spreading, God knows where we're heading.
Now, almost 45 years later, nothing has fundamentally changed in that relationship. In fact, things have gotten worse with more guns on the street, especially in the hands of criminals, making it harder for the police to always identify the community's law abiding citizens, especially when certain assumptions are made.
Policing is a tough and dangerous job. That notwithstanding, most police officers, like rookie Officer Jeffrey Kidder, do an admirable job of it. However, like in everything, there are always a few bad apples. A gun in the hands of a bad cop poses a danger to any community. No one is safe with a trigger happy cop on the street. Police departments must do a better job at identifying and taking bad cops off the street and off the force, if necessary.
A prime example is Texas State Trooper Brian Encinia, the arresting officer in the Sandra Bland case. Encinia had a known history of "unprofessional conduct" on the job for which he got off with only a written warning, Without behavioral counseling or other remedial therapy, it is highly probable that Encinia would repeat the bad conduct at some future point. That day came when Encinia pulled motorist Sandra Bland over for a minor traffic violation,
Encinia is caught by his dashboard cam clearly displaying unprofessional conduct toward Bland, He can be seen pointing his taser in Bland's face and threatening to "light her up." Encinia's aggressive behavior sparked the eventual confrontation that led to Bland's arrest. In his brief time on the force, Encinia has racked up two unprofessional conduct citations and disciplinary action for violating departmental policy in the Bland arr
est. And he still has his gun.
est. And he still has his gun.
Police commanders must be watchful for any officer with repeated conduct infractions, citizen complaints or a pattern of illegal arrests or questionable use of deadly force, which could be a sign of trouble down the road for the officer and the community. Police departments must police themselves by removing officers who abuse their power. It's vitally important for all of us that police departments aren't putting or leaving guns in the hands of men and women who have no business being police officers.
Pray for kings and others in power, so that we may live quiet and peaceful lives as we worship and honor God.—1 Timothy 2:2 CEV
