DO CELLPHONES OR BIBLES FOR THAT MATTER, JUSTIFY THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE?

Cops have killed a number of unarmed people for pointing a cellphone at them and in Houston a man was shot dead when he pointed a bible at two officers

By Howie Katz

Big Jolly Times
March 4, 2019

One night last year, two Sacramento cops were chasing Stephon Clark, a 22-year-old black man, through his grandmother’s back yard when he stopped, turned around and took what appeared to be a shooting stance. Clark refused to obey several shouts by the cops to show them his hands. Suddenly the officers observed a flash of light coming from Clark’s hand which they thought was a gun being fired. The two officers opened fire, striking him seven times, including three times in the back. The object in his hand turned out to be a cellphone.

Clark’s death led to protests and some rioting throughout the country. Blacks and white liberals were outraged over another killing of an unarmed black man at the hands of the police.

What the protesters didn’t know was that several days before the shooting Clark had a fight with the mother of his two children and that he researched ways of committing suicide. Furthermore, a toxicology report revealed that at the time of his death he was loaded with alcohol, Xanax, codeine, hydrocodone, marijuana and cocaine in his system. When he took that shooting stance with a cellphone in his hand, was Clark committing ‘suicide by cop’?

On Saturday, Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert announced that the two officers did not act unlawfully when they shot Clark and that no charges would be filed against them. “We must recognize that they are often forced to make split-second decisions,” she said, “and we must recognize that they are under tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving circumstances.”

The Clark shooting is not the first time police have mistaken a cellphone for a gun. Several other unarmed people have been shot by cops under circumstances similar to those in this case. And in those cases the police did not observe a flash of light.

Even a bible has been mistaken for a gun. Quite a few years ago, two Houston cops on patrol at night observed a black man acting irrationally in the middle of the street. They got out of their police car and started to approach the man. Suddenly he reached into his back pocket and whipped out an object while shouting, “Here, I’ve got something for you!” The cops believing it was a gun, opened fire and killed the man. The man had whipped a bible out of his back pocket. No charges were filed against the officers.

Now you might ask, do cellphones or bibles for that matter, justify the use of deadly force? The answer to that question is: Yes, if the officer believes the cellphone or bible pointed at him is a gun. In an officer’s mind that is a shoot or get killed situation.

Cops are on edge because there’s hardly a day goes by without a police officer being shot somewhere in this country. If a cop wants to return to his family after his shift, he cannot afford to wait and ask a suspect if the object he is holding is a gun. This is not the movies or a TV show in which the hero stands in front of a man pointing a pistol at him and tries to sweet-talk him into giving up the gun.

When I was a cop, I would not have hesitated to shoot someone I believed was pointing a gun at me. I would have felt terrible had I found out it was a cellphone or worse, a bible. But if it had been a gun, better him dead than me.

EDITOR’S NOTE: On BJT there were a couple of notable comments.

Tom, an attorney, wrote:

Howie: When I was an officer in the Army, I expected my troops to risk their lives. I didn’t expect them to take unnecessary risks and get killed.

Luckily, I was never in combat so I never had to put my expectations to the test.

But why should I expect less from police officers who usually are much older and always better paid than my soldiers?

When a man confined to a wheelchair gets shot up because a police officer sees a shiny object — a ball point pen — in his hand, that’s a bit much. Too often police officers shoot first and figure out what’s going later. Years ago, one of my fraternity brothers was a Houston police officer still on probation. He went into a dry cleaners at night to investigate a burglary. A man came at him with a gun and my fraternity brother shot him several times. It was only later he learned the dead guy was the owner who was waiting for the people who kept breaking into his store.

My frat brother, who was still on probation, resigned the next day. He couldn’t live with it.

Police officer training seems to be to shoot at the first suspicion of danger. When former Congressman Ted Poe was a prosecutor, he used to say that the police academy consisted of learning two phrases: “Sir, I don’t recall,” and “I was in fear of my life.”

I don’t expect my police officers to go out and get killed any more than I expected it from my troops. But I did expect my troops and I think I an entitled to expect my police officers to assess the situation before they open fire. A delay of a second or two could result in a lot fewer dead innocent civilians.

In combat, soldiers have rules of engagement telling them when they can shoot and when they can’t. At times, we do not use heavier weapons such as mortars and artillery in urban areas for fear of causing civilian casualties. And, sometimes we may take more casualties relying on fire and maneuver rather than simply flattening an area with artillery.

And, if my soldiers violated the ROE, they were held accountable.

Again, I expect that same kind of discipline from my police officers. They aren’t in enemy territory although some areas of major cities are more occupied zones than neighborhoods. Every potential threat like a shiny object in a hand isn’t a reason to kill someone. But no one holds police officers accountable for misjudging a threat and killing someone with a pen or cell phone in his hand.

To end this, every time I put on my uniform I remembered that a fringe benefit of my service might be a real estate deal, a little plot of land in Arlington Cemetery.

I wish to remain anonymous wrote:

“when he stopped, turned around and took what appeared to be a shooting stance. Clark refused to obey several shouts by the cops to show them his hands.”

The dead man can’t tell his side of this story…

Perhaps I am jaded having lived in Austin during the Acevedo years where citizens ended up dead frequently and dash cams/body cams incredibly didnt work at that moment.

Three shots in the back?

My reply:

Tom, in a perfect world a delay of a second or two could result in a lot fewer dead innocent civilians. But this is not a perfect world and a delay of a second or two could result in the death of an officer. And I would suggest that most of the unarmed people shot by the police for pointing an object at them were not innocent civilians, they were being confronted at the time for committing crimes. Furthermore, a guy in a wheelchair is just as capable of killing a cop as someone who is not disabled.

Anon, your concern about Clark getting shot in the back is easily explained. A person hit by gunfire in the front of his body often spins around so that additional shots will strike him in the back. The two officers fired 20 rounds, but that too can be explained in that Officer Survival Training instructs cops that when it becomes absolutely necessary to use deadly force, they don’t stop shooting until their adversary is down. Cops are not like Dirty Harry who with his first shot, could hit a flying fly from 100-feet away.