As a resident of Southern California, I have recently been following the shooting death of Michael Cho, a UCLA graduate. He was shot by La Habra police officers on 12/31 of last year. According to news reports, the police responded to calls of a person vandalizing cars with a tire iron. When police confronted that man, who turned out to be Cho, he refused orders to stand down, and, according to officers, made as if to strike with the tire iron. Officers fired multiple times, 11 times according to reports, killing Cho (details: http://www.whittierdailynews.com/ci_7938419). A lengthy investigation found that the officers' actions were justified, thus they will not receive any disciplinary action.
Since the shooting, and especially since the investigation report was released a few days ago, there has been an outcry amongst many in the community. Blogs in the local papers' websites have been flooded with comments and responses from people in the community. Having read many of these, I find that the majority are against the police, in favor of Cho, or rather his family. Sadly, this does not come as a shock. We have long lived in a time of distrust and skepticism of authority. John Q. Citizen feels as though it is his/her duty to criticize the actions of police officers in situations such as the incident involving the death of Cho. This being America, it is their right to speak freely on the subject. However, I feel it necessary to put things straight...
Police officers are entrusted with the enforcement of the law and the protection of the community as a whole. In this case, they responded to a call of vandalism. Upon arrival, a man brandishing a tire iron, which can be construed as a heavy, blunt weapon, refused to cooperate. Being that the subject had a weapon, officers are compelled to draw their weapons in response. His potentially lethal weapon must be matched by lethal weapons from the officers, thus they drew their sidearms. It cannot be denied that a tire iron can cause significant injury, up to and including death. When the subject, Cho, made as if to strike on of the officers, the officers in turn neutralized the situation. It is regrettable, but nonetheless, lethal force became the primary option the officers utilized to negate the threat. Hesitation in such a situation could have brought about serious injury to one of the officers, as inflicted by Cho with the tire iron. The officers' response, however, prevented such a thing from happening.
Police officers are supposed to respond with an escalation of force. An officer must use the least force necessary to neutralize a situation and effect an arrest. If a subject is physically violent, but without a weapon, officers are to used less-than-lethal means: batons, OC spray, tazers, etc. If a subject has a weapon, the status quo changes. Officers must present equal, but preferably greater force. Any missile object, i.e. a firearm, bow and arrow, crossbow, etc. is obviously a lethal weapon. Any object that can be used to slash, cut, stab, is potentially lethal, thus warrants a lethal response. Any blunt object with weight behind it, i.e. a bat, club, 2x4, tire iron, table leg, etc. can be considered a lethal weapon. Some departments even consider pool cues potentially lethal weapons. Any of these objects used against an officer or even bystander or other person warrants an officer to use deadly force to neutralize the threat.
When an officer has to make the split second decision to fire his/her weapon, the primary goal is to neutralize the threat. That means STOP the subject. The way this is taught it to aim dead-center mass. Officers are taught to aim for the biggest part of the subject's body, that being the torso. This maximizes the chance of striking the subject. Also, the torso is home to vital organs. If these are struck, the subject will be stopped sooner. Officers will not aim for arms or legs. This is no guarantee of stopping the subject. Also, officers will fire as many times as necessary to stop the threat. If the subject does not fall, officers will continue to fire until he/she is not longer a threat, i.e. lying still on the ground.
I write this because I'm tired of hearing people say, "Why didn't they just taze him?" or "Why didn't they try and shoot him in the arm or leg?" or "Why did they shoot him so many times?" People just don't get it. I'm not a police officer, but I understand their plight.
4 comments:
My gut reaction to hearing the tragic story of Michael Cho was that the police used excessive force. Once I really thought about it, however, I realized it was necessary. The tragedy, honestly, was that Cho chose not to obey police orders. However sad the story may be, people have to realize that the police have the right to defend their own lives just like anyone else. In hindsight, could they have done something differently to spare his life...possibly, but who's to say if something had been done differently one of the officers wouldn't be dead.
Well said. One can second-guess and Monday-morning-quarterback it all they want, but when it comes down to it, the actions of the police that day prevented possible harmful actions against innocent people, in this case the officers themselves.
To correct one of your factual errors, police are not required to use the least force necessary, but the force that is deemed reasonable. If a suspect was attempting to punch a police officer, the least force would be ordering the suspect to stop. If the officer did this, he or she would likely end up with an injury. The reasonable amount of force could be any number of things including punches and kicks, OC spray, taser, baton strikes, use of a police K9, etc. I prefer the K9 option in that specific situation. Regardless, I agree with your viewpoint.
Least force necessary translates to reasonable force. If verbal commands didn't result in a situation being neutralized, then the least force was used, but not the necessary force. Thus, "least force necessary" and "reasonable force" are equal in my mind.
Post a Comment