 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
Use of Force Page |
|
|
Posted 6/27/10 Ten days and twenty-five hundred miles apart, two pursuits end in tragedy
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Kayla Woods won’t be enjoying a seventh birthday party. She’ll no longer be there to watch over her younger brother and comfort him when he’s sad. And she’ll never again play with her friends, like she was doing on June 10, when a vehicle fleeing from police sped through the Lake View Terrace neighborhood where she and her family lived. According to her grieving father Kayla was all of six years and ten days old when the speeding car crushed her tiny body, pinning her against a wall. Moments earlier LAPD officers responded to reports of a drug transaction involving armed men. When cops arrived a vehicle containing three suspects took off. Police gave chase. As the pursuit entered a residential area the car’s occupants tossed two handguns. Seconds later, while negotiating a sharp turn, the vehicle went out of control and plowed into a sidewalk, striking the victim. Two passengers, Juanquin Hiriarte, 34 and Manuel Ydiarte, 49 were immediately arrested. The driver, Aaron Rojas, 32, was taken into custody two hours later when a police dog found him hiding in the trash. All were charged with murder, felony evading and being ex-cons with guns. Ydiarte was also charged with possessing heroin for sale. Local residents wondered why police would chase in a residential area. In an interview LAPD Chief Charlie Beck emphasized that officers were dealing with armed criminals and that the pursuit was “very brief.” He also said that deciding whether to chase was a “tough call” and had he known the outcome in advance he would have told officers not to come to work. Ten days later in Harlem a speeding minivan approached a red light. It didn’t bother to slow down. In what a witness described as an “explosion” an oncoming vehicle smashed into the van, catapulting it into a group of pedestrians waiting to cross the street. Sister Mary Celine Graham, 83, was killed. Several others were injured, including Sister Mary Celine’s fifty-eight year old health aide, Patricia Cruz, a mother of six. Ms. Cruz was hospitalized in critical condition but is expected to recover. A member of the Franciscan Handmaids of the Most Pure Heart of Mary, Sister Mary Celine retired in 1999 after spending fifty-one years as a teacher and director at Harlem’s St. Benedict’s Day Nursery. Described as “a wonderful lady...a holy woman, bright, vibrant,” Sister Mary Celine suffered from Parkison’s disease but was determined to “continue her work through prayer.” Sister Mary Celine’s mission wasn’t interrupted by an ordinary accident. The van that brought her life to its sudden, violent end was being chased by police. Only moments earlier officers had pulled it over in connection with an armed robbery. As its 18-year old driver was arrested his 20-year old companion took the wheel and drove off. He fled after the accident but was caught the next day. Police strongly defended their actions. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly described the brief pursuit by an unmarked sedan – it ran with red lights and siren and kept a block away – as within guidelines and tactically sound. “It was an unfortunate series of events that caused a nun to lose her life,” he said. Dr. Geoffrey Alpert, an expert in such matters, remarked that “chases often end badly” so the trend has been to restrict them. Yet he went on to say that in this particular case what the police did seemed appropriate. What’s known about police pursuits? Querying the FARS database for pursuit-related vehicular fatalities in 2008, the most recent year with complete data, yielded 279 crashes and 320 deaths. Victims included 301 vehicle occupants, twelve pedestrians, three bicyclists and four others. Although the toll has remained stable for a decade (275 crashes and 321 fatalities in 1998) reporting isn’t mandatory, so the figure is presumably an undercount. Applying simple corrections, the author of a 2002 article in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin estimated yearly pursuit-related deaths at 375 to 500. Yet even that figure may be too low. A comprehensive 1992 study sponsored by the AAA Foundation for Highway Safety reported there were about 50,000 pursuits each year, with 18 to 44 percent leading to accidents, five to 24 percent causing injuries, and one to three percent – 500 to 1,500 – resulting in deaths. It’s currently accepted that about forty percent of chases end in a collision. A 1997 NIJ study reported that 40 percent of Omaha pursuits caused property damage and that 41 percent of Miami chases caused injuries. More recently, two-thousand in-service Minnesota police officers reported that 41 percent of the chases in which they had participated ended with someone (usually the person being pursued) crashing. There’s no denying that chases are inherently dangerous. It’s also well known that cops are reluctant to back off. Officers in the Minnesota study, for example, said they voluntarily discontinued pursuits less than five percent of the time. But should cops chase in the first place? In a 2008 report for the Police Foundation, Alpert and Smith concluded that pursuits are difficult to justify: The empirical research debunked two common myths: most fleeing suspects are dangerous violent felons; and if the police don’t chase suspects, all suspects will continue to flee, thereby greatly endangering public safety. What emerged...was the fact that most suspects who flee the police were young males who had committed minor offenses and who had made very bad decisions to flee. Additionally, the research supported the finding that if the police were to restrict their pursuit policies and not chase all offenders, no wholesale fleeing was likely to occur.... Fleeing suspects may not be as benign as the authors suggest. Kayla Woods and Sister Mary Celine were killed in chases involving armed offenders. And while a slim majority (fifty-one percent) of Omaha pursuits were for traffic violations, a not inconsiderable forty percent of those chased had committed serious crimes. In Miami the proportion of such chases was 35 percent; over four years that amounted to 117 armed robberies, 67 vehicular assaults, 37 aggravated assaults, 37 stolen vehicles, 24 burglaries and 62 other felonies. With evidence accumulating about the tragic consequences of pursuits the tendency has been to restrict the practice. Perhaps the most extreme example is Baltimore, where General Order 11-90 (in full, here; summarized, here) prohibits high speed pursuit driving except when “failure to pursue may result in grave injury or death.” Pursuing officers must use lights and siren and come to a full stop at controlled intersections. In addition, the Maryland Court of Appeals has ruled that 11-90 is admissible in civil actions against the city. So the bottom line is clear: if you’re a Baltimore cop, don’t even think about chasing. Pursuit policies in Los Angeles and New York (PG 212-39, not online) are far more permissive. Excepting infractions and misdemeanor evading or reckless driving, LAPD officers may pursue anyone who tries to flee. Cops must take into account factors including the severity of the offense, community safety, risk to the public by pursuing, traffic and weather conditions, and whether a violator can be apprehended later. New York City’s policy is similar. Officers must consider the nature of the offense, time of day, weather, location and population density, the capability of their vehicle and their familiarity with the area. Pursuits must be terminated “whenever the risks to uniformed members of the service and the public outweigh the danger to the community if [the] suspect is not immediately apprehended.” Unmarked vehicles and motorcycles must “limit” pursuits and yield to regular patrol cars as soon as practical. In trying to strike the proper balance some jurisdictions restrict pursuits to specified crimes. New Jersey limits chases to offenses punishable by at least five years in prison, or to persons who pose an immediate threat to the safety of police or the public. Orlando’s policy is narrower, allowing pursuits only when officers “have a reasonable suspicion that a fleeing suspect has committed or has attempted to commit a violent forcible felony...” (Dodging fleeing cars doesn’t count.) Then there’s Milwaukee, where a recent spate of pursuit-related deaths led the city to institute a policy requiring that officers have probable cause to believe that a violent felony occurred before starting a chase. Kayla Woods and Sister Mary Celine were struck down by felons fleeing from gun-related incidents. From what’s known the New York City episode, at least, should satisfy virtually all rules short of Baltimore’s. Yet even if shaped by the most stringent cost-benefit analyses, pursuit policies seem awfully hollow when, as so often happens, an innocent life is lost. It may be that as extreme examples of the application of force (think about your Saturday morning drive, then consider 3,000 pounds of steel coming your way) chases should be subject to public scrutiny and their conditions enshrined in law so that everyone who may be affected is onboard. Or we could just say “no.” Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 4/11/10 Split-second decisions can end in tragedy
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Early on a Saturday morning three weeks ago two uniformed LAPD gang enforcement officers, one with eight years of experience, the other with seven, were patrolling in South Los Angeles when they heard a “loud noise.” Wheeling their car around they spotted Steven Eugene Washington, 27, walking down the sidewalk. He seemed to be fiddling with something on his person. Although a detailed official account is lacking, it seems that the officers exited their vehicle, called out to Washington and ordered him to stop. Instead he walked towards them and removed an object from his waistband. Or seemed to. Fearing that their lives were in danger, the officers fired. Struck once in the head Washington fell, mortally wounded. No gun was found. What the object was – if anything – hasn’t been disclosed. According to Washington’s mother, and to the attorney representing her in a claim against LAPD, her son, who suffered from autism, was on his way home after seeing a friend. Fearful of strangers and respectful of police, he had never been in trouble with the law. “We want to know why,” his outraged aunt demanded. “You're dealing with a 27-year old man who is autistic – 27, but with the mind-frame of a 12-year old. He never carried a gun, he was never around guns, he wasn't violent. He was a kid.” At a press conference soon after the incident LAPD Assistant Chief Earl Paysinger emphasized that officers believed Washington was reaching for a gun and had only an instant to decide. “The officers made decisions in a fraction of a second and teams of investigators now have to examine it from every possible angle...It is important to note that what happened was tragic to Mr. Washington, his family, to whom we offer our condolences, but also for the officers, who have our strong support during this incredibly difficult period for all of us.” Earlier postings (see “related posts,” below) document a recent string of questionable shootings by Southland law enforcement agencies. Perhaps the most similar took place in May 2008 when two Inglewood cops shot at a car they mistakenly thought was the source of gunfire. One occupant was killed and two others were wounded. Expressing deep regret, the city’s police chief suggested that it wasn’t the police but circumstances – shots had been fired and the vehicle seemed to be headed straight at the officers – that were really to blame. “I won't go so far as to call it a mistake. The process that the officers went through had a very tragic outcome.” Mentally unstable persons do present a special challenge. One week after the Inglewood incident Long Beach officers were called to deal with a middle-aged man who was behaving erratically. During a struggle he grabbed an officer’s baton and was shot five times. Surviving relatives described him as a loving person who was distraught about a failed relationship. (They sued, but a jury found in the department’s favor.) Considering the innumerable police-citizen encounters that take place each day in this gun-obsessed and violence-prone land, it seems a miracle that so few shootings actually occur. Knowing that appearances can deceive, most officers take care not to act hastily, thus accepting at least some risk. If they didn’t, dead civilians would be lining the streets at the end of every shift. Still, one needless death is one too many. What can prevent mistaken shootings? Shortly after Washington’s death LAPD reassured the public that its officers are trained to deal with the autistic. A project by the Autism Society of Los Angeles has reached thousands of officers, including many with family members afflicted by the disorder. Autism training is now commonplace for cops around the U.S. (Awareness of the problem has even seeped into popular entertainment, with a theatrical play, “The Rant,” portraying the police killing of an autistic teen.) Yet is training enough? Last October an autistic 16-year old North Carolina high school student asked to speak with a resource officer. When the cop arrived the youth suddenly drew a knife and lunged. By the time it was over the officer had several knife wounds and the boy was shot dead. “It's very upsetting, and I just hope everybody realizes that this was an isolated case, and he was a good kid,” said the boy’s mother. When officers have the luxury of time skills learned during classroom instruction and practical exercises can be useful. But self-initiated contacts, such as the observation that led to the encounter between the LAPD cops and Washington are far more difficult to manage. Officers who know nothing beyond what they observe might perceive a threat where none exists. And if they’re in a high-crime area, fear, anxiety and past experiences can predispose them to respond reflexively. Sometimes cops must make decisions in Chief Paysinger’s “fraction of a second.” But it may also be possible to “make” enough time to give oneself some breathing room. Officers know not to place themselves in positions where they lack cover or are inherently at risk, such as in front of a suspect’s car. On the other hand, choreographing unplanned street encounters isn’t easy. Merely closing in can place an officer in a dangerously exposed position. Should a suspect make a move, the cop may instinctively react by deploying their only ready defense – a gun. That’s what supposedly led to a widely-criticized episode last September, when a man running from an L.A. County deputy was fatally shot when he reached for what turned out to be a cell phone. He turned out not to be the robber that officers were seeking. The upshot was a new policy that urges officers to contain suspects rather than charge in. “You don’t have to go barreling in on every case and then find yourself in a position where you have no choice but to use your gun,” said Sheriff Lee Baca. When cops go through simulation exercises they learn the importance of taking cover and seeing a gun before firing. Unfortunately, the lessons don’t always transfer to the rough-and-tumble of the streets. How long did the officers who shot Washington observe him before moving in? Once they did, did they take any precautions to increase the time they had to react? And most importantly, what was in the youth’s hands? Hastily entering an uncertain environment with little information is a recipe for tragedy. Alas, it’s a practice that officers seem doomed to repeat. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS The Chase is On To Err is Human When Cops Kill When Cops Kill (Part II) UPDATES 05/13/10 One day after the city paid $1.6 million over a mentally disturbed man who died during a tussle with police, Portland’s mayor fired the chief, saying that cops have to learn how to deal with the mentally ill. Meanwhile a local mental health professional pointed out that “cops are social workers. They manage people with mental illness and addiction problems every day.” 04/19/10 In an experiment officers with formal “crisis intervention training” chose to use less force when confronted with a mentally ill person. Such training, it’s claimed, could have prevented the death of a bipolar man who died after being Tasered by an officer who was aware of his condition. Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 1/10/10 A cop’s tragic fumble turns into a cause célèbre. What will happen if he’s acquitted?
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. In a few weeks the murder trial of former Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer Johannes Mehserle will get underway. As we reported earlier, Mehserle, who shot passenger Oscar Grant to death at an Oakland subway platform one year ago, argues that he meant to use a Taser but in the confusion pulled his pistol instead. Although we found his claim credible, it didn’t sit well with Alameda County Judge C. Don Clay, whose hostile remarks at the preliminary hearing (“there is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Mehserle intended to shoot Oscar Grant with a gun and not a Taser”) made it perfectly clear to the ex-cop’s lawyers that he desperately needed a change of venue. And he got one. But the raucous protests greeting Mehserle’s recent appearance at Los Angeles Superior Court show that the heat’s still on. In effect, Oakland’s problems have become L.A.’s. No matter: we’re confident that once the evidence in this grossly overcharged case is in jurors will conclude that the shooting was unintended. Indeed, that’s what has us worried. Let’s recap. About 2:00 am on New Year’s day 2009 Mehserle and other BART officers detained four riders who had allegedly created a disturbance on a subway train. For reasons that aren’t perfectly clear they wrestled Oscar Grant to the ground then struggled to handcuff him. A bystander’s cell phone video shows Mehserle fumbling for his gunbelt. As he stands Mehserle draws his pistol and fires once into Grant’s back, instantly killing him. Witnessed by scores of bystanders, accounts of Mehserle’s inexplicable deed spread like wildfire. It would take a month, when defense lawyers filed a motion to set bail, for their client’s version of what happened to come out. Too late! Within hours of the incident gangs of toughs rampaged through downtown Oakland. Disturbances continued for days. Meanwhile media outlets busily pumped out an avalanche of inflammatory coverage, with one television station promptly broadcasting both the cell phone video and an interview with the Grant family attorney that essentially portrayed the officer as a cold-blooded killer. With dispassionate, even-handed analysis going out the window it seemed as though the officer was already tried and convicted. Why wait? String him up now! Mehserle was soon arrested for murder. Ironically, his bail application was based mostly on what prosecutors dug up. Witnesses confirmed that Grant, who had not yet been searched, resisted attempts to get his hands out from under his stomach. Mehserle was overheard warning other cops that Grant might be hiding a gun and that he intended to deploy the Taser, and no less than seven citizens reported that Mehserle went into shock right after firing the fatal shot. Here is an extract from the interview with citizen witness Alika Rogers: Officer Mehserle put his hands up to his forehead and he appeared to be in shock. Here is another, with civilian witness Karina Vargas: Vargas said the Officer who shot Grant had a surprised, dumbfounded look, like he was In June 2005 airman Elio Carrion was riding in a car that crashed while fleeing police. The first officer on the scene, San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputy Ivory Webb, ordered Carrion onto the ground. Carrion complied, but soon asked for permission to get up. Alone and frightened, Deputy Webb tried to tell Carrion “don’t get up,” but in his excitement apparently left out “don’t” twice. A sequence captured by an amateur videographer shows Carrion getting up, prompting Webb to shoot him three times. Carrion miraculously survived his wounds. At his trial for attempted voluntary manslaughter, Webb testified that if he said “get up” it was only because he had been too scared to articulate clearly. His account was supported by defense psychologist William Lewinski, who said that when officers are under great stress their analytical processes can shut down. Lewinski described other situations in which officers feared for their lives. “Their analytical process began to collapse,” he testified. “They had so much to do that, literally, they were overloaded.” Is that what happened to Mehserle? Another officer said that he had never seen him so scared. Our earlier post mentioned past instances when stressed-out officers mistakenly drew and fired their According to his bail pleading Mehserle had been certified to use Tasers for only a month and carried the weapon no more than a dozen times. Given his agitated state it’s not difficult to see how he might have become confused. It’s an instance where the muscle memory that enables officers to swiftly draw their issue handguns can have an unintended consequence. Reacting in the way that he was conditioned, Mehserle robotically reached for the far more familiar holster. In his rattled state of mind he failed to detect, in the instant before squeezing the trigger, that the weapon at hand was not the one he had meant to deploy. It’s happened before, and thanks to an inherent design flaw that makes Tasers so gun-like will likely happen again. There’s really no technical reason why Tasers can’t be shaped differently and activated, say, by pressing a button. But that would be a different blog post. None of what we’ve said is new to the Alameda D.A. So why do they persist in charging Mehserle with murder? (Mehserle’s lawyer asked Judge Clay to reduce the charge to involuntary manslaughter. He refused.) Considering the public outcry, the charges of police racism, the marches and demonstrations, prosecutors probably figured that jumping on the choo-choo train was probably the safest choice, politically and otherwise. Still, there must be something to justify a charge of murder. While we’re not privy to the evidence in the case, the bail filing did mention that after the shooting Mehserle told another officer, “Tony, I thought he was going for a gun.” According to Judge Clay, that statement and the video were enough to convince him that Mehserle purposely shot Grant. But to believe that requires one dismiss compelling evidence that points in a far more innocent direction. Regrettably, the reasoned voices have been strangely silent, leaving the public unprepared for what we’re convinced will be a big (and to many, unwelcome) surprise. Knowing of the shooting’s near-explosive aftermath, and with demonstrations already occurring in L.A., what will happen when, as we fully expect, prosecutors are unable to meet their burden? Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS Oakland BART Shooting: A Tragedy, Yes, But is it Murder? To Err is Human, To Prevent is Divine UPDATES 07/09/10 DOJ announced it will conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether to formally investigate Mehserle (and, assumedly, other BART police officers) for Federal civil rights violations. Meanwhile the Oakland Tribune released a public letter written by Mehserle while the jury was out. 07/08/10 In what seems a compromise verdict, jurors convicted Mehserle of involuntary manslaughter. Punishment is imprisonment for two to four years, plus three to ten for using a gun. 07/06/10 “This is an accident, folks, pure and simple,” said Mehserle’s attorney during closing arguments. As jurors begin their deliberation legal experts say that the chances of convicting a cop of murder under these circumstances are remote, and past experiences back them up. 07/01/10 In a blow to the defense, which argued for either murder or nothing, jurors will be allowed to consider manslaughter charges. Mehserle can be found guilty of murder, an unlawful killing “with malice aforethought.” (The judge has restricted it to second degree.) Or he can be found guilty of a non-malicious killing, either voluntary manslaughter, killing “upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion,” or involuntary manslaughter, killing during an illegal act that isn’t a felony, or while doing a legal act unlawfully or “without due caution or circumspection.” Statutes 06/25/10 Mehserle tearfully testified that he intended to use his Taser to get Grant to stop resisting but mistakenly drew and fired his pistol instead. He said that he had already pulled out his Taser twice and that given the situation “the thought of using my gun never entered my head.” 06/24/10 An instructor said that Mehserle got the minimum instruction on the Taser and only discharged it twice. Mehserle was told about the dangers of drawing the wrong weapon. The instructor was asked about prior incidents in which that error was made, including one that resulted in a death. Mehserle’s partner said that Mehserle never told him that the shooting was an accident. 06/23/10 Questioning one of Grant’s friends, who now says that the officer fired on purpose, a defense lawyer pointed out that the witness told police right after the shooting that Mehserle had threatened to tase Grant, and that Grant repeatedly said not to. 06/22/10 Passengers testified that Mehserle seemed shocked and raised his hands to his head after shooting Grant. An expert said that Mehserle’s handgun holster had a safety mechanism to prevent unintended draws. He also said that Mehserle was recently trained on the Taser but did not receive instruction on switching between it and his gun. 06/19/10 Officer Anthony Pirone testified that Mehserle indicated he was about to use his Taser. But Pirone also said that Mehserle later told him that he feared Grant was going for a gun. 06/18/10 At opening arguments a prosecutor accused Mehserle of acting on anger. “It was the result of anger taking over judgment and training. For that, this defendant must be held responsible.” But the defense said that Mehserle mistakenly deployed his gun instead of a Taser. 07/13/09 L.A. Sheriff’s deputies shoot, kill fleeing man whose cell phone they apparently mistook for a gun. (Suspect, a parolee, allegedly had a gun in his car.) 04/13/09 Texas officer charged for killing driver of vehicle mistakenly thought to be stolen 03/17/09 Prosecutors say they won’t charge an Anaheim (Calif.) officer who shot and killed an innocent man while chasing burglars because the officer (mistakenly) felt threatened Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 9/27/09 Are foot pursuits prone to result in bad shootings?
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Two weeks ago Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies were looking for two robbery suspects when they spotted a pair of possible candidates. As they approached the men one ran off. A deputy gave chase. What happened next isn’t clear, but it seems that at some point the fleeing man made a motion that the deputy considered threatening, leading him to fire three times, twice through a wooden gate. Darrick Collins, 36 was fatally wounded. It turned out that all he had on his person was a cell phone and twenty-four tablets of an illegal street drug. Collins was not one of the robbers. He had been recently arrested on drug charges and probably ran to avoid getting busted again. Collins was the tenth person fatally shot by LASD deputies in 2009. An uproar led Sheriff Lee Baca to pledge that an inquiry would be completed in ninety days. A career law enforcement officer, Baca isn’t particularly loved by his troops, who generally consider him far too liberal for their tastes. On the other hand, Baca enjoys excellent rapport with community groups, and his promise to promptly resolve the matter helped defuse things. He’s also commissioned a panel of experts to look into deputy-involved shootings. Whether to change foot pursuit policy is one of the issues they’re to consider. Baca’s moves were welcomed by Michael Gennaco. Head of the Office of Independent Review, the county agency that oversees complaints against the Sheriff’s Department, Gennaco has criticized delays that leave the public in the dark about shootings for eighteen months or more. It now seems that at least in “mistaken fact” incidents, where deputy error is evident, administrative and criminal inquiries will run simultaneously. Less than a week after Collins’ death LASD deputies shot and killed three more persons. These unconnected incidents brought the number killed by deputies this year to thirteen, more than twice the number for all of 2008, when five persons fell to deputy gunfire. But if there was a positive side to the most recent shootings, it’s that they differed from the Collins killing in one critical respect: this time each suspect was armed.
As we’ve said before, the environment of policing has a profound impact on how officers perceive and respond to threats. To get a better perspective on what L.A. County’s deputies face we looked up the remaining nine fatal shootings in the Los Angeles Times index on ProQuest, an online database. All but one were found. (Keep in mind that the accounts were sketchy and based mostly on official reports.)
It’s a mixed bag. Yet there are some common threads. Obviously, each of the deceased would still be alive today had they complied with deputies. As one might expect, the influence of guns and gangs is clearly evident. Sheriff Baca’s concerns about foot pursuits are also borne out. Four shootings took place during foot chases, including both instances where deputies killed in error. Cops know that foot pursuits can be a recipe for disaster. Chases place officers in unfamiliar surroundings. Often alone, lacking access to the normal tools of policing, they get wholly dependent on their guns for survival. Pumped up on anxiety and adrenaline, with little opportunity to observe or reflect, it’s inevitable that their split-second decisions will occasionally prove to be tragically wrong. Training only goes so far. When decades of study and experimentation yielded no discernible gains in the ability to safely pursue vehicles, most police agencies wound up forbidding car chases except under tightly specified and controlled circumstances. Foot pursuits are even more difficult to calibrate. They don’t happen along clearly demarcated roads. Neither can they be choreographed with the assistance of radios and aircraft. Unless academies can produce Supercops who are unaffected by stress and fatigue and can see in the dark, prohibiting one-on-one foot pursuits may be the only option. It would be informative to compare the characteristics of LASD’s fatal encounters with those reported elsewhere. LASD is but one agency, and there might be something about it and its officers that could use fine-tuning. For example, deputies must spend years working the jails, so they accumulate far less field experience than their municipal police counterparts. What’s more, in 2008 the Office of Independent Review issued reports chastising the LASD training academy and the department’s background investigation process for yielding less-than-sterling recruits. Improvements in selection and training are always welcome. There may also be substantial differences in officer propensities to shoot (see, for example, the case of Cleveland officer Jim Simone.) But there will always be a certain elephant in the room. Unincorporated inner-city areas such as those patrolled by L.A. County deputies brim with gangsterism and violence, frequently leading to encounters that any officer, not matter how well trained, would be hard-pressed to peaceably resolve. In the mean streets of SoCal, tragic conclusions to police-citizen encounters aren’t all that surprising. We’ve said it before and it bears repeating: unless we can convince citizens to act kindly and gently, getting cops to do so may be out of reach. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS To Err is Human When Cops Kill Part I Part II We Get the Cops We Deserve UPDATES 02/17/10 In view of an upsurge in officer-involved shootings, from nine in 2008 to sixteen in 2009, L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca announced a new policy that directs deputies dealing with possibly armed suspects to “chase to contain” rather than to immediately apprehend. Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 5/17/09 KICKING A SUSPECT WHEN HE’S DOWN There may be an explanation for kicking a
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. One can imagine how frustrated El Monte (Calif.) officers must have felt the other day when the arrest of a wanted parolee turned into another cause célèbre for the ACLU. A helicopter video depicts the event in remarkable detail, up to the moment that a cop, gun drawn, violently kicks the proned-out suspect in the head, drawing a startled gasp from the camera operator. Criminal justice experts who viewed the blow called it lots of things, none nice. “Outrageous” said one; “one of the worst incidents of this kind that I've seen” said another. Even an ex-cop found something to criticize: “You have an individual who is compliant....I don’t understand why an officer would want to get so close.” The incident in the hardscrabble Los Angeles suburb of 122,000 began when an officer tried to stop a vehicle occupied by three heavily tattooed members of the Florencia street gang. The car took off, precipitating a wild chase. During a slow-speed stage an occupant jumped out and surrendered. Eventually the fleeing vehicle careened careened off a parked car and stalled. As officers approached a second passenger gave up. But the driver, parolee-at-large Richard Rodriguez bolted. Police soon cornered him in a yard. In the video we see the man lie down and spread out his arms, as though he’s done it a thousand times before. An officer grasping a pistol approaches, then for no obvious reason delivers the formidable kick. More cops arrive. Rodriguez is handcuffed, although apparently not without receiving several flashlight strikes to the torso. El Monte’s beleaguered police chief refused to pass judgment. “I worked internal affairs for four years and I have learned that you do not make a decision in a vacuum,” he said. “I do not know what was in the mind of that officer, as to why he did that. I saw the individual turn his head toward the officer.” On the other hand, police union lawyer Dieter Dammeier knew exactly what the cop had been thinking. “When you're going to have to take a bad guy into custody physically it is sometimes going to be aggressive and the cops are there to win...Better safe than sorry.” Dammeier later insisted that the officer acted within policy: The individual officer saw some movement. He feared the parolee might have a weapon or be about to get up. So the officer did what is known as a distraction blow. It wasn’t designed to hurt the man, just distract him.... [El Monte officers] are trained to deliver a distraction blow to stop a [suspect] doing what they planning on doing. “Distraction blows” isn’t a brand-new concept. In an infamous 2004 incident an LAPD officer ran up to a car theft suspect who was being restrained by other cops and repeatedly struck him with a flashlight. It was all caught on camera. LAPD’s then-new head, Bill Bratton, was surprised to learn that department guidelines allowed so-called “distraction blows” to the arms and shoulders (but not the head) of combative persons. (Bratton did away with heavy flashlights and fired the officer. The blows’ lightly injured recipient settled for a cool $450,000.) California law authorizes “any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense to use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance” (P.C. 835a). Police agencies are required to adopt use-of-force policies consistent with this statute. For example, the Riverside Police Department considers kicking (along with punching, batons and less-than-lethal munitions) appropriate when facing “threatening actions of an aggressive suspect.” Even then officers are cautioned to “avoid striking those areas such as the head, throat, neck, spine or groin which may cause serious injury to the suspect.” Distraction blows aren’t mentioned. Enough said. Most law enforcement professionals are repelled by the thought of using force on compliant suspects. Really the issue here isn’t about kicking the head, a potentially life-threatening act that’s unacceptable except under the gravest circumstances, but whether the cop did so maliciously. Did he think he was about to be attacked? Did he even intend to strike the head? To lay such a heavy blow? Might another reasonably well-trained and well-intentioned cop have done the same thing? The incident is under investigation, and we will be interested to learn the outcome. We’re also curious about the officer. According to the San Gabriel Valley Tribune he owns an Internet e-commerce website, www.torcidoclothing.com, that sells “authentic jailhouse wear,” mostly t-shirts bearing text and images that signify gang membership and drug use. (“Torcido” means “twisted” or “crooked”.) Officers are individuals, with unique backgrounds, personalities and temperaments. Two cops standing in the same spot and observing the same event can react completely differently. And while it’s true that fear and adrenaline-charged incidents such as chases have led to beatings and worse, officers usually hold their emotions in check. Yet, as we’ve pointed out, police are reluctant to concede error. Cops whose blunders can be somehow justified often escape any consequences at all, while those whose mistakes can’t be overlooked (perhaps, because they’re caught on video) are vilified. In the “old” days wizened Sergeants would get on the radio at the end of a chase and blurt out something like “watch your force!” Now that we’re in the twenty-first century there are probably more sophisticated approaches. Selection, training and supervision are key. We must avoid hiring applicants who might easily panic, get angry or lose their moral compass. We must intervene when active-duty officers go astray and if possible help them reform. And real-time supervision (not just passive “oversight”) is always essential. Yes, when serious mistakes happen blame must be assessed. But policing would be much farther along if we’d expend half as much effort in preventing foul-ups as in putting Humpty-Dumpty back together again. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! Full disclosure: at his university’s urging, this blogger responded to a reporter’s inquiry about the ethical implications of running a business whose products glorify gangster life. For the writer’s comments click here. UPDATES 12/30/09 L.A. County D.A. declines to prosecute officer, calls kick “reasonable” 07/24/09 Rodriguez claims headaches, blurred vision; files $5 million claim 06/20/09 More reactions to Torcido website. Click here for an archived page. Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 4/19/09 NYPD’s handling of a student protest may have missed its mark
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. April 10, 2009 was a blustery day in Gotham. During the early morning hours about twenty members of the “New School in Exile” burst into a building at 65 5th. Avenue, New York City. Carrying rucksacks, chains and padlocks they shoved aside a startled security guard, bound themselves together and pledged not to leave until the New School’s embattled president stepped down. A banner on the roof announced the takeover. Dozens more protesters staged a noisy rally outside. It wasn’t the first time. In December 2008 angry students occupied a cafeteria (conveniently, one might think) for three days. Again, Bob Kerrey was the target. Hired in 2001 to bring order and financial stability to the liberally-minded campus, the former U.S. Senator and Medal of Honor recipient was planning to increase tuition. After going through five Provosts in seven years, he had also appointed himself the school’s chief academic officer, an odd move considering that he lacked a Ph.D. Temporarily humbled by a faculty no-confidence vote, Kerrey defused things by promising that everyone, students included, would have a say in charting the school’s future. He also started a blog. Now, five months later, things were back to square one, and this time Kerrey called in the cops. That’s when the “fun” began. NYPD deployed two contingents of officers, one to enter the building and another to clear its exterior. An official video depicts what happened inside. Everyone seems almost eerily composed. Although students refused to leave voluntarily, they didn’t resist and were cooperative to a fault. Led by a captain who exuded calm, officers crisply went about their business. A city videographer captured everything and promptly uploaded it to You Tube. It’s a brave new world, indeed! But as an unsanctioned amateur video reveals, things were going down far less smoothly on the outside.
The video begins with a shot of officers forcefully blocking a side door to keep protesters from leaving. Officers also repeatedly doused students with pepper spray, an action that an NYPD spokesman said didn’t happen until shown the video. Meanwhile, off camera, some demonstrators reportedly flung portable barricades at police and ran off. Cops chased them down the street, catching one and wrestling him to the ground. A demonstrator is also depicted exchanging angry words with an officer, who swats at him, causing the youth to lose his balance. As the cop disinterestedly walks away other officers jump on and handcuff the man. Overall the impression is hardly favorable. Police seem disorganized. Officers are reacting impulsively, dashing to and fro and tangling with protesters who try to leave. If someone is in charge (all we see are a few sergeants) their influence seems negligible. Precious minutes passed before cops simmered down and got organized. By then a lot of force had already been used. Nowadays much of what cops do winds up on You Tube. Lacking context, what gets depicted is often inflammatory. Just like making sausage, policing is a messy business. Despite what many might think, cops really are human, and when provoked they’re likely to lash out. As a retired NYPD sergeant who watched the New School videos aptly put it, “Lots of times some skell [New Yoak lingo meaning a mope] is fighting a cop tooth and nail, then a cop loses control, which is easy to do, and then you lose your temper and somebody videotapes you, and the next thing you know you’re losing your job.” That, of course, is no excuse for doing a lousy job. We spend huge amounts on our police forces, in part so that trained professionals are available to defuse potentially explosive situations. That, of course, is when a steady hand is most needed. Consider the striking contrast between the videos. It was the chaotic exterior, with uncooperative “skells”, where the police nearly fell apart. Like the good sergeant suggests, getting stressed-out cops to react appropriately is no easy task. Here are some things to think about for the next time:
Getting cops to ignore provocations and make good decisions while under stress may be a tall order, but it’s why society shoulders the phenomenal expense of fielding police forces in the first place. We can’t just sit around and wait for evolution to provide a more civil society. It’s up to the police to take the first step. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED ARTICLES For a discussion of perceptual distortion and the police see Criminology and Public Policy, Volume 8, Issue 1, April 2009. Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 3/13/09 TASERING A YOUNGSTER IS WRONG, Should police have zapped a violent 12-year old? By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Word that a Hawthorne (Calif.) police officer zapped an autistic twelve-year old boy struck many observers as incomprehensible. Why did the cop have to resort to a weapon? Authorities say that the 5-7, 130 pound student grabbed a counselor and repeatedly punched a security guard, then kicked the officer who responded in the groin. When the youth ran away the cop Tasered him in the back. The darts came out in the emergency room. There’s little question that the kid was out of control. Had it been an adult we would have probably heard no more about it, but the fact of his youth and disability lends the event an undeniable gravity. As one might expect, his parents filed a legal claim, a prelude to a suit. Policing is a fundamentally nasty business. People don’t call the cops to feed them coffee and sweets, and by the time that authorities arrive things have often deteriorated to a point where gaining voluntary compliance is difficult if not impossible. Still, officers can’t fight their way through their shifts, so most get pretty good at settling things without going to the mat. Salesmanship and a command presence are the two most important tools of a street cop’s arsenal. Sometimes talk isn’t enough. For the first century years of American policing there was only one alternative to the gun: the club, an insufferably crude implement that brings officers in close, exactly where they’d rather not be. In the heat and confusion of battle batons can prove ineffective or, should a blow be misplaced, as deadly as a .44. Belt-carried tear gas dispensers, the first effective less-than-lethal weapon, became popular in the 1980’s. They were supplanted by pepper spray, a powerful irritant that forces the eyes to shut. Alas, in the rough-and-tumble of policing aerosols aren’t always useful. For best effect the stream must strike the face, and preferably the temple, a trick that’s hard to manage unless a target is motionless. And as the writer can personally attest (he was doused during training) pepper spray can seriously impair breathing. Although the National Institute of Justice determined that the substance is safe when properly used, an ACLU report notes that it’s been associated with respiratory failures and a number of deaths. Enter the Taser, a device that propels two darts up to thirty feet to deliver a powerful, temporarily disabling electrical shock. Simple to use and highly effective, it allows officers to instantly immobilize a moving target at a distance. Police throughout the world champion it as the tool of choice for dealing with combative persons. Studies in the U.S. have concluded that the Taser has reduced injuries to officers and citizens alike. A string of police shootings recently led RAND to recommend that NYPD, which issues Tasers to tactical units, consider deploying them to patrol officers, giving them a more effective alternative to deadly force than the pepper spray they already carry. On the downside, Tasers have been linked to deaths by heart failure. Although most medical studies have cleared the device, significant concerns remain about the weapon’s possible effect on the young, the old and those with heart conditions, particularly when repeated shocks are administered. Regrettably, Tasers have a rocky history. They’ve been used when force was unnecessary, when less violent methods were available (an electrical jolt is nothing if not violent) and when stunning someone was otherwise inappropriate. Two years ago an L.A. County Jail inmate was permanently disabled when he was Tasered while standing on a top bunk and fell on his head. Last year a similar misuse led a naked, mentally ill New York City man to plunge to his death from a ledge. (In a tragic postscript, the commander who gave the order to use the Taser was so remorseful that he subsequently committed suicide.) No matter how “safe” Tasers might be, their use must be consistent with expectations of how police ought to behave in a democratic society. Still, it’s important to keep in mind that officers work in an unpredictable environment. Those who lack a partner, as in Hawthorne, are in a particular fix. Tumbling on hard concrete with a beefy youngster can cause disabling injuries for both, while letting a child run off can put him and possibly others in harm’s way. As it turned out, the youth wasn’t hurt. Stopped in his tracks by the Taser, he didn’t have the opportunity to hit anyone else, nor did he run across the street without looking and get struck by a car. No doubt about it, using stun guns on children looks bad -- very bad. Appearances are important. Still, the real world is a messy place where not everything can be anticipated. Instituting flat-out prohibitions or dreaming up excessively complex rules runs the risk of paralyzing cops when decisive action is crucial. And that’s not a risk that either the police or the public should lightly accept. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED WEBSITE Website about less-than-lethal technologies RELATED ARTICLES NIJ-funded study on conducted energy devices (Tasers) Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 3/1/09 TO ERR IS HUMAN, TO PREVENT IS DIVINE Admitting that cops make mistakes can prevent tragedies By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. The recent tragic killing of an unarmed man by a San Francisco transit cop provoked a deeply polarized response. Outraged activists pointed to the incident, which involved a white officer and a black victim, as yet another example of how the police treat minorities. They then turned their anger on prosecutors for waiting two weeks before charging the officer with a crime. As we’ve mentioned, there’s plenty of reason to believe that the overexcited cop thought that he was firing his Taser. That’s a conclusion that even the victim’s attorney implicitly conceded. “It doesn't matter if he was reaching for a Taser or not. At the end of the day, it's what [the officer] did that counts.” Meanwhile nervous BART officials avoided all talk of race and promised what bureaucracies usually promise when stuff hits the fan: to review their procedures. ...the BART Board’s Police Department Review Committee will engage experts in law enforcement to conduct a top-to-bottom review of BART Police policies and procedures. These independent experts will examine police recruitment, hiring, training, and identify best practices. The independent experts will also recommend changes where necessary. Departments seldom concede what students of the police have long known: that regardless of training and experience, stressed-out officers can make catastrophic mistakes. For reasons of pride and liability, agencies often rush to lay the blame elsewhere. When a SWAT officer accidentally shot and killed a toddler during a 2005 standoff, LAPD exerted immense pressure on the coroner to conclude that the fatal bullet really came from the father’s gun. To his credit, he refused. Tactical teams usually have the opportunity to prepare and strategize, so in truth they seldom goof that badly. Patrol officers, on the other hand, rarely have much time to plan. When their adrenaline-infused decisions prove disastrous, as they sometimes so, departments reflexively (and perhaps, understandably) circle the wagons. On February 6, 2005 an LAPD patrol officer shot and killed Devin Not everyone jumped on board. The Los Angeles Police Commission, Bratton’s titular superior, overruled the chief and forced a disciplinary hearing. Their squabble wasn’t unprecedented. Years earlier the board rejected then-Chief Parks’ exoneration of an officer who shot and killed a mentally handicapped homeless woman wielding a knife. In the end, the Commission lost -- twice. By contract, serious discipline at the LAPD is meted out by a normally cop-friendly “Board of Rights,” and it was that panel that ultimately cleared both officers of wrongdoing. As we know from the BART shooting protecting one’s own is a lot tougher when there’s video. On January 29, 2005 a vehicle fleeing from San Bernardino (Calif.) deputies crashed. A 21-year old airman just back from Iraq exited from the passenger side. The first officer to arrive, Ivory Webb, ordered him to the ground and approached, gun drawn. After a brief verbal exchange, the excited deputy said what sounded like “get up” three times. Apparently complying with the command, the man rose. That’s when the deputy fired three times, inflicting serious, thankfully nonfatal wounds. The nighttime incident was captured on a grainy video by a citizen watching from across the street.
To citizens and newscasters what the deputy did (he was Black, his victim is Hispanic) was inexplicable; on first glance it seemed like an execution, the same thing that activists claim happened in Oakland. Of course, prosecutors are not lay people. Instead of acknowledging the horrifying event for what it was: a tragedy caused by a pumped-up cop whose brain short-circuited, the San Bernardino D.A. accused him of attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm, charges that could bring a sentence of eighteen years. At his trial the officer testified that he had been scared for his life, and that if he said “get up” it was only because he was too rattled to articulate clearly. (This blogger’s audio analysis revealed that the first “get up” was indeed preceded by a “don’t.”) The officer’s explanation was echoed by a defense psychologist who told the court that when officers are under stress their analytical processes can shut down. It took jurors only two and one-half hours to acquit the deputy on both counts. Naturally, the officer lost his job and faces a civil suit. Pinning on a badge doesn’t make cops superhuman, and it may be that in an atmosphere of guns and violence they’re doing about as well as can be expected. But if we’re looking for ways to minimize lethal flub-ups here are some things to consider:
An initial step in twelve-step programs is to admit one’s frailties, as little can be done for someone in denial. That’s equally true here. Pretending that whatever happens, happens on purpose retards progress and exacerbates tensions between citizens and officers, unjustly making out the latter as criminals should their disastrous goofs get caught on camera. Honest, dispassionate self-assessment is the hallmark of a true profession. It could prevent unnecessary violence and help defuse tensions in the inner cities. It would be a win for the public and the police. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS It’s Now L.A.’s Problem Oakland BART Shooting: A Tragedy, Yes, But is it Murder? RELATED ARTICLES For a recent discussion of perceptual distortions and the police see Criminology and Public Policy, Volume 8, Issue 1, April 2009. UPDATES See It’s Now L.A.’s Problem for updates Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 2/15/09 OAKLAND BART SHOOTING: It’s not the first time that a cop accidentally drew a gun
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. On March 10, 2001 Sacramento (Calif.) police arrested a “very drunk” Steven Yount. Hobbled by handcuffs and leg restraints he kept on fighting, prompting an officer to reach for his Taser. That according to the California Supreme Court was when things went terribly wrong:
On September 2, 2002 Rochester (Minn.) police officers tried to arrest a drunk and belligerent Christofar Atak. During the struggle an officer went for his Taser. Or thought he did. Atak wound up with a bullet in his back. His lawsuit was settled for $900,000. On October 27, 2002 Everardo Torres was sitting in the back of a Madera (Calif.) police car, handcuffed and under arrest. When he wouldn’t stop trying to kick out the windows an officer drew her Taser. Or thought she did: Officer Noriega...reached down with her right hand to her right side, where she had a Glock semiautomatic pistol in a holster in her officer belt and, immediately below, a Taser M26 stun gun in a thigh holster. She unholstered a weapon, pointed the weapon’s laser at Everardo’s center mass, and pulled the trigger of her similarly-sized-and-weighted Glock....There is no question that Officer Noriega intended to draw her Taser but mistakenly drew her Glock. An instant later Torres was dead of a bullet wound. His family sued. On October 23, 2003, a Somerset County (Maryland) deputy sheriff was trying to arrest Frederick Henry for failure to comply with a child support order. Henry ran off before he could be handcuffed. The officer drew his Taser. Or thought he did. Moments later Henry had a hole in place of his elbow: [The officer] did not realize he had fired the handgun until after the weapon discharged. He immediately told Henry and another witness at the scene that he had not meant to shoot Henry and that he had grabbed the wrong weapon. Henry survived to sue the police. In these examples officers were carrying Tasers on the same side as their pistols. To prevent such tragedies most departments now require that stun guns be worn “cross draw,” meaning on the officer’s weak side. That’s how ex-San Francisco Bay Area transit cop Johannes Mehserle, 27, was carrying his Taser X-26 on January 1, 2009 when he helped other officers detain four subway riders who were allegedly involved in a disturbance. What happened next was captured on a bystander’s cell phone. About halfway through the video the officers wrestle one of the suspects, Oscar Grant, to the ground. During the struggle (Grant is on his stomach, supposedly resisting being handcuffed) Mehserle draws his pistol, stands up and fires once into Grant’s back, killing him. Mehserle’s hands instantly go to his head. He and his colleagues seem stunned. Days of protests and disturbances follow. Mehserle resigns from the force and goes into seclusion. He is eventually charged with second-degree murder and released on $2 million bail. While no one can know exactly what was going through Mehserle’s mind it’s highly unlikely that he intended to use deadly force. Transit officers had only been carrying stun guns for three months. Anxious and overly excited, he probably reverted to habit: intending to grab the Taser, Mehserle robotically reached for the far more familiar holster -- the one that held the gun. According to news reports, bystanders overheard him tell his colleagues that he intended to Tase the suspect. (His comments after the shooting were supposedly contradictory. Still, it’s his state of mind at the time of the incident that’s crucial.) There is little precedent for accusing a blundering officer with murder. An incident in California that led to a lesser charge took place in January 2006, when a badly rattled San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputy shot and wounded an unarmed passenger after a car chase. Audio from a bystander video suggests that the deputy told the victim, whom he had ordered to the ground, to get up. But when the man did so the deputy shot him three times. The officer steadfastly denied giving the victim permission to rise and said that he thought he was about to be assaulted. Prosecutors charged the officer with attempted voluntary manslaughter. During trial an expert defense witness gave examples of officers behaving oddly during a crisis: “Their analytical process began to collapse. They had so much to do that, literally, they were overloaded.” One officer repeatedly told a suspect openly wielding a knife “show me your hands!” Why? Because that (instead of “drop the knife”) was the command he remembered from training. Taking this testimony to heart, jurors promptly acquitted the deputy. As one said, “police officers have to be given the right to make their decisions. If they make a bad decision in the line of duty, should we...incarcerate them for it? I don’t think so.” Ultimately, that’s the point. The deputy was fired, as he should have been, and was sued, as was the victim’s right. But prosecuting an officer for a felony when they unintentionally make a terrible call serves no purpose, other than to perhaps soothe an angry public. Unlike U.S. Attorneys, who cannot prosecute unless they believe that someone is in fact guilty and there is evidence to prove it in court, California D.A.’s are bound by the ABA’s far less stringent guidelines, which require only that they “refrain from prosecuting a charge that [they] know is not supported by probable cause.” It’s precisely that discretion that enables politically timid prosecutors to ignore their consciences and leave the tough calls for a jury. Let’s hope that the Alameda County D.A.’s extraordinary step of charging a cop with murder is based on much more than what on first glance seems to be a tragic yet not unprecedented mistake. If not perhaps Oakland jurors will prove, like their San Bernardino counterparts, to be sufficiently wise to know the difference. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS It’s Now L.A.’s Problem To Err is Human, to Prevent is Divine UPDATES See It’s Now LA’s Problem for more 01/08/10 Johannes Mehserle’s appearance in Los Angeles Superior Court, where his murder trial was moved because of fears of bias, was met with loud protests. Mehserle contends he accidentally drew his gun instead of a Taser. 06/06/09 Judge discounts Taser excuse, binds over Mehserle for murder trial 02/16/09 SF Chronicle reports few cops ever charged with murder Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 8/31/08 Tasers are threatened by abuse
By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Smarting from its first-ever loss in court, Taser International was assessed damages in excess of $6 million by Federal jurors who ruled that the company “failed to warn police that its stun guns could be dangerous when used on people under the influence of drugs or in conjunction with chest compressions.” The June 2008 verdict held the company 15% responsible for the death of a Salinas (CA) man whom police zapped as many as thirty times while trying to calm him down. An autopsy attributed the cause of death to methamphetamine intoxication, heart problems related to chronic drug abuse and being Tasered. In another recent “first” a Winnfield (LA) cop became the first officer ever charged for unlawfully killing someone with a Taser. The 22-year old cop, son of the town’s late police chief, was indicted for manslaughter and malfeasance in office for Tasering a handcuffed suspect as many as thirty times and not getting him medical help. According to physicians, the man died from heart failure brought on by multiple shocks. If convicted the officer could face a 40-year sentence. Tasers are pistol-like devices that use compressed nitrogen to shoot two darts that attach themselves to a target’s clothing, delivering a 50,000-volt shock for up to five seconds per trigger pull. They have been cited as contributing factors in numerous fatal encounters between citizens and police, but until recently virtually every death was ultimately attributed to other causes. It’s easy to understand why cops like the Taser. In the heat of a struggle batons and other impact weapons are difficult to use: blows must be placed so as to disable but not kill, and officers must get close to suspects who may be larger in size and more physically adept. Pepper spray is often ineffective. Not only must the stream be carefully aimed, but its action is not instantaneous and the spray can contaminate others. In contrast, the Taser is simple to use, allows officers to keep their distance and immobilizes instantly. A 2004 study in San Jose, California concluded that Tasers were highly effective and reduced officer injuries by twenty percent. A recent North Carolina study revealed that despite its apparent hazards the Taser was greatly favored over pepper spray for dealing with combative suspects. How dangerous is the Taser? Although death reports keep coming in, a 2007 medical study of the weapon’s after-effects determined that it was safe and effective. Indeed, following a string of questionable police shootings, RAND recently recommended that New York police substantially increase the deployment of Tasers so that officers would have less lethal options than firearms. Still, confidence in the Taser’s safety is by no means universal (see, for example, the report by Amnesty International). There is considerable concern about the Taser’s effects on persons who are ill or have heart conditions, particularly when repeated shocks are administered. Here’s where a little self-criticism can pay off. No matter how easy and convenient Tasers are to use (and that might be part of the problem) they should not be viewed as a solution to the rough-and-tumble of everyday policing. “Going to the mat” is often inevitable. Instead, their real value lies in helping officers gain a momentary advantage over the physically belligerent so they can be taken into custody without anyone getting hurt. To that end, officers should be trained in appropriate physical control techniques so that a single jolt is all that’s necessary. No approach will always apply, and special rules and tactics may be necessary for cops working alone. Still, if we blindly continue on the same path and Taser-associated fatalities keep mounting it’s only a matter of time before this valuable tool winds up occupying the same place in the use-of-force continuum as a gun. And that’s an outcome that no one wants. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED WEBSITE Website about less-than-lethal technologies RELATED ARTICLES NIJ-funded study on conducted energy devices (Tasers) UPDATES 04/19/10 A lawsuit was filed by the family of a bipolar man who died after being Tasered twice by an officer who knew of his condition. The victim was naked and not threatening anyone. 04/06/10 Two Desert Hot Springs cops -- one current and one former -- were arraigned on Federal civil rights charges for Tasering three handcuffed suspects in 2004-05. They were indicted in 2009. 01/28/10 Study says that five of fifteen SFPD shootings since 2005, involving subjects armed at most with knives, could have been avoided had officers carried stun guns. 12/29/09 A Ninth Circuit panel ruled that absent a physical threat, simple noncompliance with an officer’s orders and behaving oddly are insufficient reason to use a Taser. Bryan v. McPherson 11/25/09 Until a recent relaxation stun guns were illegal in New Jersey, even for police. Agencies can now have a few, for use only in subduing persons who are armed and mentally disturbed. 08/14/09 Orange County (Calif.) jail deputy’s misuse of Taser (see 9/21/08 entry) part of broad-reaching Justice Dept. inquiry 05/29/09 Should Tasers be used as a “pain compliance device”? 03/02/09 Hawthorne (Calif.) PD investigates Tasering of violent 12-year old student 09/29/08 NYPD officers disciplined for Tasering man who falls off ledge, dies. (Commander who gave the order to use the Taser was so remorseful that he subsequently committed suicide.)
09/21/08 Orange County (Calif.) Sheriff’s Deputy indicted for tasering a handcuffed prisoner to get him to identify himself Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 7/26/08 Why are some officers repetitively involved in questionable shootings? By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Here are the words that lit up Ohio: “Cleveland police officer Jim Simone has an alarming record of killing people. If anyone else gunned down five people, we'd call him a serial killer.” That’s how Plain Dealer columnist Regina Brett kicked off her July 16 piece about a 60-year old street cop who’s shot at twelve people in his 35-year career and killed five, most recently an ex-con with a long rap sheet. Here’s how that happened. While off duty, officer Simone was in a bank when another customer passed an “I’ve got a gun, give me money” note to a teller. As the robber fled Simone chased him, and when the suspect climbed into an idling truck he ordered him to freeze. According to Simone, the man reached down instead. That’s when he fired. It turned out that the robber was unarmed and that the truck was his. Simone is under restricted duty while the shooting is investigated. As one might expect, most of Cleveland, including the Plain Dealer’s own staff, disagreed with columnist Brett. Here’s how columnist Phillip Morris put it: “There are some who wonder why Cleveland police officer Jim Simone, who has killed more civilians than possibly any officer in the city's history, is being hailed as a hero in some quarters. The answer is really quite simple. He is a hero.” Columnist Brett has since chatted with Simone. What’s his explanation for all those shootings? He cares, and he’s a hard worker: “I go to work with the intention of finding some bad guys.” But this suspect didn’t display a gun. Why did he shoot? Because he felt threatened: “If you put me in jeopardy -- whether that jeopardy is real or imagined -- I have to defend myself.” While not retracting her remarks, the columnist apologized for not speaking with Simone before publishing her original piece. But not to worry: as soon as he’s back on the streets she’ll accompany him on a ride-along! Two-thousand fifty-four miles to the west, in sunny Inglewood, California, another cop felt threatened. For the second time in two months Inglewood police officer Brian Ragan shot and killed a man, this time while responding to a family disturbance in an apartment house. When Ragan and three other officers knocked a 38-year old man came to the door. He had a gun; when he allegedly raised it, Ragan fired. It now seems that it was the wrong apartment -- the victim, a well-regarded postal worker, lived alone. The gun was registered in his name. In May, as PoliceIssues previously reported, Ragan and another officer shot and killed a passenger in a vehicle whose occupants they mistakenly associated with a shots-fired incident. Now there’s a $25 million lawsuit. Meanwhile officials are asking why he was allowed to return to the field so quickly. Expressing “sincere regret” for the latest death (she called the earlier one a “tragedy”), Police Chief Jacqueline Seabrooks explained that officer Ragan was cleared by a psychologist so there was no reason to keep him on limited duty. And that’s not all. On July 1st. other Inglewood officers chased a known gang member into an alley after witnessing a drug deal. Police claim he was noncompliant. When he allegedly reached into his waistband they fired, killing him. Apparently he too was unarmed. It’s little consolation to a dead person’s family and friends that officers made an honest mistake. Are there ways to reduce the possibility of lethal errors? Here are three things to consider: Environment matters. Although Cleveland (pop. 461,000) has four times as many residents as Inglewood (115,000), both are demographically similar, with one in four citizens living below poverty level. Both cities are also plagued by gangs and violence. In 2007, according to preliminary data, Cleveland’s murder rate was 20.5/100,000, while Inglewood’s was 16.5 (in 2006 it was an alarming 31.16). Cops in Cleveland and Inglewood clearly have a far harder time of it than officers in Beverly Hills, where one murder means a bad year. Police behavior reflects the environment, so one can expect that Cleveland and Inglewood cops will be more likely to interpret ambiguous situations as threatening and react accordingly. Organizations matter. In recent years Inglewood and its police department have been hit with waves of accusations. Inglewood’s Mayor currently faces felony conflict-of-interest charges, while several cops are under Federal investigation for accepting sexual favors from massage parlors. Seabrooks, a former Santa Monica PD captain, was hired to clean up the mess. But after three officer-involved shooting deaths in as many months, none “clean,” critics complain that she’s in over her head. By and large, police officers work independently. Controlling their behavior is never easy; when departments are as rudderless as Inglewood seems to be, it’s virtually impossible. In these days of police unionism it takes a strong and respected Chief to motivate officers while keeping them in line. Go too far in one direction and they’ll be reluctant to act for fear of punishment; go too far in the other and you’ll have a department-full of independent contractors marching to the beat of their own drummer. Finally, individuals matter. Jim Simone’s comment that “fear will make you respond” was particularly revealing. Considering the situations that officers regularly face, where things are often not what they seem, they must be able to tolerate considerable risk. In fact most do; if they didn’t our streets would be lined with dead citizens. An overwhelming majority serve out their careers without killing anyone. That’s not an indication, as some have implied, that they’re slackers. On the contrary, it’s evidence that they’re sufficiently skilled, levelheaded and risk-tolerant to do their jobs without needlessly taking life. Those “supercops” that some in Cleveland seem to long for are a sure bet for trouble. Leave policing to trained, thoughtful professionals, and leave Dirty Harry for the movies. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS UPDATES 01/11/10 Calling for extensive reforms, the U.S. Justice Department severely criticizes Inglewood PD use of force policies, calls rules outdated and internal investigations deeply flawed 07/06/09 FBI joins investigation into May 2009 fatal shooting by Inglewood PD 03/12/09 US Justice Department, Calif. Atty. General, others probe Inglewood PD 12/28/08 Review of Inglewood PD use of deadly force 09/01/08 Inglewood officers shoot, kill homeless man armed with a toy gun: fourth fatal shooting in as many months Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 5/25/08 Individual differences are key to understanding why some cops shoot By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. This much is known. During the early morning hours of May 11, 2008 someone opened fire outside a fast-food restaurant in Inglewood, California, a working class community adjoining the L.A. Airport. Patrol officers who happened to be nearby saw a man jump into the back of a car. The vehicle then headed in their direction. Whether it was moving slowly, as witnesses say, or speeding right at them, as the officers claim, is a matter of controversy. Thinking that the man who got in the car fired the shots, and fearing they were in harm’s way, the officers opened fire, wounding two of the vehicle’s occupants and killing a third. As it turned out, no one in the oncoming car had done anything wrong. Within days the Inglewood police chief expressed her condolences but stopped short of apologizing. “I won't go so far as to call it a mistake. The process that the officers went through had a very tragic outcome.” This much is known. During the late evening hours of May 17, 2008, police officers responded to a hardscrabble neighborhood in north Long Beach, California on a 911 call about someone behaving erratically. On arriving they spotted a thin, shirtless, middle-aged man wandering around. Whether he “charged” them, as the officers insist, or was minding his own business, as witnesses claim, is a matter of controversy. Unfazed by a Taser strike and baton blows, the man punched an officer in the face and grabbed his stick. As they tumbled to the ground the cop’s partner pulled his gun and fired, with lethal results. It turned out that the dead guy was a diagnosed schizophrenic whom other officers had previously handled without serious difficulty. By all accounts he was a harmless pest. Just before the fatal encounter he gave a gift basketball to a local kid; tragically, the youth ran over and watched him die. Irate residents surrounded the officers and only dispersed when reinforcements arrived. Police were criticized for not dispatching a mental health unit. Whether one was available wasn’t said. Cops hate to admit error. But assuming that 19-year old Michael Byoune didn’t deserve to be shot dead for riding in a car, and that 46-year old Roketi Su’e didn’t deserve to be shot dead for being crazy, that’s exactly what these episodes were: mistakes. And they didn’t just “happen”. In the first example officers acting on incomplete information wrongly identified someone as a perpetrator, leading them to interpret innocent behavior as threatening. In the second case there wasn’t even a crime to begin with, only a mentally disabled person of the type that patrol officers successfully deal with every day. Why these particular cops couldn’t handle the 120-pound man without shooting him is yet to be explained. Acting in the absence of good information, jumping to conclusions and making tactical errors are bad enough by themselves: when these three sins are combined the consequences can be deadly. Officers aren’t robots; differences in personality, experience and training can make them respond differently. Some may escalate force too quickly, others not quickly enough. Still, most are very careful about using guns; if they weren’t every traffic violator who reached for a wallet before being asked would wind up dead. What to do? Here are some commonsensical approaches to preventing needless shootings:
To advance the profession one thing is crucial: shed the cloak of denial. All those efforts spent building bridges to the community can be rendered moot in the instant it takes to squeeze that trigger. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! RELATED POSTS UPDATES 03/23/10 To settle a lawsuit Inglewood agreed to pay $2.45 million to the family of Michael Byoune and to the other two men injured in the shooting. 01/11/10 Calling for extensive reforms, the U.S. Justice Department severely criticizes Inglewood PD use of force policies, calls rules outdated and internal investigations deeply flawed Home Top Permalink Print Share this post Posted 11/16/07 ASSISTED SUICIDE IS NOT POLICE WORK! Less-than-lethal weapons can keep cops from becoming executioners By Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Four nights ago, after menacing family members with knives, an 18-year old New York City psychiatric outpatient with a violent past confronted officers responding to his mother’s frantic 9-1-1 call. In the dark, the youth drew an object from his clothing, pointed it in the cops’ direction and demanded to be killed. Four uniformed officers and a plainclothesman fired twenty shots. Ten struck and killed the boy. The item turned out to be a hairbrush. An emergency response team with less-than-lethal weapons had been summoned but was not yet on scene. The shooting continues to be heavily criticized by angry residents but is being staunchly defended by the Police Commissioner, who said that the officers were reasonably in fear of their lives. After a heavy night of partying, an 18-year old Huntington Beach, California girl stumbled home, slashed at her mother with a knife, then ran around the neighborhood, brandishing the weapon at passers-by and stabbing a tree. When two officers approached, the woman yelled "I'm on drugs, just ... kill me". Ignoring orders to drop the knife, she charged the cops. They fired, striking her fifteen times. Later, the coroner confirmed that the youth had been high on meth. When the shots rang out a third officer, who had just arrived, was loading a pepper ball launcher; a fourth was on the way with a beanbag shotgun. Citizens protested the killing as senseless but it was ruled justified by the D.A., who said that the officers were caught by surprise and had no alternative. Occurring at opposite ends of the U.S. fifteen months apart, these remarkably similar incidents are unusual only in their tragic ends. Thanks to deinstitutionalization, a lack of funding and widespread NIMBY’ism, the streets of our cities are awash with the drug-addled and mentally ill, and guess who gets to be their “counselors”? Police routinely defuse potentially violent situations without hurting anyone. Some of the credit goes to a new generation of hardware, from projectile launchers to the ubiquitous Taser. (Forget aerosol sprays, which have a very limited range and immobilizing effect.) Yes, less-than-lethal weapons can be misused (shades of MacArthur Park.) Sometimes they cause serious injury and occasionally even kill. But their benefits are on balance so compelling that no modern law enforcement agency should go without them. So why aren’t they available to those who most need them -- the cops on the beat? A few progressive agencies (Irvine, California comes to mind) go so far as to equip every patrol car with a projectile launcher. Others like LAPD and Miami strive to insure that each officer has at least a Taser. But in many agencies, including the colossal NYPD, less-than-lethal hardware is considered too specialized to distribute. Instead, these critical tools of the trade get locked up in SWAT vans and the trunks of Sergeant’s vehicles, to sit and rust. Policing is an unpredictable business, where events can -- and frequently do -- turn on a dime. If officers have nothing at hand other than a baton, a lousy can of pepper spray and a gun, what do you think’s going to come out when things get dicey? Look, it’s a no-brainer: effective less-than-lethal weapons must be readily available to every street cop. Either that, or keep using officers as executioners. Did you enjoy this post? Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index! UPDATES 03/16/09 “Suicide by cop” called a factor in four Pittsburgh-area shootings |
duty weapons when they actually meant to use a Taser. That’s not as far-fetched as it seems. Tasers commonly used by police feel and operate much like a pistol. For convenience and to keep from confusing them with real guns they’re usually worn, as Mehserle did, on one’s weak side. But while officers frequently drill with their issue handguns, which they take home, care for and not infrequently draw while on duty, they get far less practice with Tasers. That was especially true for the BART police, where the weapons were a recent innovation and, with few on hand, had to be passed from shift to shift.
Brown, a 13-year old black teen who allegedly tried to run him over with a stolen car. Chief Bratton declared the shooting “in policy” and tried to quell community furor by releasing an elaborate reconstruction of the incident 
