The latest police use-of-force controversy centers around the case of Ramarley Graham of the Bronx. The details are still coming together, but evidently the NYPD was investigating a drug deal and suspected Graham was involved. They also suspected he was armed — according to various accounts, officers either saw him adjusting his waistline in a suspicious manner, or thought they saw the butt of a gun protruding from his pants. When two officers pulled up alongside him in a car and yelled at him to stop, he ducked into his nearby apartment building, and they gave chase.
The two officers, joined by two others, followed him into his apartment — in the bathroom of which, apparently, he was trying to flush his marijuana down the toilet. When an officer yelled “Show me your hands!” he allegedly reached for his waistline instead. The officer yelled “Gun! Gun!” and shot him, fatally.
It turns out that Graham was unarmed. Judging by the information currently available, the situation eerily parallels that of Amadou Diallo — another unarmed man who went for his pocket when NYPD officers told him to show his hands.
Few people saw or even heard what happened, so we may never know the full truth. But for many of those expressing outrage, the fact that Graham was unarmed seems in itself to prove that the officers acted badly. Why didn’t they wait until they were sure he had a gun before firing?
Because by the time an officer can positively identify a firearm, there isn’t enough time left to react. In fact, even in training drills where officers know what to expect, they cannot pull the trigger fast enough when a suspect tries to shoot them.
Here is one such study. (More details in this report.) In it, the suspect (played by a young criminal-justice student) started with his gun pointed away from the officer, and the officer (played by an experienced SWAT officer) started with his gun pointed at the suspect. The suspect then either surrendered or tried to shoot the officer. When the suspect fired, he was typically able to do so before the officer — even though the latter’s gun was already readied and aimed.
The bottom line is that once a suspect has produced a gun, he can shoot an officer faster than the cop can respond. In fact, the most talented shooters can unholster a weapon and fire it in less than the average human’s reaction time. And if the suspect’s gun starts out concealed, you can add some precious milliseconds for the cop to positively ID the firearm. The only real option for an officer who wants to survive such a confrontation is for him to shoot when a suspect disobeys an order to show his hands and instead reaches for his waist — especially when the suspect is already thought to be carrying a gun.
The official police policies I’ve consulted, including the NYPD’s, respect this reality. They require that an officer have reason to believe the suspect is about to cause death or serious injury to the officer or another person; they do not require that officers divine information their senses do not reveal.
It is, of course, tragic when an unarmed man is shot by police. But police can act only on the information that’s available to them, and when that information is “I told this guy to show me his hands, and instead he’s reaching for his waistline,” one can hardly expect him not to shoot.
Again, I don’t mean for this to be a full-throated defense of the officers in this particular case; I have no idea what actually happened. I merely aim to point out that Graham’s being unarmed is not proof of police misconduct.
There is a similar demonstration of a suspect pulling a knife and attacking an officer who draws to shoot. The suspect wins every time inside 21 feet.
But maybe that's not the issue. What if the police managed the situation better? The guy was cornered in the bathroom and flushed marijuana down the toilet. They could have waited out side and had him come out with the understanding that if he bolts, etc. they will think he is armed and shoot. I don't think the police were wrong altogether, but the point here is that the possession of marijuana is not a capital offense and the guy was cornered. The guy acted stupidly without being more cooperative, but it was the lack of patience is what killed him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is long past time to end the drug war. There's nothing conservative about it, assuming of course, that "conservatives" actually mean any of that stuff about "limited government," "individual liberty," "respecting the 10th Amendment," "opposing the 'nanny-state'," and "ending hugely-expensive government programs with a proven track record of failure." In addition to causing tragedies like the one described here, the war on drugs has only empowered and enriched organized crime, fueled gang violence, promoted official corruption, wasted trillions of dollars we don't have, undermined respect for the law, made the drugs more dangerous, grown government, shrunk human freedom, eroded our 4th Amendment and other constitutional liberties, turned millions of ordinary Americans into criminals, and driven a huge wedge between the police and the communities they're supposed to "serve and protect." And even if you're not ready to "legalize" (i.e. tax and regulate) all drugs, cannabis (the drug at issue in this case) is a no-brainer. It is BY FAR the most popular illicit drug, and it is, by every objective measure, infinitely safer than the primarily alternative, alcohol. Unlike alcohol, cannabis is non-toxic (impossible to fatally overdose on), not physically addictive, not associated with increased mortality, and it does not promote violent behavior. (Alcohol, as a disinhibitor is a MASSIVE contributor to violence. It's involved in something like half of all violent crimes and 70% of domestic abuse cases.) And cannabis relegalization is also inevitable. In 1969, the first year that Gallup began polling Americans' support for cannabis legalization, only 12% of Americans supported it. In the mid-90's that number crept up to 24%. Last year, support hit 50% and continues to grow FAST. (The Internet era has not been kind to the drug warriors and their propaganda.) This idiocy can't end soon enough.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust a few days ago, a criminal shot an NYPD officer in the head. Police have a right to assume a criminal is armed if he reaches into his pants.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIdiot, because the NYPD said the kid acted suspicously and flushed weed down the toilet doesn't make it true. Also moron, he is not a criminal unless he is convicted for a crime, was he convicted?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs there any evidence, besides the officer's ex post facto say so, that the suspect reached for his pocket when told to raise his hands? The officers know that people will make excuses for them if they make a plausible sounding excuse for their blind supporters to hang their hat on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI will give you a personal account for myself. When I was in college me and two friends went to a liquor store in a pickup. When we pulled up there was a cop car getting gas. I jumped out of the back and went to the window of the pickup to get money from my friends. Unknown to me the police saw me getting money and thought a drug deal was going down. They were behind me with guns pulled, but I didn't hear them say anything and put the money in my jacket pocket which was in front of me and had my hands there. They ran up to me and as I turned around they had their guns to my head. Yelling at me for not putting my hands up ect and that they could have shot me for that. Now if the police would have shot me because I "could have drawn a gun faster than them" I would have been another innocent victim of the failed war on drugs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf he hadn't been "up to something" he'd be alive now. Innocent people don't run from the police.
Of course, if we had reasonable drug laws he wouldn't have been shot over his marijuana, if that's really what happened.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If he hadn't been "up to something" he'd be alive now."
Tell that to Amadou Diallo. He was reaching for his wallet and was shot 41 times. He was a (legal) recent immigrant from Ghana and with lots of police shouting at him (for no reason, as it turns out), he did what he thought they wanted. And died.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, you didnt read the article? "He was reaching for his wallet and was shot 41 times. He was a (legal) recent immigrant from Ghana and with lots of police shouting at him (for no reason, as it turns out), he did what he thought they wanted. And died."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo your beef is that the NYPD didnt deploy a mind reader. Or that the cops should just assume when someone reaches for something in their pants, they just dont speak English. There are four possible outcomes to something like this. 1. Cops confront someone who reaches for something. Everyone holds fire, and it turns out to be his wallet. Everyone has a big laugh. 2. Cops confront someone who reaches for something. Everyone holds fire, It turns out to be a gun and he kills two cops,the rest of the cops then shoot him. 3. Cops confront someone who reaches for something. Cops fire, turns out to be a gun, 4. Cops confront someone who reaches for something. Police fire, it turns out to be his wallet. Person shot, killed., In your world it is always 1. In the cops world it could be 1,2,3,4, and in half of them someone is trying to kill them. There are different ways to approach someone that reduces the possibility of one of those 4 outcomes, but your comment doesn't suggest anything other than complaining that the cops didn't read his mind. Very helpful.
Should've troubled himself to learn English better. Had plenty of time - the process of legal immigration is not a quick one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRational people run from the police. If you run from them, you have a chance. If you get involved with them, they'll abuse you--or kill you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow. You are seriously insane.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're the one who is insane. Giving the police the right to shoot on the mere assumption that a suspect may have a gun is a crazy totalitarian idea.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou must live in a crazy world. Police officers are human beings. Like our troops, wearing a uniform doesn't make them less human, it just means that they had the self discipline to get trained for their job, and that they think their community is worth defending.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnless you're breaking the law, the police, like the fire department, are one of the most stabilizing forces in society. If someone's robbing your house or if your back porch is on fire, these folks are your best friends. It's only when you're drunk at 2 a.m. fumbling with your car keys that it's a problem. When I've been approached by the police I find that being polite and co-operating defuses any tension that might arise. If I get pulled over for speeding or failing to use care when changing lanes, I'm wrong, and the cop is right. Period. Not all situations are 'fair,' but then nothing in life is fair. Get used to it. The officer who pulls me over is just trying to get through his shift. Me resisting or being a jerk about it simply makes it harder for everyone, myself included.
Yawn.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJames Ellroy wrote of stealing a bottle of wine and running away from the police. When the police caught up with him, they beat him with their batons a bit. After stopping one asked James, 'Do you know why I beat you?" Because I stole the wine? "No, because you ran."
It all started when the guy ran. Don't run.
Anyone that has had any experience dealing with corrupt police certainly does run from the police, but there are no bad police officers out there so phew, don't have to worry about that one. Man shot dead after police chase him because he had a plant - is that a two or three pointer for the drug war?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"In fact, the most talented shooters can unholster a weapon and fire it in less than the average human’s reaction time."
I suspect that there are just about zero cases of such shooters being involved in shooting confrontations with police officers. It may happen in Hollywood, but I doubt it happens in the rest of the United States.
We should be careful, or at least cognizant, before we endorse a "shoot before identification" policy.
Question: Were the officers wearing bulletproof vests? If so, should this alter their aggressive firing policy?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSubstitute experienced for talented and you have the same problem and a much higher likelihood of running into it. That said, how are the officers supposed to differentiate between a talented shooter and an untalented one in 2 seconds or less? In a dark room? Under high stress? It's pretty easy to do in Hollywood, but in real life, not so much.
Also, the type of bullet proof vest worn by police officers may prevent a bullet from killing you, assuming it hits a protected area, but the impact will still stun you or knock you out, which is probably just as good a killing you from a practical perspective, i.e. a stunned officer is an easy target for subsequent rounds.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJoel - I think the point is that the officer won't have the time to divine the suspects decision... when the suspect goes for a gun, the officer will have been shot should the suspect's decision be to shoot and not drop the gun.
As far as bullet proof vests, there is no such thing. A vest can stop *most* rounds - provided the suspect hits the vest and not the head, arms, or legs. If an officer is hit in the vest, he will probably still go down since the bullet's kinetic energy doesn't just disappear. If he's hit by a .25, he may not even notice it; if he's hit by a .44 magnum, he will definitely feel it.
There are certainly times that the cops overreact, the Diallo case being a good example, but the bottom line is that we're reviewing the officer's reactions from the comfort of our armchairs; we're not scared and pumped full of adrenalin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Diallo case was also a good example of poor police training, since I believe they fired something like 23 rounds and hit him 6 times? This was three or four officers firing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse