Let's appreciate law enforcement and respect the reality of use of deadly force
By Ron Hosko
Published January 08, 2016
Saturday, January 9 is Law Enforcement Appreciation Day.
It could not come soon enough after a tumultuous 2015 that saw law enforcement in America under extraordinary pressure -- assailed in the national media and facing criticism from many quarters. Police across America are on their heels, fearful of becoming the target of the next viral video and having their actions judged by armchair quarterbacks.
That’s why we should thank the Washington Post for an unexpected holiday gift as the year came to an end. The paper published a recent summary of fatal 2015 police shootings which reveals some realities about police use of deadly force.
Over the past year, few national news outlets could lay claim to as many anti-police articles, commentaries, cartoons, and sentiments as the Washington Post. With consistent reliability, the Post publishes blaring headlines and articles centered on raising doubt, fanning racial flames, and sowing discontent between the public and law enforcement. Whether the topic is encryption, surveillance, data collection, chases, or the use of force, the Post’s theme is consistent – “Law enforcement got it wrong. Again.”
So, what a wonderful gift when the Post showed uncharacteristic fortitude and featured a researched article, contrary to all it suggests, on the subject of police use of fatal force. What’s more, the details of the Post’s research support what many law enforcement experts have been saying for some time.
According to the Post and government data, in a typical year there will be some 40 million encounters between law enforcement officers and the populace. Against that, there will be some 50,000 assaults on police and, according to the Post, in 2015 approximately 1000 lives taken by police deadly force.
One must wonder why the Washington Post dedicates so much of its publication to the minuscule likelihood that your life or mine might be ended by police force rather than our struggling economy, terrorism, the threatening international environment, or any number of other topics having far greater impact on the public.
The Post revealed the vast majority of police encounters ending in a citizen fatality involved an armed or attacking subject - 28 percent of those who died were shooting at officers or someone else, 16 percent were attacking with other weapons or physical force, and 31 percent were pointing a gun.
Out of these millions of police encounters during the past year, just 90 people (9%) killed by police in 2015 were unarmed. And those 90 were disproportionately minorities.
Evidently it was at this point that the Post’s research concluded. Without questioning the misguided and criminal actions of those, like Michael Brown, who undertook unarmed attacks on police, and without examining or discussing the realities of crime in America which demonstrates that blacks are disproportionately victims as well as perpetrators, the Post offers its expected refrain - racism is at work.
The truth is that violent encounters between citizens and police are complex and can hardly explained monolithically or with the Post's default viewpoint. In fact, criminality and crime fighting is far more complex; our criminal justice system and its many failings is a reflection of that reality.
Americans need to know that good police leaders are working overtime to change cultures, learn from the mistakes of others, and inspire the troops to greater community engagement.
They are keenly aware of the dangerous intersection of mental illness and use of force episodes, welcoming body cameras that might mitigate risks both toward and by citizens. But too many of them are underfunded, under trained, under equipped, and under led. For too many law officers, the injection of resources and training will come only after a crisis as local governments tasked with funding issues play “chicken” with the possibility of becoming the next Ferguson or the next Baltimore.
Let’s hope the Washington Post and other news outlets across the country report more of the truth regarding the challenges of law enforcement, especially in places where the benefits of government, society and family have failed.
And if you see a law enforcement officer Saturday, take a moment to express thanks or appreciation for the work they do to keep our communities safe.
Ron Hosko is president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, and former assistant director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Executive Assistant with an attitude - can-do! Chaos, deadlines don't stand a chance! (Meyers Briggs: ENTJ)
9 年Great article! I wish the media would listen, worry more about what's right, lives than ratings.
NRA Concealed Carry Weapon training to satisfy state requirements, Former Lethal Weapons & Training Act #235 Lead Instructor at Luzerne County Community College, Public Safety Training Institute
9 年JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE IN POLICE WORK, As a 28 year veteran of police work in Philadelphia and Northampton County Pa, spanning a period from 1965 to 2012 I have seen major changes in the way the use of force is interpreted by the general public, the legal community, the left wing nut’s, and the media. However, the actual description of when and how a police officer can use force has not changed over the years, and is actually very simple to understand. There are two areas where the use of force is broken down. The first is Use of force in making an arrest, and the second is Use of Deadly Force to prevent anyone from committing serious bodily injury or death to someone, including the officer. In addition, the use of deadly force is justifiable when an officer is in fear that an assailant is attempting to disarm the officer, or commit serious bodily harm or injury to that same officer. Police officers are not paid to be hurt, or incur injury while keeping the peace. That is why we give them a tool belt to carry their equipment so they have access to their tools when necessary. Their tools can consist of handcuffs, flashlight, Pepper Spray, Tazer, Baton or A.S.P., pen knife, firearm and ammunition, and radio. An officer has the legal authority and responsibility to keep the peace and arrest those who violate our laws. They are not required to accept physical punishment, assaults, touching, pushing away moves, refusal to comply verbal statements, refusal to comply and refusal to stop moving of the hands of the suspect so that the officer can properly secure the arrestee. Every one of these moves, or refusals is a violation of the law called “Resisting Arrest”. The Pennsylvania Crimes Code states” A peace officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest”, except in these cases he cannot use deadly force! The next step up from the above paragraph is the Use of Deadly Force to prevent serious bodily injury or death to either the officer or anyone the officer is attempting to protect from that assault. Some examples of the use of deadly force are, you approach an officer with a swinging baseball bat, or an open bladed knife, or a length of swinging bicycle chain in your hand, or you take the officers Baton or A.S.P. away from him and then come at him with the intent to use these items on the officer, or anyone else, or you assaulted the officer physically and then tried to disarm the officer by reaching for his holstered firearm. Well you just brought yourself to a gun fight. The officer in all circumstances listed has the authority to use deadly force upon you because you were going to use deadly force or cause serious injury to that officer. By law the officer does not have to retreat or desist in his attempts to subdue and arrest you. Now the legal system, the public in general, the left wing nuts, and the left wing nut media have caused law enforcement to insert more safeguards into the justifiable use of force than the actual law describes. Law enforcement must justify every step of escalation of the use of force to counter the escalating use of resistance of the subject. I say you are under arrest, turn around and put your hands behind you so I can secure you and prevent you from injuring me. You refuse, but don’t move. That is passive resistance and I can use hands on physical force to make you comply. Next you pull away from me and start to move around waving your hands in protest. That is active resistance and I can now go to a more physical level of force to make you comply. Next you put your hands on me and hold me away from you, and now we are in a fur ball because you just assaulted me, so I now can use one of my tools such as Pepper Spray. Next you push me, and the level of assault on an officer has just escalated. I now upgrade the use of my tools and can use my Baton or A.S.P. to strike you to make you stop resisting and assaulting me. If you grab for my Baton or A.S.P. and try to take it away from me the level of assault has risen to the level of a gun fight because if I allow you to have one of these tools I may not wake up tomorrow. Please keep in mind the two following things I am about to tell you. The first thing is that you the suspect or subject are in control of the escalation of the incident. You dictate to me how far you want to go in your resistance and assault on an officer. I only respond or meet your escalation with just enough force to overcome your next level of escalation. The second thing is that I am not paid to be a punching bag. If you are upset about the arrest you can complain to the judge, my superior, the media, get an attorney and file suit, but STOP TRYING TO HURT ME, I AM NOT PAID TO ACCEPT INJURY.
Retired Police Chief Willistown Township (Pa)
9 年Great article; good timing. I'll be sharing it with my "Intro to Criminal Justice" class in a couple of weeks. Thanks for sharing Bob.