A rock and a hard place
Cosmictraveler said:
Police today are in a conundrum, they are trying to help in many instances but are caught up in a legal web of uncertainty in doing their jobs. They have to evaluate whatever it is they are exposed to in a matter of seconds and take an action or non action that they will be respponsibe for. That action could lead to their demise, being sued, being released from duty, getting hurt or their being called a hero.
If that conundrum proves too much, what next? Consider, for a moment, the
story about the autistic teen. According to the AP article, "... a deputy fired the Taser after a second car had to swerve."
Questions spring to mind: where was the deputy in relation to the teen? How far out in the road was the kid? Do autistics commonly display superhuman strength? Could the deputy have positioned his car to prevent oncoming traffic from reaching the teen? Or was it the convenient way to bring the kid under control without mussing his hair or exposing himself to risk?
Thus: When one applies to be a police officer, do they expect that they will never face possible injury? Should such a candidate even bother applying?
Is part of the job of a police officer to take one for the team if the circumstance demands it? It would seem so, except that in recent years many law-and-order folks have used some fairly squeamish excuses to justify police violence. To revisit a couple of my topic post points:
(2) Seattle, Washington: Police surround a mentally-retarded man suspected of robbing a convenience store with a kitchen knife. The man walks slowly, nonchalantly down the sidewalk with a half-circle of police officers at least twenty-five feet away. The man stops and turns around. An officer fears for his life and shoots the suspect, killing him.
With a minimum of twenty-five feet between officers and suspect, I would think that stopping one's progress and turning to face in another direction isn't exactly an imminent threat to life and limb. I actually went out in the street one night with a friend, paced off twenty-five feet, and, with him imitating a shooter's stance, attempted to turn around and cover the twenty-five feet as fast as I could. I got two steps, maybe ten feet, before he yelled, "Bang!"
(3) Seattle, Washington: A suspect attempts to flee a traffic stop. The nearest officer grabs onto the car as it pulls away. Fearing for his partner's life, a second officer fires past the other, killing the driver.
Okay, draw a line straight backwards off the driver's side of a car. Imagine someone
hanging onto the car as it moves accelerates away from you. Now imagine a second line from the driver to you: at what angle would you feel confident shooting past the person hanging onto the side of the car to hit the driver in the head? The underlying issue is that the shooter felt his partner was in imminent danger. I would propose two considerations. First, that it's not such a bad idea for the partner to
let go of the freakin' car. Secondly, if you're afraid for a person's safety, isn't shooting past them at a moving target just a little bit risky
vis a vis that person's safety? Consider the assertion:
I was afraid for his safety, so I elevated that risk to his safety.
And to revisit a tale I've told before:
Police in Seattle, pursuing what they believe to be a stolen police cruiser, lose sight of the target vehicle. Topping the hill, they reacquire their target and ram the car. Unfortunately, not having confirmed their target, they have rammed a fellow cruiser searching for the imposter car. That officer, believing himself under attack by the imposter, opens fire at the car that struck him. The officers in the first car return fire. Nobody was hurt. (
see SeattleTimes.com for detail)
People might cite adrenaline, or fear, or any number of factors, but is it really too much to ask that the police know who they're engaging?
In general, the rush to exonerate the police on principle often overlooks the idea that among the obligations of being a police officer is that one must endure extraordinary danger in the line of duty.
If someone turning around and looking at you is cause for deadly violence, or if the possibility that someone might possibly have a gun and might possibly be reaching for it (I carry my wallet in my jacket, and must reach inside to retrieve it) means a cop should shoot, we've reached a bad point. If the cops expect to do dangerous work without ever having to face danger, they ought not be cops.
Don't get me wrong, here. I see the conundrum. But if policy or sentiment elevates the protectors of society to such a point that they should cause danger to society or its members in order to protect themselves first and foremost, are they really protecting anything
but themselves? Are they really, at that point, performing the service they've asked to be entrusted with?