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
If this had been in Chicago, my first thought might have been that’s “the Chicago way.” You threaten us with a fake bomb, we blow you up with a real one.
You seem willing to tell everybody else that there aren’t; enough facts to make any judgements. Yet your judgement seems clear. Those people had to make a decision that you did not, and I think your sniffing disapproval is obscene.
A Fools Errand is even sometimes rewarded. Odd that – While everyone loses their minds, keep yours.
Reread my comments. I’m eager to agree with the decision when I know enough about it to justify my agreement. Right now I neither approve nor disapprove of it. What I’ve done is laid out my understanding of what justifies the use of deadly force and asked if the action met that criteria. Ascribing to me positions I don’t hold won’t make it so.
All the guy had to do was surrender.
This isn’t a case and I doubt we are going to ever see a case of a suspect on his knees unarmed with his hands on his head and a robot blows him up.
Your knowledge of deadly force seems predicated upon asset protection. Your mission was not to prevent crimes or defend people, but to secure an asset.
If you had been on post guarding a gate to those assets and a fleet-footed nut job went slashing throats across the street, would you leave your post to pursue and apprehend the guy? I hope not. That’s the difference between law enforcement and pulling security.
Here is an article that provides more background on the decision to use deadly force in Dallas
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20160709-how-and-why-dallas-police-decided-to-use-a-bomb-to-end-the-standoff-with-lone-gunman.ece
Where do you disagree with the article?
In Texas we define “Deadly force” as force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.
An individual is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
That’s straight out of the Texas Penal Code and applies to all individuals in Texas regardless of whether they are police or not.
Texas makes no distinction in how deadly force is applied by the way. Since the shooter had committed and was attempting to commit murder by firing on police officers and had claimed to have explosive devices on his person the police had reason to believe he was someone who could cause officers or the public death, disfigurement or serious bodily injury and were justified in using deadly force.
You misread (C). It is written in the present tense, committing or attempting to commit, not the past tense — has committed. It does not apply unless you construe being armed and making declarative statements about wanting to kill cops and whites as being “attempting to commit.” I’m pleased that Texas makes no distinction between government and citizen use of deadly force. Washington State (where I live now) does make a distinction and wrote the law to reflect it. Law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty here have a lower threshold for use of deadly force than does an armed citizen.
Thanks for the link, reading it now.
With all respect, I do not because you’ve omitted the section (C) is under.
The shooter had weapons and claimed to have explosive materiel in hand and deposited in the city at large. Given the shooter’s actions and mindset, including a refusal to surrender, as well as the fact that he was occupying what was, for all intents and purposes, a fortified position the actors in question, the DPD, had reason to believe that the shooter would attack them or others if they proceeded up the ramp to try and detain him which could cause them death, disfigurement or serious bodily injury.
Under Texas law this action is a justifiable use of deadly force.
Excellent, A-squared: thank you. Good for Brown, good for the Mayor.
A guy who just shot five cops to death, stopped because he ran out of easy targets, and is refusing to surrender is most definitely still engaged in an attempt to kill — who? — the next cop he sees.
Even at that, I prefer the judge rules on the statute for a living cop, than a thug settles the matter via a dead cop.
The article does not add a whole lot of new data, but there are a few tidbits.
This is the type of thing that, if credible, is the basis of an imminent threat.
This is the first description of the physical environment I’ve read. There’s also detail here of the equipment and tactical advantages/disadvantages police believed Johnson had. These things together put considerable weight against the likelihood of an effective assault.
Con’t.
Further in the article are a couple of tidbits.
It’s probably just bad phrasing, but generally these types of decisions are better made on knowledge rather than emotions.
As citizens we get to question all the decisions of those we empower to act on our behalf. We are a people who have a government, not the other way around — as Reagan said. I’ll reiterate my position again: with enough information I’ll likely find this to have been the right and necessary decision and an action worthy of my praise. The additional details provided in the article get me closer.
This, so far, is the best statement that conveys that Johnson was “attempting to commit” murder under the appropriate state law. The way you put it lays the actions over the template of the letter of the law and shows them to be a match, thus demonstrating a legitimate use of deadly force.
I agree with this. Where I disagreed with you in the PIT was your statement that the shooter was not in a position to hurt anyone else therefore the bomb was an illegitimate use of force. It’s fine to ask questions and demand answers, it’s not OK to assert facts not in evidence in support of Monday-morning quarterbacking.
I didn’t say he wasn’t. I specifically said we lacked sufficient details to say if he was or not.
I’ve been told repeatedly not to judge negatively the action of the police because of a lack of knowledge (you weren’t there, man!), and I ask that others not judge the actions positively for the same reason. I advocated withholding judgment until more facts were known, which is what we as conservatives always advocate for after lethal interactions between police and citizens. There seemed to be a lack of that in this situation even though I believe it warrants more reservation because the technique used was new and the situation itself so extreme and unlike other deadly force encounters.
But we *do* have enough information. Five dead cops + standoff = exterminate the cockroach.
From a technical standpoint concerning legitimate use of deadly force the five dead cops are irrelevant. It sucks, but it’s the truth.
We can’t forget that in our nation when someone does something really bad like kill a bunch of people we do not hunt that person down and kill him. We hunt him down and apprehend him (if possible, if he dies in the process that’s pretty ok too, so long as it wasn’t the goal), then subject him to the criminal justice system and due process of law. Only after the real punishment of being subjected to the system do we (perhaps as an act of mercy) kill the bastard.
Fascinating. Where do you and those who hold similar views all pick up that lecturesome, sing-song way of condescending through universal proclamations?
It is a distinct style, and it is closely tied to a tight grouping of views. It’s like something from an unrealized character in Seinfeld.
Ball, if you want to advocate for unconstrained, unlimited government with free rein to kill citizens at will then please do so. I’d love to debate that with you. The Unites States has a limited and constrained government which does not get to just hunt down and kill people. We’re not quite to such a dystopian nightmare yet.
Sorry for being pedantic, but I disagree. You said here
So, you stated that in the Dallas situation, the suspect was in a position where he could not shoot the cops.
When I asked how you knew he couldn’t shoot the cops, you said
The details were insufficient to make a conclusion, but they did lean more towards his lack of ability than to his unwillingness to do further immediate harm considering his statements and past actions. There are some assumptions in there which I don’t think have been disproven, but I’m open to new data making them false.
If the details were insufficient, I don’t know why you need to make assumptions rather than ask questions.
If you had said, “How do we know he was in a position to continue to shoot people?” I would not have objected. You stated definitively that he was not, and I objected.
Point taken. I’ll be more careful with the language and hopefully check my assumptions more fully. I thought I adequately explained why the assumptions seemed reasonable, but perhaps they were not.
Wired, of all places, has a good run-down on this, arguing that C4 was used as a breaching charge and the dude got caught int the blast. I was wondering about this myself, because if they could strap some C4 to Number Five, why not strap a flashbang or a tear gas grenade instead?
Follow up question: How is this NOT a drone strike on an American citizen, on American soil?
A couple of articles I saw asked similar questions, which are perfectly legitimate (with the caveat that I’m not sure about flashbang, especially if there were concerns about explosives), but tear gas or even a gas that would knock the suspect unconscious would seem preferable.
This article repeated the statement that the negotiation broke down and the suspect started shooting again, which is what I understood happened based on reports at the time.
In the right conditions, the suspect shooting futilely and exhausting his ammo might actually be a good outcome.
An article linked earlier providing more details about the decision process indicates that killing the guy was the intended outcome.