Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Reasonable Place to Address Some Unnecessary Police Shootings
With Monday’s ruling from a Cleveland grand jury not to indict the officer who shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice, the nation’s rift over police use-of-force was again torn open. While I absolutely believe the grand jury made the right decision in the case of the officer who fired – you can’t ask police officers to investigate armed people and not protect themselves when someone reaches for a gun (or a replica) – the Rice case provides an opportunity for cool heads to find a solution to some preventable deaths.
Of the many shootings of police officers in recent years that have generated controversy, four stand out because of a unique commonality – grossly inaccurate information being relayed to police officers.
There are likely many others. Solving this problem may save the lives of innocent civilians and minor offenders without putting police in more jeopardy.
In the Rice case, officers responded to a report of a person brandishing a gun in a public park. They did not know that the suspect, Tamir Rice, was 12-years-old and carrying a replica, not a real gun. Video of the shooting shows that as Rice approached the officer’s car, he reached into his waistband toward the toy, causing a rookie officer to leap out and shoot. What the officers did not know, was that the 911 caller had told police dispatchers that Rice looked like a child and that he thought the gun was a toy.
We can only ponder what tragedy might have been averted had the officers approached with that information in mind.
Closer to my home in Southern California, the killing of 19-year-old Kendrec McDade presents another kind of information challenge. Late on the night of March 26, 2012, Pasadena Police responded to a report of an armed robbery with shots fired. Officers spotted McDade and pursued him when he fled on foot. When McDade made a sudden move toward an officer, he was shot.
Only after the 19-year-old was killed, was it learned that the 911 caller had lied. McDade had never had a gun, but the caller had embellished a simple theft report to generate a quicker police response. Though McDade certainly contributed to his own death by participating in a theft and resisting arrest, the false information provided to the dispatcher vastly increased the risk the officers perceived.
Stunningly, the 911 caller was not prosecuted.
The McDade case mirrors aspects of the death of John Crawford, which, like the Rice incident, also happened in Ohio last year. On August 5, 2014, Crawford was in a Wal-Mart store in Beavercreek, Ohio, when he picked up an unpackaged BB gun. A 911 caller, Ronald Ritchie, reported Crawford was pointing a rifle at shoppers, including children, and repeatedly indicates a shooting is imminent. Police responded en masse to the call, treating it as a potential “active shooter” situation, as Ritchie rapidly relayed details. Crawford was shot within seconds of officers encountering him.
A review of the video from store surveillance synced with audio of Ritchie’s 911 call shows that Crawford did essentially nothing Ritchie claimed. Mainly, he wandered the pet food aisle of the store, chatting on his cell phone. At one point, two children and a mother are shopping near Crawford who has the toy casually resting on his shoulder. Ritchie reports “he just threatened two kids.” Yet Crawford, 15 feet away, never faced them. The kids (and their mother) continue shopping as though nothing happened. Because it obviously didn’t.
Ritchie plainly lied. Yet, he, too, escaped prosecution.
A similar case occurred in June of 2013 when Gardena police responded to the theft of a bicycle from a pharmacy. For unknown reasons, the police dispatcher broadcast the crime was a “robbery” – a crime involving force. Officers came across friends of the victim and mistook them for the suspects. The victim’s brother, Ricardo Diaz Zeferino forcefully intervened and repeatedly defied police orders to keep his hands up. A video shows the third time he reached for his waistband he was shot and killed.
In all four of these cases, wrong or incomplete information was relayed to officers about seemingly potentially lethal incidents that actually bore little risk.
This may be the best opportunity to quickly and effectively address some preventable shootings.
One step would be more aggressively prosecuting those who make false reports to 911, especially those contributing to the death or injury of an innocent person. Such legal changes should include a public education campaign.
But police dispatch centers may be the easiest place to have an impact that works for cops and citizens alike. Having been trained in, covered and observed police work for two decades, including inside a 911 call-and-dispatch center, I know the critical role dispatchers play in law enforcement. It is an extremely stressful job, where seconds count and information is extremely imperfect, compounded by the emotions of scared, distraught and injured callers. They are the first hope of desperate people. Most who start in the field quit relatively quickly, some after a bit of compounded stress, some after a single heart-wrenching incident.
But it is also where the seeds for a successful or unsuccessful response are planted. If we, as a society, are going to address unnecessary police killings without demanding cops take on more danger, then reviewing and adjusting the information management protocols that shape the situational awareness of officers in the field is a smart place to begin.
It is where police responses start. It is where tragedies start. It can be a place where solutions start.
Published in General
This is the problem. The rule MUST be that something more than just possession of something that looks like a gun justifies taking the first shot! Sorry, but the officer’s legitimate fear does not justify the killing of an innocent, and the fact that he was 12, and had nothing more than a pellet gun makes that innocent definition valid, no matter how scary big he looks or scary real his pellet gun looks.
Again, I have the constitutional right to carry REAL weapons. So, with no rule that I have to fire a shot for an officer to shoot me, what right to carry do I actually have- the right to carry and maybe be killed by authorities for doing so?
He had a gun, the officers saw the gun, the red tip, had been removed, it looked like a gun, a Grand Jury did not find enough evidence to indict. I’m not saying this isn’t a tragedy and I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be an examination of this incident that might help this from happening in the future.
And the officer knew this exactly how? Look at the picture.
let me remind you there was not a deadly weapon involved here. Just the perception of one.
exactly my point. He did NOT know. He just assumed, and killed a kid.
we seem to agree?
But then, if you are wrong the other way, some 12 year old with a pellet gun might not go home tonight. And you WILL have killed someone…
Don’t portray this as me not understanding the real and present threat to policemen every day on the job, I do. I just don’t take it to the point where I find it preferable that kids get killed by mistake rather than officers have to take a bit more risk to verify a threat rather than just perceive one.
I don’t think that “having a pistol” or “keep[ing] and bearing arms” means that I have the right to be in a city park pointing a pistol (whose bullets can carry over a mile and kill at at least several hundred yards) or something that looks exactly like a such a pistol at everything in sight.
If you do, and you do carry a concealed weapon, you are a danger to yourself and others.
That’s why this conversation needs to transcend race. There are problem cops out there. Period. That’s the conversation that needs to happen. But until race is removed from the conversation we will never get anywhere.
Straw man, it didn’t happen that way. Police only knew that someone on a 911 call said someone had a gun and they felt threatened by it. Not enough to justify your statement.
We agree on this point :)
But of course the policy isn’t if he “might” be able to hurt you. Anyone “might be able to hurt you.” Tamir was clearly grabbing at the object, as the enhanced video very clearly shows. So, it’s not “might” be able to hurt you, it’s “probably is trying to kill you.” From time to time, probability models are wrong.
But, by your standard, an officer has no right to defend himself when someone reaches for something that looks like a gun (and, in this case, was specifically designed to look exactly like a gun).
So, in essence, your standard is that officer must verify that the object really is a gun. There is only one way to do that without physically examining it. So, your standard is officers must allow the suspect to get the first shot.
Yep. the alternative is, as I have pointed out, to suggest that the killing of an innocent child is preferable to an officer taking the risk of knowing he is in danger, not just assuming he might be.
An officer has no right to defend himself with deadly force until a threat to him is verified by more than his assumptions or fears. Does that really seem unreasonable to you?
Remember, you are saying that the officer can shoot someone who he THINKS has a gun and he THINKS might be reaching for it. How far are you willing to let assumptions go to justify the killing of 12 year old innocents?
A pistol in hand with the muzzle pointed anywhere but straight down towards soft ground is exactly that sort of threat.
The officer had a duty to assume the toy gun was real and loaded until proven otherwise. (See the picture in #25.) By what he knew when he arrived on the scene, Tamir had been violating Rules Two and Four. That defined Tamir as behaving dangerously.
You, referring to this situation, seemed to state that brandishing what was apparently a handgun – which must be presumed to be loaded until cleared and safed right then and there – in an urban setting, is somehow an expression of RTKBA.
No straw man. I stand by my statement.
so the next time I’m at the range and someone violates a safety rule and the barrel momentarily points upward, kill him?
You are reaching very far to ignore the fact that this was a 12 year old kid with a non lethal pellet gun.
You are saying that no matter what the facts are, if you think it looks threatening, deadly force is justified. I’m just pointing out that by that standard, innocents will die.
I am curious what the rules are for “feeling threatened”.
There was a case here in southern Cali where a cop was being threatened by a young man with a picture frame. The cop shot and killed him. No charges filed.
The young man killed was his own son.
Having seen the video, would anyone here be comfortable having that officer respond to a domestic violence call at their home? I agree he shouldn’t face criminal charges, but he probably shouldn’t be in uniform either….
It’s worth remembering that in this case, the officer was responding to a 9/11 call. Someone else—a citizen with the right to his protection— had already signaled that a threat exists. It is the officer’s job not just to protect himself, but to protect —that’s why he goes toward the park with the armed subject in it rather than away. Among other issues, if he chooses wrong and the gunman takes that proof-positive shot at him and kills or injures him—who then stands between the gunman and the citizens?
Your other point is interesting, PH; Are you saying that the right to keep and bear arms mean that a police officer should assume that the guy waving the gun around is merely exercising his 2nd Ammendment rights more enthusiastically than usual? What behavior would you consider threatening enough—short of a hole blown in the officer’s or someone else’s head—to justify deadly force?
It wasn’t his first day on the job. Why didn’t he shoot someone before if you think he’s so dangerous?
I have heard way too many stories about cops escalating an already bad situation. Here’s a link to the story that Kylez mentioned in comment #9.
http://www.presstelegram.com/general-news/20150824/video-released-of-lakewood-deputies-shooting-man-family-files-claim
Not fair Robert. I know we like to think cops are dodging bullets and in danger every minute they’re on the clock, but we both know that’s not true.
Your comment implies he’s had to display incredible restraint up until this point to have not shot someone.
Apparently he was forced out of a different police dept. before getting hired in Cleveland. See: https://reason.com/blog/2014/12/03/cop-who-killed-tamir-rice-was-previously
The youngest shooter I caught was 14 years-old. He and another gang associate who was also 14 exchanged about 20 rounds during a party in the basement of house. He was running towards me and I saw him toss a pistol into some bushes. He never saw me until I knocked him down. I cuffed him and retrieved the pistol. It was a miracle that no one was hit in that basement. Age is not necessarily a reliable indicator of intent.
Incidentally, we all agree that it would be much, much better for everyone– Tamir Rice most of all—if Tamir Rice wasn’t dead.
The question is how to get there from here.
“Racism” is not useful.
It could be that police use of force policies/training could be tweaked.
Tools/Weapons are evolving (CapStun and Tasers have already saved civilian lives) and will probably, eventually, save more
As Robert Parry indicates, better communication and more information would help a lot, as would real consequences for misuse of police resources (e.g. calling 9/1/1 unnecessarily, amplifying details to get quicker responses, and assaulting officers).
Annefy has a good idea, too—more training for civilians on how to behave themselves around police
And—I’m always coming back to this one—better mental health services, so that the suicidal (or the willing-to-risk-death) aren’t quite as likely to force police officers to be the means to their ends.
It amazes me how much has changed since I was a teenager. My mom and dad raised five kids and I don’t think they spent a minute worrying about any of our safety – and this was in the 70s and 80s when crime was higher and we personally knew three people who were murdered.
With my four I’ve had to buy one son a new(er) car as he was getting pulled over so often in his old beater.
I don’t think I’ve ever been more afraid than when I saw him get pulled over by two cop cars in front of our house.
And I don’t think I’ve ever been more furious than how I was treated by local cops when my daughter was arrested.
The Kelly Thomas case was a big deal around here. Not too far from where we live and local talk show hosts John and Ken did a good job of keeping it front and center.
It’s heart breaking to me that there’s no room any more in our world for people like Kelly Thomas.
Kate is right that there is a need for better mental health services. But there’s also a need for cops not to assume that everyone knows how to act with cops. Why should they expect us to know where to put our hands while they’re not expected to accommodate those not quite right in the head?
I still haven’t researched this myself, but I have been at that home several times in the last couple months, and have heard it described in much detail. Seven (0r 9) deputies showed up, when actually they had not been called. I think he was bipolar and had not been taking his pills, had been up a lot and had just come home and was just sitting in his car, – not acting erratically – a little depressed, i guess. he had been trying to help a friend with a drinking problem, though i’m not sure that was just before he got home. His brother – who is some kind of federal officer that deals with veterans and/or mental health – was concerned about him and called for a mental health team, and was told there wasn’t one on duty that day. So I’m assuming this dispatcher sent officers, and the mystery to me is what she told them, since several cars showed up, after driving fast with sirens and blocking the street. they are claiming he backed up to an officer behind him, but leave out apparently that they had already tazed and pepper sprayed him for three or four minutes without telling him why they were there or giving him a chance to get out. his hands were on the wheel and he had no weapons. also, he was parked next to the curb, and pinned in with one of the police cars parked right behind him. even if it is true that the car moved back at all, it must have been due to force applied by one or more cops, or the emergency brake being moved, as his mom says she already thought he may have been dead from so much tazing. also, even if there was an officer behind him he couldn’t have been hurt by a car slowly backing up and touching his legs as he stood in front of his own car probably a foot from Berry’s. nevertheless, most of the cops, who had already been hulking around with their hands on their holsters, fired at him 60 times. his blood had leaked out into the street. then they were seen up at the neighboring school (where mrs. berry works as a playground lady and my nephew used to attend) getting their story together. They then left John and his car and all the mess sitting there for 13 hours before someone finally came.
Then Mrs. Berry was at the station being interviewed by a very rude detective (perhaps that Hernandez?) with questions like “how do you know they were cops?” “how do you know they had batons?” i forgot that they had beaten him with batons too in that run up to the shooting. she was asked if she had any questions before they let her go and she asked him “do you have a heart?” she is a kind and gentle Christian woman, as was her son, who had done nothing to deserve so much as the pepper spray, let alone everything else.
Thanks Kylez for sharing. I hope and pray I never need to call for help.
I will pray for the Berry family and I hope their lawyer serves them well.
That is a terrible story, Kylez.
It’s hard to imagine so many officers participating.
Upwards towards the Surface Danger Zone? towards a hillside that serves as a berm behind the targets? Back towards the spectators? And how is that relevant to Tamir Rice in an urban park??
One assumes some risk going to a shooting range, but by going to a range with a good reputation, choosing one’s shooting companions wisely and acting with the discipline that is supposed to pertain there one can minimize the risk. In your example, if the IIQ (idiot in question) isn’t spoken to firmly by the rangemaster or RSO, or if it’s a really informal range by his buddies, I’d be out of there; even if he is, if he does it again I’d be out of there.
Nonsense. What I’m saying is that when Officers Loehmann and Garmback arrived on the scene they had no way to know that Tamir Rice’s gun was a pellet gun.