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.
When Right Goes Wrong
An innocent 12-year-old girl is dead. She was shot and killed by an armed officer of the law. The officer did absolutely nothing wrong in this situation, but the outcome is still unfathomable.
The encounter began with a Pennsylvania constable serving an eviction notice. The girl’s father made an undeniable threat against the officer, who shot one round from his pistol. It passed through the man’s upper arm and fatally struck his daughter.
According to the news reports, the father had pointed a loaded .223 caliber rifle at the constable’s chest. There’s no legitimate defining down of threat that would exclude this as a hostile or threatening act. No one in his right mind would say the officer was out of line to defend himself against such a blatant and overtly hostile action. Firing at this man to eliminate his exceptionally obvious threat to the officer’s safety and life was the appropriate action.
This situation is unlike the Eric Garner case, where some placed the blame on the enforcement of an absurd tax code. The constable was enforcing private property rights, which we would all agree is a fully legitimate and necessary function of government. We arm and empower law enforcement officers specifically so that such disputes do not become a Hobbesian war of all against all. This is how the system is supposed to work. Laws protecting property rights are exactly the kind we should support and be willing to kill to enforce.
If any wrong was done here, it was violating the basic gun safety rule: “Know your target and what lies beyond it.” But that is a matter of firearms safety, not legal culpability. The officer cannot be legally faulted for firing negligently or unsafely when a fully loaded rifle was pointed at his chest. There may have been other options available, but none were any more appropriate from a legal standpoint than acting within the law to defend himself and eliminate the threat posed by the guy with a friggin’ rifle pointed at him.
All I can think about this tragedy (is there another word that better describes the outcome?) is that in the end, all government can really do to you is kill you. Every law, even the good ones, ultimately devolve to a choice between obedience and death.
If only .223 caliber rifles were outlawed…
The linked story gives no particulars, so we don’t know how long the tennant knew he was going to be asked to leave. Pennsylvania has plenty of laws that give people all sorts of ways to work out a dispute/rent payment/other issue before they are evicted. If the lease was up, then it’s a matter of a signed contract…and there are still plenty of safeguards for the tennant, letters, notices, etc. Of course, the Sanders crowd would say the landlord is heartless.
So, if Daddy answers the door with his rifle loaded with 30 rounds, move to another room.
A tragedy, indeed. And yet everyone and her brother will be screaming about justice, punishment, culpability–the list goes on. I’m convinced we make those statements because it is unbearable to think of a child dying in this way. It’s most important to remember that her father is to blame. And also to remember that there’s no amount of screaming that will lessen the sadness we all feel at this avoidable disaster (meaning the father should not have put his family at risk).
It can be inferred from the fact that constables act at the behest of the courts that the matter had already begun working its way through the legal process. I’m sure this wasn’t a first notice.
Yes, and charged (possible over-charged, but that’s another matter.)
I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions from this.
The “government”, in the form of a police officer, was just delivering a piece of paper. The individual decided to respond with a threat of deadly force.
The real lesson here is:
“If you behave like an idiot, you may get the people you care about killed.”
The only safety consideration is the man endangering his 12 year old daughter by turning this situation into a deadly force confrontation.
The important safety item of knowing your target and what is beyond doesn’t seem applicable to me when someone points a loaded gun at you. I don’t think anyone is under an obligation to let themselves be killed over it.
A good question is what kind of hollow point or other ammunition could/should the LEO’s be using to minimize exit wounds and endangering people behind the target.
My understanding is that he was there to do more than simply deliver the eviction notice but was there to forcibly remove the family if necessary. I should look more deeply into the law on this in case I’ve got the facts wrong.
He got the guy in the arm. Any round (save maybe a low weight frangible) was going through probably.
A thought from the man’s perspective might be in order in this as well. This is Pennsylvania in January. Having my family put out from under the basic protection of a roof in such an environment might cause me to behave irrationally as well. I’m not excusing the guy’s behavior, just trying to understand it.
There isn’t any excuse for his behavior, but you raise a good point that should be included in the discussion.
Then that raises marksmanship issues. No excuse for not putting that round center mass or at least in the thorax.
I don’t know that that was the case. Constables have pretty limited powers, I’m not sure they can or would forcibly evict someone. Serving papers, however, is well within their job description. Either way, I’m not sure, but it doesn’t really matter.
This guy has had his children taken by CPS before, so I don’t buy the “family out in the cold” defense. If that’s the father’s primary concern, he should have brought it up with the constable (who could arrange some sort of shelter) rather than point a gun at him. The authorities would never leave them out in the street the way you are inferring.
Indeed. The news I’ve read describe the constables as elected officials who enforce things for the lowest level of courts in PA. Sounds almost like sub-sheriff level stuff, and probably not the most trained LEOs out there. However, you’re right, this was pretty close quarters, so shot placement should have been better.
I’m not going to fault someone for missing center mass with their first shot when they get ambushed.
All valid points. Still, if the constable doesn’t have the power to forcibly evict, then why be armed?
I think the guy was completely in the wrong here. I just want to be able to fathom the unfathomable here. It’s a fool’s errand, but I’m often a fool.
My reading of Pennsylvania law on this gives anywhere from 10-to 30-days notice prior to a court hearing, which occurs within another, similar time frame, then more days notice prior to the constable showing up. This guy let it go until it was January in the Poconos. It could have been resolved in any number of ways when the weather was warmer.
This story says the man owed $1,780 in back rent and court costs.
The reports don’t really describe an ambush. It sounds more like the guy had the rifle slung on his shoulder then brought it to bear. It’s all sketchy enough that I didn’t bring up tactical issues such as the constable having time to draw and fire after the weapon was trained on him. There’s too much detail left out to evaluate it as an ambush or standoff or to use any other tactically meaningful words.
Exactly. By the time the constable shows us armed you’re leaving one way or another. This guy chose stupidly and his daughter paid for it with her life. And this constable has to live every one of his remaining days with this event etched indelibly on his heart and mind. I can kind of see the temptation to throw the book and the bookcase at him.
But they referred to it as being “slung and concealed along his body”, which I assume means that the constable was unaware of it’s presence.
As for your question about why the constable was armed? As a firm believer in the right to self defense, I believe everyone has the right to be armed regardless of whether or not they are law enforcement. This instance only reinforces the importance of that right.
There’s an easy way to judge such situations. Just ignore the fact that one of the people involved was a police officer. A man approached a house and was threatened at point blank range with a weapon. In defending himself appropriately and innocent bystanders was caught in the fire and unfortunately died. The person who fired had an intuitively reasonable response to the situation so it was morally permissible.
The hard part for many is applying the same logic in all cases instead of giving certain people immunity for more questionably moral acts.
What a terrible and tragic story.
Your summation is right on point, as usual.
I’ve always felt a hollow point .357 is best suited for self defense in close quarters. The 9mm and the .45s notoriously travel through people. I find it curious the LEOs like the 9mm better except in noting the larger clips available with the 9mm.
My son lives in Philly just twenty blocks east of where the young brave Philadelphia officer was shot at by the ISIS terrorist. It’s a terrible neighborhood and I thank God that the Penn police have a strong presence there as well. (They have been known to walk into my son’s unlocked apt and warn the boys to be vigilant.) They are excellent and on foot patrol everywhere making a solid boundary between the students and the thugs. What a stark dichotomy.
It’s very effective policing and it requires on the beat cops to be ever present and have real relationships with the community they protect.
It will always be dangerous to enforce the law when people have so little regard for the hard work the officers do on the behalf of the law abiding citizenry every single day.
Even this is a weak criticism. When someone has a rifle pointed at you, you cannot reasonably be asked to wait a second to reposition before opening fire.
I use hollow points whenever possible for home defense – both to be more effective as well as to limit collateral risk.
Indeed. Every bit of this was tragedy stemming from stupidity, perhaps a desperate sort, but stupidity none the less.
I’m all for armed self defense and practice it as often as is practicable. However, there is a difference between being armed as a matter of self defense and being armed for the performance of one’s official duties. I know Washington State where I live makes a legal distinction, but I don’t know if such exists in PA. I’m not saying that the use of lethal force should have varying criteria, but that one does exist in some instances.
I really wish the law enforcement agencies would invest some research money in nonlethal weaponry. I understand how this tragedy happened, but it is a tragedy nonetheless. I know that riot control officers use other types of nonlethal weaponry when confronting an angry mob. It strikes me that a person going to someone’s house to forcibly evict that person should be ready for resistance. The facts would suggest it was a strong possibility given that the tenant had been ignoring the problem for such a long time. People with that personality profile tend to be impulsive and blame others for their problems–those two traits seem to go together.
This pretty much sums up what LEOs face all day every day. It also helps explain why they are armed and granted use of deadly force by default.
I have a friend on the NYPD. He once told me that transit cops, because they work in the subway, use hollow point bullets to reduce ricochets, etc., but the cops above ground all had standard ammo.
FMJ ball ammo is suitable only for target practice and compliance with the Geneva convention. Well, and for getting through windshields on cars.