The only information available to the general public concerning the decision to use force by police comes from entertainment television and media outlets. That is both mis and dis-information.
The “decision” to use force by police officers is rarely an action. When it is an action, it is usually wrong. Rather, it is a response to the action of another (albeit a reaction), and in such cases it almost always correct. The legal standard by which use of force must be judged is whether it is reasonable and necessary. In the context of this discussion the definitions of these terms is reversed. “Reasonable” is an objective term because it can be judged by what a reasonable person would do in a like circumstance. Conversely, “necessary” is a subjective term because people legitimately have differing viewpoints over what is and is not necessary.
To illustrate this point, a recent incident in Grand Prairie, Texas serves well. At the conclusion of a police chase, the suspect exits his vehicle and points his hand holding a black object which he points at the officer. Clearly, it would be reasonable for an officer to perceive a threat level justifying a deadly force response. As the officer chose not to fire, the relevance of whether or not it was necessary is open to debate.
An analogy of the process can best be explained using sports officials. In football, the quarterback throw a pass to the sideline. The receiver makes a circus catch stepping out of bounds. The official, standing mere feet away, rules that the player did not have both feet in-bounds and the pass is incomplete. After review of the video replay, it can be seen that the player actually got both feet inbounds and the call is reversed. Without getting into a discussion of video evidence, it becomes clear that the sideline official could not have seen what the lens saw.
In a confrontation between a police officer and a suspect, there is no reversal of the decision made. It therefore must be judged on the information available to the officer and whether a reasonable police officer would have acted in the same way.
The United States Supreme Court has written the rules by which police officers must be judged when using force. In the first case, Tennessee v Garner, the Court struck down the fleeing felon laws in the United States. In order for deadly force to be justified, the suspect must present an immediate and imminent threat to police officer(s) or some other person OR the suspect must have demonstrated some behavior that makes escape would pose imminent danger to others if not captured immediately.
The other case is titled Graham v Connor. In Graham the Court said that the use of force must be based upon what a reasonable officer would do in a like circumstance. The Court specifically identified the fact that decisions are made in split-seconds and Courts should give deference to the decisions made in the heat of the moment.
A formula was created in the 1970’s called “The one-up theory.” It authorized one level above the level of resistance. If an offender uses verbal resistance, the officer could use physical force to gain compliance. If the offender uses physical violence, the officer could then use less than lethal force (chemical mace, stun gun, or impact weapon). If the offender uses any weapon, then deadly force is authorized.
The advent of the EMD (electro-muscular dysfunction device) best known by its manufacturer name (Taser) changed the dynamic and became the replacement to physical force because it reduced the risk of injury to both officers and offenders.
In summation, it is the actions of the offender that determines the level of force which is used. Compliance does not require any force and the place to argue the outcome is not in the street. That is what Courts are for. Perhaps a situation that occurred in the NCAA basketball tournament best explains what has been written here. In the Northwestern-Gonzaga game a Northwestern player put up a shot that was blocked. Play continued until the coach of Northwestern came onto the floor screaming and waving his arms. He was immediately ejected from the game. Replay showed that the Gonzaga player had his arm inside the basket and the points should have counted. The NCAA issued a statement apologizing for the mistake made by the officiating crew, but it did not change the outcome and no apology was issued for the ejection of the coach. The coach knew (or should have known) that going onto the floor would have consequences and his actions only hurt his team. The decision of the officials would not be reversed during the game.
As always, Mr. Andrews makes valid points regarding when use of force can and cannot be used during a police action. The challenge that police officers have today is “Police Legitimacy” better known as public perception. Police officers action can be perfectly legal in the eyes of the law but can be seen as illegitimate by the citizens that they serve. To put it more bluntly, the problem law enforcement has is that the people that need their services the most, the minority community, trust them the least.
According to a nationwide Gallup poll 75 percent of White Americans believe law police officers treat everyone the same while only 35 percent of Black Americans believe this to be true. 80 percent of Black Americans also believe that the killings of black men is a symptom of a larger problem, while only 54 percent of White Americans believe this to be true.
I wish I had a simple solution but it really comes down to treating everyone with dignity, fairness and respect; and building relationships one person at a time.