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
Keep in mind the facts in this case. The officer never saw anyone waiving a gun around, instead they had a hearsay statement from a 911 call that he was waiving a gun around. They shot this kid less than a minute after they got on scene, and the (toy) gun was ‘in his waistband’. He was shot for supposedly reaching for it, not waiving it around. We know, for absolute certainty, that this kid with a pellet gun never intended to pull and shoot at the officers,as he didn’t have a real gun. So the perception that he was going to was clearly only that, a mistaken perception.
My point is that seeing what appeared to be a gun in someones waistband and then seeing them make a motion that might be perceived as reaching for that gun is being cited as justification for shooting and killing this person. If I have the right to bear arms, yet just the sight of that weapon justifies shooting me at the slightest movement, then that isn’t really a right to bear arms, is it? If the very act of having what looks like a weapon makes me suspect enough for the authorities to kill me, then what we consider the right to carry really is meaningless.
shots fired, at least. Before killing someone, should there not be evidence that they are actually a threat, not just perceived as one? Or are you OK with police killing innocents so they don’t take any chances themselves?
Just because someone has a gun does not immediately make them suspect of a crime, nor is it proof that they have intention to shoot it. We have the right to carry!
Do the facts in this case not prove that police shot someone who was never an actual threat to shoot anyone simply because they thought they saw a gun in his waistband?
PH watch the video. The entire incident takes place in less than 2 minutes. Far less than that for the actual shooting. It only took a few seconds for the suspect to bring his gun into play to try and shoot the Oregon State Trooper on a traffic stop.
@Doug: You’ve posted that video before and it’s indeed horrifying. I assume your point is that because this incident happened, it’s reasonable for cops to assume every stop is life threatening?
Here’s my scenario: back in the 80s I often drove 45 miles on the freeway from my then-boyfriend-now-husband’s home fairly late at night.
My dad and then boyfriend and I sat down with a map and found every police station along my route, with the plan that if a cop ever tried to pull me over, I was to drive to the police station. Stories of rapist/murderers posing as cops were/are not uncommon.
It happened once; I drove to the closest police station. The cop was not amused, but when I explained the situation he deferred and let me off with a warning.
I just read a story recently of a woman driving alone, late at night on a country road who spent a night in jail and is being charged for doing the exact same thing.
So if it’s reasonable for a cop to assume that his life is in jeopardy, why is it not reasonable for a citizen to assume the same?
Don’t ALL lives matter?
Doug,
That’s a really weak example. There was an extended interaction. The suspect seemed psychotic, did not follow orders, and clearly had his hands hidden in the exact way one would do to conceal a weapon.
I would not have had a problem with the officer opening fire when the suspect started to advance.
so they killed him.
In other words, they had no way to know that he had a real gun ( he did not), they had no way to know he had fired a real gun ( he could not) they had no way to know he was an actual threat ( he was not) so they had no justification for deadly force beyond their incorrect perceptions.
so your suggestion is that since sometimes incidents happen so fast that an officer has very little time to react it is acceptable to you that officers act with deadly force based on little or no actual concrete evidence they are at risk, so that they limit their own risk- at the cost of occasional innocents being killed.
In other words, you will trade the occasional innocent’s life to give a bit of a diminished risk to officers. I understand where that is coming from, but I disagree. The officers first duty is to the innocent.
I must admit I was being sarcastic with my statement, as I found it ridiculous that you were citing the breaking of gun safety rules as justification for shooting a kid with a pellet gun in a park. I should have just said so.
Tamir Rice started with the gun or “gun” in his waistband, and he seemed to be was going for whatever it was. If Loehmann’s thinking had been “if it’s a real gun, then I’ll shoot” by the time he came down on the “real” side of the “real/fake” decision, he’d have been shot. Even without using your standard of “cops can’t shoot first.”
Right. So once again, you are saying that if he takes the time to be SURE he isn’t shooting an innocent, he might get shot himself, so you would prefer the occasional innocent being killed over the increased risk caused by waiting to be sure of the situation before using deadly force.
I never said cops can’t shoot first, I said they need solid, concrete evidence that there is a real risk before they jump to deadly force. I have not explored what those standards might be beyond shots fired, I have just said that those standards should not be ‘I perceive a risk, so shoot first and if innocents die, so be it’.
Oh, really?
Robert, thanks for this post. A few years back I managed three dispatch centers. Although the risk of a similar type of incident was small, it was nevertheless a concern. All I felt I could do was maximize training of dispatchers, and be very dispassionate when mistakes were made.
Short of shots fired by the suspect, it should be entirely unjustified to shoot down someone because they have, or it appears they have a gun, in hand or in waistband.
Can you see the difference between ‘cops can’t shoot first ever’ and saying ‘cops can’t shoot first just because they see (or think they see) a weapon?’
My argument is that this kid was shot because of a policy of ‘if you suspect a threat, use deadly force’. I am asking for a bit more concrete a standard than ‘if you suspect…’
I am open to suggestions as to what that standard might be, and that there could be scenarios where an officer should shoot before witnessing shots fired, but those standards simply must be more than the simple presence of a weapon, and a perception of a threat.