|
George T. Williams and Attorney Bruce D. Praet,
working together for years in the civil litigation defense of police
officers in Southern California, began to notice a disturbing trend in
a significant portion of their shooting cases. Typically,
officers are dispatched or called to a scene where an individual is
emotionally out of control and has engaged in some for of violence or
threatened violence--the offender may be armed with a deadly weapon or
is sitting in a motor vehicle with the engine running. They are
often under the influence of some intoxicating or illegal substance or
have some form of mental illness. The officers deploy, and have
the individual at gunpoint. The individual rages as the
officer(s) attempt to calm them. Clear instructions are often
given, telling the person how to surrender peacefully and not be shot.
Officers can see the frustration building until the person makes a
fateful decision. Almost as if the suspect says, "Screw it,"
there is movement that causes the officer(s) to fire.
Some will say this is another case of "suicide-by-cop." In
these instances, no suicide notes are found, and no family member or
friend steps forward to confirm statements or prior acts indicating
suicidal intent. Suicide-by-cop is often defined as an act
whereby a person presents a threat to a police officer in order to
compel the officer or officers to use deadly force to stop that
threat. This is clearly the case in perhaps up to 20% of
all police shootings, and might be a factor, in some studies, in up to
40%. However, suicide-by-cop is a situation where the subject
intentionally acts to force the officer(s) to shoot.
In the initial paragraph's description, the
subject did not say, "Shoot me" and then move. The suspect also
didn't just raise the gun in the direction of the officer.
Instead, it is apparent that there was a lack of caring, as if there
was an "indifference" to the consequences. Everyone at some time
in their life did something or said in the heat of the moment, "I don't care," that in a
calmer setting would never have entered their mind. For the vast
majority of us, the consequences of our poor decision-making are not
the same as when a police officer is pointing a gun at an individual
who is out of control and probably (or actually) armed. In these
instances, the decision is made, the officer is forced to fire, and
physics take over: the individual either survives the shooting
or he or she does not.
IDENTIFIED
FACTORS IN "DEATH BY INDIFFERENCE"
The following factors have been identified in
many of the shooting cases in which we have been involved. Some
of these have been universally a factor, while others have been
represented in a majority of the shootings:
- All involve situations where officers are clearly identified as
officers.
- All involve situations where the subject is clearly being held
at gunpoint with the individual engaged in some type of vehement
discussion or argument with the officer(s). The officers are
often threatening to shoot, and are giving orders that explicitly
give the individual instructions on how not to be shot.
- Virtually all involve some level of alcohol intoxication and/or
being under the influence of some drug, often methamphetamine,
and/or mental illness.
- All involve emotionally charged situations. The individual has
just found out he has a life-threatening illness, has just had a
fight with his/her spouse, has just led officers on a pursuit, or is
simply emotionally out of control or raging.
- Many involve persons with no criminal history, or just minor
scrapes with the law.
- All involve some form of violence, threatened violence, and/or
the presence of a weapon that results in the police becoming
involved.
- All involve increasing levels of offender frustration at the
lawful actions and orders of the police. The offender often
states that the officer's orders or directions are "stupid."
- Even though training a firearm at the subject, there is no real
sense of control on the part of the officer during this call.
- The incident is often slowly developing and then suddenly
changes. Officers have generally been giving orders, and may
have been gaining some level of compliance and small victories that
seemingly vanish for no reason.
- All involve the person who is being held at gunpoint clearly
making a decision that will logically result in his or her being
shot by the officer(s).
This is a important concept. The real-world
implications, especially in front of a jury, are vital in conveying
why an officer was forced to shoot. Jurors, generally,
understand that officers are forced to shoot criminals. They
simply want to understand why. If someone is shooting at the
officer, or attempting to stab the officer, the average juror can buy
the need to shoot. They will also be comfortable with the idea
of "suicide-by-cop" if it can be shown that the individual was
suicidal, left a note, or made suicidal statements either prior to or
during the incident. But juries tend to react harshly to the
idea of being forced to tell the family of a decedent that the death
was "suicide" without some form of corroboration.
When jurors can find no reasonable explanation for what the officer
said was a threatening movement that forced him to fire, they tend to
disbelieve the officer. The concept of "death by indifference"
is important for this reason. It allows the jury to understand
what happened and, importantly, why. The offender, at gunpoint,
was increasingly frustrated, and finally had had enough of the cops.
At that moment, he or she didn't care. Whether it was the drugs,
the alcohol, the mental illness, or simply the anger that was making
the decision, the offender was a threat to the officer, and the
trigger was pressed in response.
Death by Indifference is an important tool in understanding why
some police shootings occur. It can make a puzzling set of facts
clear, and can assist everyone involved, from the officer, the family,
and the juror, in getting a clear picture of what motivated the
offender at the moment he or she forced the officer to fire.
For more on "Death by Indifference,"
see the
article by George T.
Williams,
published in "Law & Order" magazine in December, 2003
|
