A number of things happened over the summer while I was largely on hiatus from blogging. Some of those things happened in Ferguson, Missouri.
I probably would not have blogged about Ferguson in any event because, like you, I don’t know the facts and the facts make all the difference. But I do want to share this remarkable blog post from the remarkable writer and law enforcement officer Chris Hernandez, who knows a lot more than most of us about the use of deadly force in general.
Hernandez makes a number of factual assertions for which I cannot, of course, vouch, but I think his perspective is both eye-opening and important. I encourage you to read this.
The maddening part is just how obvious all of this is. I have no particular expertise here, but just about every argument he gave here occurred to me as well, although the details he adds strengthens the arguments further. Of course an unarmed man can dangerous. Of course you don’t just fire one shot and let the suspect continue advancing while you decide whether you need to take another. Of course the decedent’s friend is of questionable reliability as a witness. Of course the fact that the decedent had a criminal record makes the officer’s story more plausible, regardless of whether he knew.
People are saying all manner of nonsense that doesn’t stand up to a moment’s scrutiny, because it’s just that important that everyone know that their hearts are in the right place.
The shooting of Brown may or may not have been justified. Public skepticism surrounding law enforcement use of force and accountability is eminently justified.
I found his followup post much more interesting: http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/09/09/healing-the-rift-between-police-and-the-public/
…the fact that the decedent had a criminal record makes the officer’s story more plausible, regardless of whether he knew.”
The sad fact is that we live in a country that makes sure that a high percentage of black males will have a criminal record.
+1 for Ron. The follow-up post was really good.
My take on the whole Ferguson fiasco is more to do with the reaction of government police toward peaceful protesters. Apparently, it was as though the government police do not understand the concept of protesting governmental overreach and abuse of power and authority. And by the way, regarding the looting of businesses, that was when the police were a no-show. Instead, they were preoccupied with their being hell-bent on suppressing the peaceful protests by use of a Soviet-like militarized de facto army.
Good article, I enjoyed it.
He spends a great deal of time addressing why shooting is often times more necessary than people naively think, and explaining why alternatives like pepper spray, negotiation and a baton won’t do the trick, even against an unarmed suspect.
His arguments on that front sounded logical and reasonable, but what was hanging in the back of my head the whole time I was reading it, and what I wish he had addressed, is the counter argument that countries besides the USA have their police resort to shooting less frequently without any noticeable increased danger to their officers.
Whether that argument has merit or not (I can think of a thousand reasons why it might not) is a question I’d really like answered by someone more informed than me. Is its claim correct, and if so what is the explanation?
+1 for ron as well.
This article does not go into all the circumstances before and after the incident that caused the problems. (The fact that the city lives off fines for petty violations and the fact the the police showed up with an army.) Those things still need to be and deserve to be discussed.
The follow up gives good commentary on those issues.
Hernandez demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the shooting COULD have been justified.
You could probably go through the hundreds of killings by the police each year and prove the same thing.
But the US police kill more people per capita than most Western European countries by a huge factor (in many countries the annual number is zero!). Its hard to believe that that there are simply that many more “justifications” in the US than those countries. Its hard not to believe that the US police have not set the bar too low and in their favor as to what constitutes a justified killing.
Isn’t the conspicuous lack of known facts enough for comment? In 2014, why are dash and vest cams not mandatory? That is what the rioters should be chanting for: transparency and then accountability.
Rob Rawlings: Why does a difference between the US and Western Europe automatically prove that the US is wrong and Western Europe is right? You say:
Its hard not to believe that the US police have not set the bar too low and in their favor as to what constitutes a justified killing.
How do we know that Western Europe hasn’t set the bar too high?
Rob R:
I don’t know the numbers but one often hears that there are more murders in the US than in most companies. IF that is true then it is reasonable to assume there will be more killings by police because we live in a more violent society
In the follow-up ron provided note the discussion of drug law enforcement. Cross-country comparisons of “societal violence” need account for this as well
Steve/khodge,
Its clear that conditions the police face are different in US than Europe (more guns, probably more violence-orientated culture etc) so you would probably expect the police to “set the bar lower” for reasons of self defense, ability to recruit etc. And even if the bar wasn’t set lower there would probably be more situations where the violence was justified , even judged by European standards.
So its probably harder to call than my first comment implied: But , anecdotally, you see so many reports where the police’s justification is called into question in the US that I still find it hard to believe that “the bar being set too low” isn’t a a major contributor to this. When I lived in the UK every death-by-police was national news and often led to high level investigations – here its business-as-usual. And there are plenty of armed nasty criminals in the UK too.
Police officer’s article makes good use of anecdotal evidence to give proper perspective.
Particularly effective was the story of the 17 year old who beat a police officer to death.
I tried googling “17 year old not beating a police officer to death” and to my surprise all the articles were about beatings.
Given that you’d be hard pressed to find an article about a 17 not beating a police officer, I can see how we should take this into account as part of a national conversation about Ferguson.
Perhaps next you can direct us to an article about someone who cautions against not investing in the stock market because he lost everything after investing 100% of his assets in Enron. And then you would of course what to state how the person’s perspective is eye-popping and important.
@Sealander
“Isn’t the conspicuous lack of known facts enough for comment? In 2014, why are dash and vest cams not mandatory?”
Re bodycams, here are some general concerns. I’m not saying they outweigh the reasons to wear them: They probably should; and most want to. Nor is this a detailed list or apology: It’s a comment, made via iPhone, to a blog post. These, however, are not purely hypothetical concerns.
1. Concerns that viewers will give undue weight to a video from a single angle.
Think instant replay in the NFL. Was the ref right? The collective footage will show definitively that the runner didn’t step out of bounds. Good call, ref! But, if there’s just one angle, e.g., from the backside at field-level, no matter how much you explain parallax, etc., many fans will conclude the ref blew the call. Unbiased evidence doesn’t mean it’s not misleading.
2. How can anyone miss the gorilla?
When Tony Stewart ran over that driver this summer, the debate was largely whether that driver was in TS’s field of view. Even if he were, just as relevant is whether he *noticed* him (i.e., or was he a so-called “invisible gorilla”). Similarly, police are often confronted with information overload, especially in tactical scenarios. They see things you miss, and miss things you’d notice. For example, LEOs (as were, for many years, army SOF personnel) are often trained to focus (too much) on a suspect’s hands. The result has often meant poor target discrimination. Police officers would see a “weapon” and fire a couple of rounds before their brain said “Wait…A fellow cop.” Once people know what happens and watch the FP, limited perspective video in slow motion, it’s hard to believe anyone could have missed what was right in front of his eyes.
3. Like students and their growing dependence on laptops in the classroom.
Some LEO find themselves positioning in a way that makes obtaining the best footage ahead of officer safety. Occasionally, this comes as a ill-advised recommended TTP. Others worry it will be the go-to re reports, rather than a tool to to verify and enhance their observations and notes re scenes and statements.
4. They’re called Google Glass-holes for a reason.
There are concerns that cameras will change the psychology of encounters in a bad way, perhaps discouraging someone from approaching officers with tips or concerns as the video could eventually be made public.
5. Not to mention storage costs.
Frankly, the government isn’t supposed to keep information on people that isn’t about crime. For example, some cities have general orders that data (flagged or not) shall be kept for several years. Imagine the plausible worst-case scenario: The cops enter your name or photograph to get every bit of video footage in which you appeared over the last 5 years to find things that could be used against you.
6. Would you want the police reviewing every second of your driving looking for any minor infraction?
If review of video by commanding officers becomes routine, the effect on morale would be significant if it’s used to search for / discipline re minor infractions.
In short, given that departments hew to protocol like a castaway on a plank (see e.g., Ferguson), questions remain about precisely when they should be turned on and off, and the discretion officers have, and what becomes of the countless hours of video footage. Self-serving interests aside, LEOs are often privy to the worst day of someone’s life. Recording means that day could eventually be leaked to TMZ, the Enquirer, etc. For many LEOs, that’s beyond grotesque.
As suggested readings related to the issues brought up by Ferguson go, you might also want to read this long but engaging Washington Post piece by Radley Balko: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/03/how-st-louis-county-missouri-profits-from-poverty/
And this Cato event hosted by Tim Lynch: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/lessons-from-ferguson/id111529811?i=318869211&mt=2
@Rob Rawlings:
You can’t compare Western Europe and the US in this regard. There don’t appear to be official statistics on how many policemen are killed by lawbreakers each year in Germany for example, but it looks like it’s on the order of 0.5 p.a. That is, 1 German policeman is intentionally killed every two years or so. In the US, you end up with maybe 80 over a two-year period. Adjusting for the size of the population, the fatality rate is perhaps 20 times as high in the US, despite the fact that US policemen are much better armored (literaly) and much more careful in their procedures than German policemen. The reason is simple: many criminals in the US carry or possess a firearm, while very few criminals in Germany do.
To a very large degree, the fact that the bar for killing civilians is so much lower in the US is a simple result of the risks to policemen being much higher in the US.
@Advo
What would happen if the German police wanted to further reduce the number of cops killed? They change their rules of engagement and “lower the bar” on the circumstances they are allowed to shoot suspects and as a result the number of civilians killed goes up by 10 times.
Would this help reduce the number of cop deaths ? Of course I don’t know , but its not too much of a stretch to think that it might actually make German criminal more trigger-happy and inclined to “retaliate first” and police deaths might actually increase.
It seems obvious to me that the “lower the bar” in terms of police procedures that allow the use of potential violence, the more civilian deaths there will be as a result – but (I would argue) it may also add to more police deaths as well, as it contributes to a situation where both police and civilians operate in a situation where “first use” may be the winning strategy.
Steve, an interesting take, but the author says he hasn’t formed an opinion yet. Keep us posted if he ever writes something that gives some insight into his views!
Steve,
Thank you for the post and comments about my essay, and please feel free to email me if you have any specific questions. I’m eagerly awaiting the release of further information as the investigation progresses. If additional information shows Officer Wilson shot Brown without justification, I’ll support his prosecution. If investigation shows the incident happens as I think it did, I’ll throw my support behind Brown. Even if a no-bill means riots break out nationwide.
+1 JohnC
I had thought body cams a slam dunk. Your list is a half dozen things I hadn’t even thought of.
#1. An important point is that the victim did *not* have a criminal record.
#10. What criteria may we use to decide if the bar is set too low or too high?
The consequences of the bar being to low are clear – too many innocent or non-dangerous victims of police shootings. But what are the consequences of the bar too high? Too many police getting killed or injured? Too many criminals not apprehended after confrontations?
As a casual observer it appear more like a bar-too-low situation, but it would be a fruitful area to discuss how we could tell.
I recently saw footage of another incident where a man was killed by police because he was acting strangely and aggressively. The police drew up close to him and challenged him, he aggressively approached them and they shot and killed him. The police may argue that they were justified because he was a danger to them – which he probably was at that moment. If they had dealt with the situation in a less confrontational way it is very likely that it could have been diffused without killing. In the UK, for example, it is vanishingly unlikely that it would have ended in death. If the police know they are armed and can use the guns whenever they are threatened, they do not have an incentive to avoid situations where lethal force is necessary.
#22, The decedent (“victim” carries unnecessary baggage) did not apparently have a criminal record, but did (also apparently) just commit a crime involving violence. Known or not by the officer, that is a relevant piece of information.
#23. Then that is what should be said instead of the incorrect assertion that he had a criminal record.
#24 agreed.
To the extent that criminal pasts are relevant, and I do believe they are, a very recent crime (as we apparently had here) is far more important to me Bayesian update than a juvenile record (as was alleged).