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
Do you think that those conditions existed? What would those conditions be (“exactly”, in the Ricochet-approved parlance)? Have you ever heard of law enforcement trying to goad a nut with a gun in a city to expend all of his ammo? How would you know that his ammo had run out? Send cops in until they stop getting shot?
KP, this is less than appropriate, as I have not advocated this, and more to the point, the counter-argument is not what you are engaged in. Where is Frank Soto to tell you that this fallacy of the false dilemma is one of the worst fallacies you can possibly commit? A-Squared’s comments notwithstanding, you have very visibly built a case that the police “acted stupidly” by your choice of arguments. You have laundered your starting point with wise moderation, but even without reading your much earlier flat statements that the police were not justified in using this force, your point shines through. You claim neutrality, but militate against decency.
Of all the places a presumption of good faith might be useful, it is for American cops who are being gunned down in Obama’s America — not figuratively, but literally smelling the smoke and seeing the blood of their own — when they take out one very bad man and no bystanders. That’s not an unconstrained, unlimited government [sic]; that is an abundance of caution and an admirable professionalism.
God bless the blue.
Yet it would not have been if he had escaped and made it home, only to be discovered sleeping soundly in his bed. In that case the missions would have been apprehension. In this case, however, the mission was to neutralize the threat, and as I said before, he had demonstrated the level of force that this was going to take.
KP, if they had gone to his house with a “kill order” they way they did Randy Weaver, you would be right. But this is not that case. My guess is you don’t think too much of Randy Weaver.
Thank you. Couple of things. That’s not a personal attack. I am critiquing a style of discourse which is disturbingly common. At the point that I am lectured with platitudes which serve as accusations, and in that favored slippery style in which “nobody is attacked” and yet the attack stands, I address it. Tolerate it without comment if you like, but I will not. This is the liberal/libertarian patois in which arguments are not refuted, but merely smothered with smiling anodyne phrases pulled from a Hallmark card, or a Garrisson Keillor monologue.
As for the rest of your assertions, those opinions are yours.
Revision for safe spaces:
Mendel, we cannot lose sight of the important fact that in this country we have freedom of speech, and even with a Code of Conduct, we still must share views which sometimes differ in order to arrive at a shared truth. Your potentially hurtful narrowing of ideological positions, and notably non-inclusive references to the othersexed and the concern-enhanced are not helpful in this context, although I know that your intent is to smooth the water. Perhaps we could work together to find a better way to phrase a few things.
After all, one person’s limp-wristed bleeding heart is another’s rock-ribbed
Republi,Conserv,Right-of,Libert,RIN, er,moder,centri,enligh,eleva,educa, Professorial Progressive.Sorry, Couldn’t get through that pabulum with a straight face.
I disagree. In my limited and informal exposure to this decision-making tree, a shot is to kill, and drawing a weapon is committing to pursue that track if the situation does not improve otherwise.
Police do not draw their weapons willy-nilly, and neither do they shoot. Shooting to wound a hand or something is movies and video games. In real life, if it’s important enough to shoot, it’s important enough to kill.
You have set your threshold at some arbitrary point which makes sense to you, and you call it a principle. We have set out thresholds at other points, and you declare it all caprice. We are not stupid and do not need a lecture in order think about these things. We have thought about them, and disagree. This is why I took it as an affront when you started in with “we cannot forget that we live in a democracy” or some such. Nobody here deserves that tiresome and insulting lecture.
Not even you.
It’s a reference to the Declaration of Independence. Government exists solely to protect our rights, the chief among them is the right to life. When [expletive] goes sideways enough that government must take a life to protect the right to life of others it has to be under defined and limited circumstances. Can we agree on this point? If we can then we can move onto the next point which is discussing what those defined and limited circumstances are. The majority of the post was detailing my understanding of this. I learned it by being armed by the government and empowered to use deadly force on behalf of the state within those constraints. Either you are arguing that the government is too strict on itself with these restraints, or you are arguing that I spent over a decade being incorrectly trained and carrying a weapon with the wrong information about when and how it could be used.
It is more nuanced, as I’ve tried to explain. Yes, nuance when firing is seemingly stupid, but government.
It’s murder by numbers: 1, 2, 3
It’s as easy to learn, as your ABCs
KP do you not recognize the difference between security and law enforcement? Or do you simply refuse to admit it? The point has been made here several times.
With your supposed thirst for facts, details, technical, etc., I would think you would make a beeline for some documentation about the law in Texas, not your fading recollection of how things used to be in a completely different line of work.
Have you ever fired a weapon “in anger” so to speak? I have not. Been shot at, but I was unarmed at the time and simply stepped on it.
You pulled security for fancy stuff? Big deal. I’ve pulled security. Posted around the Humvee. Manned the turret on top while the gunner took care of business. Tower watch for a FOB in the desert. Quick response for interesting situations (not a shot fired, thank heavens). I would not dream of holding the Dallas police to my rules of engagement from somewhere else in a different situation a long time ago.
There’s a reason you’re getting a lot of pushback on this. It isn’t because you’re the only one here who knows how to think.
I originally came on to ask what on earth you meant with the title of this post “So You Want To Kill Someone”. I no longer care.
Good day.
That was at the very beginning at the OP and why I focused on the technical aspects of deadly force that are common in both security and law enforcement and true across federal and state laws.
You’ll also note that when the discussion moved to the specifics of the Texas statutes I agreed that the actions fit perfectly in those specifics and the letter of the law. I’m not arguing in bad faith in this or refusing to concede points or information that countermand my position. I’m seeking to find greater understanding and expand agreement, not foster more stubborn disagreement.
Good day to you too, sir.
KP,
I understand and agree with the argument that you are trying to make. The fact that the perpetrator had just killed five police officers goes toward the deadly intent of the perpetrator, but does not provide justification for the use of deadly force by the police. If the perpetrator could be apprehended and prevented from causing further harm without the use of deadly force – the police had a duty to use that option. The use of the robot makes is unique, and allows for speculation on the use of a stun or gas grenade to secure the perpetrator.
I think there’s a difference between “unconstrained, unlimited government with free rein to kill citizens at will” and using an explosive device to kill or incapacitate a suspect who:
Sorry, but I can’t work up much sympathy for the guy.
Concerning the use of force in this type of encounter the guilt or innocence is not a factor. Use of force is based on what is being done, not what was done in the past.
This is where the decision to kill him can be justified. As was released later by Chief Brown, they thought it likely that he had explosives with him making him imminently dangerous, and the hardened position coupled with the increased danger posed by the explosives rules out direct assault as a reasonable option.
I don’t have any sympathy for him either beyond the fact that he was a citizen. As I said elsewhere, once the switch is flipped to use deadly force then kill the [expletive] out of him, but the switch must definitively have been flipped and flipped properly. If deadly force is justified, then I want those employing it to do so decisively. They’re doing it in our name, so make us look good. If, however, it is not justified and agents of the state employ it anyway, that is the worst case scenario of government/citizen interaction.
I believe in due process. There are all kinds of threats to due process gaining a foothold in our government that scare the hell out of me. “Terrorist watch lists,” created by nameless bureaucrats on the basis of nothing that anyone knows about. Civil forfeiture, by which the police seize property without evidence of wrongdoing, and without any opportunity for a hearing. Unaccountable administrative agencies creating their own police forces, and in some cases their own paramilitary. Administrative agencies that impose huge and coercive fines without an advance hearing, which are intended to bankrupt and destroy the target before any judicial hearing can be obtained. Yes, there are all kinds of threats to due process going on around here.
What happened in Dallas is not one of them. This was an active shooter, who had murdered repeatedly and announced his intention to murder again. He was armed, and bunkered in. I am delighted that he is dead. Yes, if he had been taken alive he would have had to have a trial, with all the stupid testimony about his “insanity.” I’m glad the taxpayers were spared that expense. Yes, I know all about slippery slopes, but we ought not be so afraid of where we might go someday that we are paralyzed from dealing with where we are right now. And based on the “right now” that existed in Dallas, I say: Blow the bastard to kingdom come.
Once we had more details on the “right now” (which is all I was asking for) I agree. The parking garage has been painted a lovely shade of innards.
My biggest complaint here was the seeming willingness to accept, uncritically, government actions simply because we agreed with the outcome. We are very critical of the left for justifying the means by the ends, and I don’t want to fall into doing the same thing.
Under Garner v. Tennessee, the offense committed by the suspect does matter. Suspect must have used deadly force in the commission of the crime and continues to pose a deadly threat if not arrested. There’s got to be an ongoing deadly threat to justify deadly force.
Yes, but it’s the ongoing threat which is the justification. The past act only triggers apprehension, but it does raise the ceiling of force acceptable to achieve that end. I need to go back and read Garner again to make sure I’m up to date on how it affects things.
I wonder where this notion came from. Sounds like “Salute the Flag and Respect the Badge” taken to…rather deadly extremes.
I’m going to say at the outset that I don’t see this delivery of a bomb by a remotely controlled vehicle as being qualitatively different from using a sniper – which apparently was not tactically feasible in this case.
If a sniper had had a shot at this terrorist, would the shot have been ordered? Given the possibility of explosives and the danger of approaching this man, I think it probably would have been.