Homeless in Arizona

Why do police shoot? An officer explains

This article seems to give us the usual BS that civilians are just to stupid to understand why cops murder people. And because of that civilians should always assume the police murders are justified.

Too often, officers' actions are judged by a society that does not understand the dynamics or the legal standard for determining if the actions were appropriate.

Us civilians will be held accountable for our actions and will be severally punished if we kill an unarmed, innocent person we thought to be a criminal.

The author seems to say the police should not be held to the same high standard, and should not be held accountable when they kill unarmed innocent people that thought to be criminals.

Sadly prosecutors agree with this and rarely charge cops with murder, when a civilian would be charged. Same goes for judges who drop the charges against cops who are charged with murder.

The author also seems to think that cops have a legal right to stop anybody they suspect of being a criminal in his example of a suspected story robbery.

That is 100% BS. The police can ONLY stop people when they have either "probable cause" that a crime was committed, or "reasonable suspicion" that a person was involved in a crime.

And based on the example the author gave it doesn't sound like the cop had either "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" to stop the person.

In fact years ago when I was taking a class for a concealed carry permit, the cop who was teaching the class gave us a similar example.

But that cops conclusion was that based on the facts he gave us you could NOT assume a crime had been committed. And he say if you shot and killed the person you thought was the robber, you would be charged with murder.

Source

Why do police shoot? An officer explains

Lon Bartel, AZ I See It 5:12 p.m. MST June 24, 2016

There's a clear standard in use of force cases - and it takes into account our very human reactions to potential violence.

Allegations of excessive use of force by police can capture national headlines and result in feelings of fear, disbelief and mistrust in our communities.

As with all things, some claims are accurate and many other police use-of-force incidents are legally and morally justified. Nevertheless, some officers are vilified and their careers destroyed.

So how does society distinguish between excessive force and actions justified under the law?

Too often, officers' actions are judged by a society that does not understand the dynamics or the legal standard for determining if the actions were appropriate.

The blame for that falls squarely on law-enforcement agencies. They must do more to educate the public about use-of-force incidents.

Too much force? There's a clear standard

The United States Supreme Court decided Graham vs. Connor in 1989, establishing the legal standard that governs all police use-of-force incidents.

The court held that all claims that officers used excessive force during an arrest should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "reasonableness" standard.

All high-ranking law enforcement officials, who are supposed to evaluate their officers' actions, should be familiar with the landmark case. And yet, testifying in a court case a few years back, even an Arizona police chief, former Phoenix Police Chief Daniel Garcia, said he wasn't familiar with Graham v. Connor.

Within the guidelines of the Graham ruling, police have a variety of force options for officers, including:

Whether officers are justified in the use of a specific option is governed by state statutes, internal department policy and case law such as Graham.

Was it a robbery? We don't always know

A vehicle pulls up to a convenience store. The passenger enters the store. Moments later he exits, and the vehicle speeds off. It appears the officer just witnessed a robbery. The officer stops the vehicle and the passenger claims he is diabetic. The officer has no formal medical training, but his experience has shown that often a store robbery involves weapons. While trying to contact the store, the officer can’t let the vehicle or the passengers leave until he knows if a crime occurred.

Later, it's revealed the suspect was undergoing diabetic shock. He'd asked his friend to drive him to the store to purchase something to correct his blood sugar. He went inside the store but saw a long line and abruptly left. He returned to the car and told his friend to drive.

Although entirely innocent, any reasonable officer would have suspected a possible robbery. This was the Graham case that played out a quarter-century ago.

'Reasonable' doesn't include hindsight

The ruling cautioned, "The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."

That warning seems even more relevant today when body cameras allow everyone to watch a situation after the fact — after details are known and without the threat of the unknown that the officer faced.

The Graham ruling tells us that an officer’s actions don’t have to be right; they have to be reasonable. Officers are subject to the same limitations of all humans.

In Arizona, state law provides the foundation for police use of force. It dictates when an officer can use deadly force, such as when the officer reasonably believes that it is necessary to defend himself or a third person from the "use or imminent use of a deadly force."

There are limits to our perception

What should society reasonably expect from the average human being and police officers in use-of-force situations?

Certainly, we cannot accept actions borne from prejudice or malice. However, there is a difference between errors in judgment and errors in perception. An officer's perception can be wrong with no malice or error in judgement, for example, because of poor lighting or initial reports of a gun.

We must also consider the limits and frailties of human performance.

The human body is an amazing organism made up of complex systems. Our five senses and endocrine system are brought into play during use-of-force dynamics. Information floods in. The brain processes and comes up with reactions that involve a complex interaction of muscles, eyes and brain.

The stress of deadly force encounters can cause pupil dilation, increases in heart rate, breathing, strength and endurance, and decreases in fine motor skills and cognitive function. The phrase “scared out of my mind” applies. From an evolutionary perspective, the “flight or fight” response prepares humans to perform at high levels in primal combat.

Officers must train against compromised decision-making that biologically comes with high-stress levels. Rigorous training puts officers in stressful environments and forces them to make decisions. This "stress inoculation” is vital.

How stressed brains filter out info

But we are human.

After a deadly force encounter, an officer undergoes a scene walk-through where they tell the criminal investigator and internal police investigator what happened. Sometimes an officer responds with “I don’t know” to the questions. The officer legitimately may not have seen what was captured on his or her body camera. If we don't look directly at it, we don’t see everything in front of us. And in high-stress encounters, the brain filters out what it deems unimportant and focuses on details believed most critical to survival.

Residents often ask: "Why didn’t the officer shoot the subject in the arm or leg?”

Intentionally shooting someone in a small area like the leg is unbelievably difficult. The stress levels that occur in use-of-force encounters cause chemical releases that alter our vision and make it hard to focus on the sights of the gun. These chemicals work against us in correctly manipulating the pistol’s five-pound trigger without moving the sights off target.

It happens in the blink of an eye

Police use-of-force incidents are rapidly changing situations that often begin and end in a span of seconds.

One Valley agency has video of an officer firing 10 center hits in two seconds on a range target at a distance of seven yards. Factoring in a response time to the moment the target appeared of 0.4 of a second, that means this officer cycled the trigger on his gun every .16 seconds.

Scientific research shows the average blink of an eye is 0.3 to 0.4 of a second.

Lon Bartel is a 19-year police officer and is president of the Peoria Police Officers Association. He’s a founding member of the Arizona Tactical Officers Association, has trained officers and has testified about the reasonableness of officers’ actions at numerous court and legal proceedings.