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.
So You Want To Kill Someone
With cops shooting citizens, citizens shooting cops, and plenty of people just plain old shooting each other, it’s obvious we have a culture of death in America. (Just kidding. The culture of death is only found in PP clinics.) More seriously, with the killing of the Dallas shooter by Dallas police employing a unique method the question of use of force has come to the fore of my mind. Many people cheer the outcome for this particular suspect, but I am reluctant to give applause to something new just because the outcome seems laudable. I’m constrained by both knowledge and philosophy to slow down and take a closer look at the available information, compare that to my own experience and knowledge before I render my support to a new technique of the state to exercise its power, especially the power over an individual’s life.
For a little background on where I’ve formed my understanding of this: I served in the Navy as a Missile Technician for around 14 years. The official description of the job says a lot about computers and electro-hydraulic systems, but the truth is Missile Technicians are first and foremost guardians of our nation’s most sensitive weapons. The first watch one qualifies is as a security guard, and every watch thereafter entails security to some degree, including being armed and authorized to use deadly force. The first binary question in qualification for these duties is to know and understand the Navy’s definition of deadly force and its justified uses. I first memorized this in November of 1993 and remember it word for word to this day. I often joke that it will be the my last words. I have been questioned and drilled on it, I have run through countless scenarios testing my knowledge of it, and I even found myself standing at parade rest outside the Executive Officer’s stateroom once to explain why my answer to the Pacific Fleet’s Nuclear Weapons Security Officer demonstrated too much willingness to employ it. Because of the countless hours I’ve spent specifically contemplating the use of deadly force I come at police use of it from a very technical point of view. The situation in Dallas raised some serious questions for me, but questions that would be easily and satisfactorily answered with more information.
As a matter of philosophy I believe the state exists for a very specific reason, namely that reason outlined in the Declaration of Independence. It exists only to protect individual rights, and the chief among these is the right to life. When the state is required to do the opposite of that and take a life it must be severely constrained. It can only do so under very limited and specific circumstances and in service of its primary duty of protecting individual rights. At times those entrusted with the power of the state must make a decision to take life from one to preserve life in others. I do not pretend that these decisions are easy or that the person making them gets to sit around and ponder the many intricacies of the matter in the heat of the moment. The deep thoughts ought to have already been accomplished. The person ought to have drilled himself mentally, and his empowering agency of the state ought to have drilled him physically, well in advance of any event in which deadly force is employed. Even then there is no guarantee that the fragile nature of humans won’t shatter and render an unjust outcome. Each instance where the state takes a life stands or falls on its own merit.
Deadly force is more than just killing. It is a very specific and technical thing. I reference the Navy definition due to habit and because the things true about it are the same with federal law and most state laws. First, any force which can cause death or serious bodily harm is classified as deadly force. The person employing force must know the extent of force he is using. Legal definitions include terminology such as “should know” to eliminate the excuse of ignorance. Just as Hillary should have known her actions were illegal, so a person engaged in using force on behalf of the state should know when his force will create a substantial risk of causing death or serious harm. Second, deadly force is the absolute last arrow in the quiver. It is only justified under conditions of “extreme necessity” (per the Navy definition) and when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. Shorter: if there is a realistic choice, deadly force isn’t an option. There must be no other reasonable means to achieve the desired ends if it is to be legitimately employed. Third (last maybe), there are only certain defined circumstances under which the calculation of using deadly force as the last and only available option are allowed.
I won’t list all the scenarios, but those relevant to the Dallas shooting are serious offenses against person and apprehensions. Many people have stated that because Johnson had killed 5 officers and wounded more that deadly force was justified, but this misunderstands why serious offenses justifies deadly force. Things which have happened in the past are a matter of due process and the judicial system. For serious offenses against others to justify deadly force it must be in order to stop the offense while it is happening or prevent an imminent occurrence of an offense. Well, some argue, he was armed and stated that he wanted to kill cops and white people. As bad as these statements are, they are not enough alone, or even coupled with the means, to justify the state taking a life. It’s a hard truth, but the destruction already wrought by the shooter only justifies the state taking his life through due process of law. Just because we don’t like it in this particular instance does not remove this fundamental right guaranteed to us (all of us, even the murderous scumbags out there) and protected by the Constitution.
We’re left only with the justification of apprehension as a valid circumstance under which the state’s use of deadly force against an individual was legitimate. Here’s the problem: the technique chosen did not have as its probable (maybe even possible) outcome the achievement of the ends which justified the use of force. The state did not set out to apprehend him and employ force which could result in his death while attempting to realize this aim; rather, the state set as its goal Johnson’s death. Do I think the shooter didn’t deserve to die? Of course not. From the information available, he deserved to die for his crimes (I’d say painfully and slowly, but there’s constraints on the state about that, too), but the only way the state can kill a person for his crimes is through the due process of law. This is one of those fundamental restraints on the state which keep it aimed at its only reason for existence.
I’ve stated in the various posts about the robot that I believe we do not have enough information to accurately judge the action of the Dallas Police Department, and I stand by that assessment. I just discovered today that Johnson was likely wounded through all of the exchange of deadly force with police. According to this news story, he wrote on the walls of the structure in his own blood during the standoff. Even this information is inadequate because we don’t know if the police knew he was wounded before or after they decided to blow him up. For all we know it could have been mere minutes before he was incapacitated due to his injuries and easily apprehended. Details like this are what justify or condemn the state’s taking of life, and we do not have enough of them to make the call one way or the other. What we do have, however, is the right (and some would say duty) as citizens to critically examine the state’s use of deadly force on our behalf to determine if it was in line with our laws and our character as a nation.
Whenever a shooting of newsworthy proportions happens we hear calls to refrain from judgement until sufficient quantities of reliable information are available on which to form an opinion of the matter. I make such a call regarding Dallas Police’s unique use of remotely delivered explosives to kill the shooter. We must learn the specific laws of Texas regarding police use of deadly force. We must learn more details about the specific circumstances and the environment faced by the officers. We need timelines and the thought process that drove this decision. Until we have those required data we should neither celebrate nor condemn the state’s action. Once we have this and have rendered judgement, then we can move onto the next matter: considering this as a precedent in state interaction with individuals.
Published in Guns
Good essay.
While we’re in information-gathering mode, I’d also like to know which level of government paid for the robot. Because someday that is going to be relevant to the decision-making process about how a robot is used.
You raise some very interesting philosophical issues. I’ll be fascinated at how this discussion goes.
On some level I would want all serious pedophiles done in and I’d do the job myself if it was my child. I am mis-wired and I know it, no need to tell me.
On another level I know the state will send these drones in with minimal justification as time goes on. Your concerns are valid and I thought of this today when you responded to me.
My understanding is that the military sells/gives these things to state and local law enforcement. For their normal purpose of bomb surveillance and such they are extremely useful tools. The military was, of course, the first to weaponize them when they figured out they could duct tape a claymore to the robot and take out baddies they couldn’t get to. I suppose some of my uneasiness is probably due to the blurring of the line between military tactics and law enforcement tactics. The military exists to kill enemies and destroy their means of making war. Law enforcement has a decidedly more subdued purpose.
Emergency situations tend to make me emotionless and almost hyper-rational. It’s extremely helpful when something happens to a kid and my wife loses her [expletive], but it can be annoying to others when discussing what ought to be a very emotionally charged subject.
I don’t like the term “robot” and I don’t know why it’s being used here. It was neither an artificial intelligence or an object that was preprogrammed to a task. It was a remotely operated vehicle. I guess it’s chic or something to call it something it’s not.
I also do not like the haste to which life was ended and the justice system bypassed. I have not heard that he was in a further position to harm more people. (If he was, then by all means, take him out.)
It would be important to know whether it’s “sell” or “give.” The government doesn’t give without also controlling.
Drone seems better.
At what percentage chance of him harming another person is it warranted to kill the slime? Pretty darn low for someone who’s harmed already 1/100, 1/10,000 1/1,000,000?
This is part of my thing as well. Deadly force turns on and off with the changing of circumstances. As I said in another post, if the guy is pointing a gun, kill him. If he drops it, don’t kill him. If he picks it back up, kill him.
I don’t know that percentages are a good weighting device in this. If he is actively attempting further harm or indicates through behavior (I suppose the statements count as behavior, the military refers to this as “temper and intent”) that he poses an imminent threat then it triggers the use of deadly force. Of course, parsing the word imminent then becomes the problem.
The officers attempts to negotiate his surrender were their attempts to apprehend him. When you have an armed suspect actively claiming he wants to kill more people, he is an active threat, and lethal force is appropriate.
It seems that you would have accepted their use of force if the officers had put themselves into the shooters line of fire. This seems reckless and unecessary.
Honestly, I see no reasonable grievance here. I who vocally oppose no knock warrants and swat teams being used for anything other than active shooter and hostage scenarios.
With all due respect to the verbage presented and one does understand the concerns. Present a list of options and a tactical plan that might have been successfull to calm your spirit. Please Proceed, in detail. You are in charge of this Op.
It would have been a more standard practice to execute a coordinated assault. Yes, this places officers at greater harm, but it also would have been in keeping with the purpose of law enforcement, which is not primarily to kill people. Killin folk is a side gig with them.
As stated in the post (and repeatedly in other posts about the subject) the specific details which were available to police and likely ruled out such plans are not known to us. The information available through news reports is woefully inadequate and likely suspect in its reliability. This is why such a request cannot be fulfilled. When such information becomes available we can armchair quarterback the scenario to our hearts’ content, but until then we must either accept blindly the decision of the Dallas police chief or withhold judgement about that decision util we have more information on which to form such a verdict. I will say that law enforcement in Dallas has one of the best reputations among big cities in the nation, and that makes it easier to have faith that this was the right call. Neither celebrate nor condemn. Pause, gather information, evaluate it, then decide.
Even if I grant your definition of an active threat that still does not answer the tactical questions.
This is how I responded to similar concerns expressed by a Facebook friend…and I will say right now that this is based on current understanding sans the official police report on what went down:
The following coincides with E.J.’s comment above:
This is important stuff. We know based on what the chief said that they could not directly engage him without placing officers in “grave danger.” That is surely a large part of the calculation. Coordinated tactical assaults reduce the danger somewhat by spreading it across several different people, but the danger is not eliminated.
Maybe I’m simply troubled by the technique costing no risk but offering absolute reward. That is something rotating on a spit in my mind since this news first broke. I hope I don’t have some old west fantasies lurking that insist on facing a man when you kill him or any such silliness, but with me that is entirely possible.
I applaud your honesty. Hopefully you’re for the proposition that we should do what we can to eliminate the risk of police being harmed in any way or killed by an active deadly threat not only to them but to other citizens. They do wear kevlar and helmets and shield themselves behind cars and car doors for a reason.
We can’t eliminate the risk, but we can reduce it, and they have a job to do which can’t simply be blown off for excessive risk. I’m also positive there were officers on scene who were willing and wanting to take whatever risk was necessary to accomplish the goal of taking this guy down. It’s kind of in their disposition to be like that.
Since they negotiated with this guy for a while they had time to run risk calculations on more than this option. I’m pretty close to positive they made the right call and took the only path available to them within the level of risk they deemed acceptable. I look forward to learning more details and agreeing with the decision entirely, but I won’t do so blindly. They are still fallible human beings and state actors.
Armchairing the actions of others living in deadly situations was exactly my point. Talk around it as many will, except you were not onsite so therefore not fit to judge. The comment on “Killin folk has become a passtime” begins to fall under the Kool-Aid Drinkin Mantra of many. “On the Fly” confrontations are lost on most heareabouts.
Except I didn’t say that. I said it was a side gig in an obviously tongue-in-cheek fashion. I’ll remember to put the winky thing next time.
The main point of this post is to emphasize that we have a limited and constrained state. There are wickets rigidly set through which it must pass in order to take the life of a citizen, even a scumbag, cop killing, murder citizen whether it’s done through the justice system or in the street. It is the state’s obligation to pass through those wickets before it kills and provide proof to us after it kills that it did so. We empowered the state to act on our behalf including the taking of life, but that power comes with the responsibility of wise and judicious use of it and transparent, thorough, and rational explanation of its use.
Are we to just blindly accept every action of the government and declare ourselves unfit to judge it? The EPA says this rain puddle is a wetland, but who am I to judge? Democrats in congress think Obamacare is the bees knees, but who am I to judge. The county just zoned my property for limited development so I cannot build on it, but who am I to judge?
Interesting questions. Here is another, would we view the situation differently had a sniper been able to target the suspect from a distance and location where he could not have reasonably known that he was in danger? If so, does a negotiator have an obligation to inform the target that he was in danger and should surrender immediately?
I assume that the answer to the second question is yes (maybe a qualified yes), so could the same actions be taken with a remote control vehicle? That is, if the negotiator has the ability to view and communicate with the suspect through the a vehicle’s cameras and radio, would the negotiator have the same obligation to communicate the danger that the suspect is in, and why he is in danger, and the ground rules for surrendering: 1) don’t move, 2) don’t touch the vehicle, 3) drop your weapon, etc.
In this case, would an order to shoot, have the same ethical dimenstions as detonating the bomb? The only difference being that the robot doesn’t have to have a direct line of sight?
Brave new world?
They decided to kill him with a bomb drone after two hours of negotiations. So this wasn’t a split second decision.
I think that the OP’s Navy training was directed towards split second decisions.
What the Dallas police did was premeditated. In these sets of circumstances, I guess you could get a judge involved to issue a death warrant, though I don’t think there’s a precedent for something like that. I think that U.S. courts have only judged deadly force after the fact. Nowadays, the military uses lawyers to advise them before engaging in their use of deadly force.
But another issue not discussed in this thread is how long do you let the person obstruct business in a populated area without unduly placing officers at risk?
The perpetrator had plenty of time to surrender which is another example of premeditation. He had a pretty definite idea of what the consequences would be if he didn’t surrender.
One other thing. As you can guess, I am willing to give the authorities in Dallas a lot of leeway. But I also think that police should not be in the military business. At some point in the incident, some sort of martial law should have been declared, and the state’s National Guard should have taken over. They should have been the one that operated the drone. For that matter, they should be the one’s that utilize SWAT teams.
The police should engage in their core competency of engaging with the public with a detective division engaged in solving crimes. If they aren’t able to control a situation to the point that military weapons have to be used, then they can back away and let a separate agency do it (it doesn’t have to be the National Guard).
We talk a lot on this site, about separation of powers. I recognize that on occasion the state may have to utilize military weapons against civilians. But lets take that away from the police. Let’s force them to think a second before handing the situation to someone else (which they will hate to do).
Good questions. I don’t know enough about the ROVs (more descriptive term), but I know they have been used in some unique ways such as delivering pizza to suspects. I believe, but am not sure, that they have some capability to output audio from the controller.
One question I also have pondered is this: would we so willingly have accepted the action if it had been performed in a liberal cesspool with abhorrently corrupt government like Chicago?
The government did not sentence him to death without due process. Killing him was not the mission. Instead, preventing him from killing more people was the mission, and he had well demonstrated the level of force that would be required to achieve that. How many more cops should have died, KP?
What I did was more akin to law enforcement than warfare. In war soldiers are charged with killing, that is the specified action, and offense is justified. Law enforcement and security are much more defensive, hence the need to have thought of and mentally practiced as many varied scenarios as possible. The difference is that law enforcement is primarily focused on protecting people and my job was focused on protecting property. It’s weird to say it, but there was a lot of thought given to what I would do should the guy I was standing watch with go around the bend and do something that would justify using deadly force against him.
Was this the only way no more cops had to die? Was killing him the only way to prevent him from killing more people or simply the most expedient? Killing him was the mission if they took action that had no other likely (or even possible) outcome.
Parsing are we for arguements sake ? Nobody likes the absolute insult to common sense were are fed by people with nothing better to do that and is counterproductive that is this Adminitration.
All that aside, just how are cops going to deal with or expected to deal with what amounts to Gorilla Warfare tactics ? Yeah and I spelled it to be insulting. They are not trained for this and it will not end well.
The liberal authorities in Chicago would have been the one’s who would have been unwilling to implement this.
Nor would the corruption that Chicago suffers (which by U.S. standards is high, but worldwide, probably still pretty low) have made much of a difference in perceived legitimacy of killing a mass shooter.
I was so hoping this was a how to post.