Recently, law enforcement officer-involved-shootings (OIS) nationwide have come under both emotional and objective scrutiny. Earlier this week, the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL – which in many ways functions as a union representing sworn personnel under the rank of captain), posted a statement on their blog giving their overall perspective on the subject. I have included this public statement below.
I realize this
is one side of a volatile issue. It is a side I personally understand. However,
recognizing the are multiple sides to this and other law enforcement related issues,
I am willing to entertain reasoned and respectful opinions from other
perspectives and – given permission – will publish those responses in another
post. Profane diatribes, hate-speak, and name calling responses will be
immediately delegated to the trash…
POSTED by the
LAPPL Board of Directors on 07/24/2015
Following national coverage of
officer-involved shootings (OIS) last summer, media coverage of all such
shootings has expanded. Additional coverage will be generated in coming months
by the Los Angeles Police Department’s determination as to whether several
high-profile OIS this year were justified or “in policy.” Each of these
determinations will generate additional coverage that may give the public a
false impression about our officers and the work they do to assure the safety
of the people of Los Angeles, including the over 40 million who visit this
great city every year.
The precise circumstances that lead to
each OIS are unique, except that in every instance, the officers involved made
split-second, life-and-death decisions based on their perception that their own
lives or those of others were in danger.
[There are two parts to this topic that
will be addressed], the officer-involved shootings themselves and…today’s
environment which increases the likelihood that officer-involved shootings will
The critical factor in every OIS is that
an officer perceives that his or her own life or the life of another is in
imminent peril. The daily work of police officers is stressful and dangerous.
They deal with situations in society that most would prefer to avoid.
Confrontations with aggressive, violent individuals are increasingly common. A
growing lack of respect for the police and for the law in general fueled by
sensationalist media coverage encourages certain individuals to be
non-compliant and combative. Police officers must be vigilant as they go about
their duties of keeping communities safe from crime and danger. Officers are
trained to protect the public and to protect themselves in dangerous
situations. That will not, and should not, ever change.
EACH OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING IS UNIQUE
The specific circumstances that lead to
an OIS are always unique. An infinite number of possible actions and reactions
can bring on the perception of imminent, life-threatening danger that requires
officers to make split-second decisions based on training and instinct. The
public needs to understand the vast array of situations our officers face every
day—any one of which can suddenly require a decision as to whether or not to
use deadly force. There are so many variables in the distinctive circumstances
police officers face in their day to day activities that training cannot
possibly cover every one of them. Each decision to use deadly force is complex
and fact based. This complexity and the need to discover all of the facts is
the reason it takes months to thoroughly investigate and reach a conclusion
about every shooting.
CURRENT SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
The media coverage of sensational
officer-involved shootings over the past 18 months should not be seen as part
of a pattern of police activity. The only common factor in any OIS is that an
officer perceives imminent, mortal danger for him or herself or for someone
else. And it always starts with a suspect who resists during the contact with
[There are] two movements in society we
believe are greatly increasing the pressure on police officers as we work to
ensure the safety of the community. We are also addressing, again, the use of
Hayes v. County of San Diego by the Police Commission. We simply cannot let
this stand, and the City and public must understand why.
Changes in our society and our legal
system have dramatically multiplied the number of times a day police officers
are called on to deal with disrespectful, non-compliant and combative people.
Two of the most obvious changes include:
Homeless and mentally ill individuals on
our streets rather than at facilities that can help them. It is well-documented
that support for the mentally ill in our society has declined. Many disturbed
individuals now reside on the streets contributing to the significant homeless
population in Los Angeles. While the Los Angeles City government and LAPD
recognize this problem and are working to address it, the solutions are
expensive and therefore minimally available. In the entire city, there is only
one system-wide Mental Assessment Response Team. Police officers make every
effort to diffuse volatile situations and use non-lethal force, but when
resistance occurs officers have been charged with a duty to protect the public
and themselves. Whether the person posing the threat is mentally ill or not
cannot be taken into account when the threat is immediate and lethal. Very
simply stated, if someone grabs an officer’s gun, regardless of mental
capacity, force must be used to halt the imminent and lethal threat.
Fewer consequences for belligerent
behavior. Los Angeles is experiencing rising crime rates for the first time in
a decade. The mayor, the Police Chief, and certainly the officers of the LAPD,
believe that at least a portion of the increase in crime can be traced to laws
and policies designed to lower crowding in our prisons and jails. Proposition
47 was promoted as a way to keep non-violent offenders out of jail, lower
prison populations and give these offenders an opportunity to mend their ways.
Likewise, an earlier statute, AB109, was designed to move non-violent criminals
to county jails where – due to overcrowding – they are often released to a
parole system that lacks resources to monitor them. But the “non-violent”
designation is a technicality, based on the most recent conviction, even if
that person may have previously committed violent crimes. This entire exercise,
however well meaning, is a nightmare for police officers who must now deal with
an influx of criminals that are back on the streets. The lack of penalties for
their actions make them bolder and less concerned about the consequences of
their behavior toward authority and society.
police officer’s actions prior to perceiving imminent danger should have no
bearing on a decision to use force
Police officers have the right to return
home safely every night. Based on the standard set by a U.S. Supreme Court
decision, “The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from
the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the
20/20 vision of hindsight.” This has been the established standard for over 25
years and comes from the highest court in the land.
The new standard recently applied by the
Police Commission to rule one officer’s shooting in the Ezell Ford case “out of
policy” seeks to take into account the officer’s actions prior to the struggle
in which Ford attempted to take the officer’s gun. According to this new
standard, if the officer’s tactics prior to the stop were deficient, the
officer must forfeit his life or the use of force will be out of policy. The
threat of being killed with his own weapon was irrelevant in their decision.
This new standard grows out of a California Supreme Court case involving
lawsuits about negligent behavior that seeks to determine tort liability, not
constitutional principles. This new standard defies logic, runs counter to
established policy, puts officers in danger, and should be removed.
Back to me: Thx for taking the time to consider
the above statement. Again, reasoned and respectful responses in the comments
below or via email will be accepted – with permission – for publication in
order to facilitate a dialogue pertaining to this important and multi-faceted