Lethal Force: The Power to Kill

 

“Lethal Force: The Power to Kill”.

 

With changes in the laws for concealed carry, the use of deadly force has crossed over from the law enforcement realm to the civilian. I have maintained that the use of firearms in personal protection by civilians is a complicated issue at best. 

    It has been my intent to be understanding as I can be about what having a firearm for this purpose means to the general public. As a law enforcement professional, I am against such haphazard permission as permit-less carry. In a state where the right of firearm access is so universal, I still believe the registration information serves in the event of an emergency.

 

    We continue the series on the Use of Force in Law Enforcement with “Lethal Force: The Power to Kill”.

       Michael Crichton wrote about the concept of what he called “thintelligence” in the novel Jurassic Park. Speaking through mathematician Ian Malcolm, Crichton described the power of the martial arts as having a power earned gradually gives a martial artist the wisdom not to use it, where “thintelligence” stands on the shoulders of others and lacks the gaining of such wisdom. I submit that the purchase of a firearm for protection without the necessary training results in just such a lack of wisdom.

Purchasing a firearm in New Jersey is complicated. It requires a Firearms ID card, a permit to purchase the weapon, and as New Jersey is a “May Issue” state, a concealed carry permit is not automatic. The recent supreme court ruling disallowing New York State the discretion in granting such permits may force the remaining five states to allow it.

 In the most extreme cases, no permit or authorization is required at all. There may be training requirements, but nothing says that taking the class will instill the discipline; one class is not enough to really understand the power that pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger entails. The number of officers who have abused that power regardless of the consequences tells of the likelihood that a civilian is all the more likely to abuse the power as well. 

Let’s review the standard of Lethal Force outlined in part 1:

5) LETHAL FORCE (Deadly Force)

• Officers use lethal weapons to gain control of a situation. Should only be used if a suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or another individual.
  

        ·      Officers use deadly weapons such as firearms to stop an individual's         actions. (It is incumbent on the officer to use all means to subdue         a suspect with lower levels of force first)

I maintain that “serious threat” is ambiguous, and that a better clarification based on my training would be “the suspect poses an immediate threat to the life of the officer or others, or the threat of serious bodily harm that could result in death”.

Consider these two conflicting concepts:

·        In 1981, President Ronald Reagan was shot by John Hinckley Jr., while surrounded by the best marksmen in the world. Rather than return fire, the secret service agents immediately physically restrained and captured the suspect.

·        During what she perceived as an invasion of her home, Dallas (Texas) Police officer Amber Guyger shot and killed a man in his own apartment. Living one floor apart in less than identical conditions, Guyger maintained she did not realize she was not in her own apartment. She was found guilty of murder after a five-hour deliberation by a jury.

In each case, law enforcement professionals were confronted with a “Shoot/Don’t shoot” decision. The agents were facing an armed gunman. Guyger faced an unarmed man who was eating ice cream. Reagan’s protection detail, as well as all agents of the United States Secret Service, were sworn to do everything up to and including interposing their own bodies to protect the President of the United States. They overcame the shock and immediately took action to protect the public without risking the public safety as the President was removed from the scene. Guyger shot and killed an unarmed man and later testified under oath she thought she was in her own home.

Even with training, officers make the wrong decisions for the use of force for whatever reason every day.

        Lethal force can be applied even without the use of a firearm. Police officers are trained in the proper application of restraining techniques, but choke holds can kill. The improper use of what can be considered a “less than lethal” weapon, the police baton, can be lethal if the suspect is struck in a vulnerable area such as the head or neck. Even chemical force can result in an allergic or asthmatic reaction. This is why the officer is also trained in the method of immediately monitoring as suspect for medical issues and then the  chemical itself must then be washed off.

Each of these “less than lethal” scenarios contain the possibility that improper actions can be taken deliberately and result in the death of a suspect. When such incidents occur, the culpability of the officer is determined by a panel of superior officers who may or may not reach an impartial decision. Deliberate or not, the requirement for an officer to employ these techniques with the proper discretion and understanding of the implications is instilled with ongoing training, professional discipline, and dedication to the preservation of life that the job requires.

On the other hand, even though my parents did not have access to a firearm, there were other potentially lethal methods my father could have used in dealing with the following incident. They owned a delicatessen in the late 60’s and early 70’s. I share this story about my mother with the caveat that the incident happened 50 years ago, I was a child, was not there when it happened, and only have my memory of the story being told to me.

My parents were getting ready to close the store. A teenager entered the store, pointed a gun at my parents and said “Your money or your life”. My father, a former top sergeant in the army and by no means a powder puff, immediately stopped. My mother said words to the effect of “Get the hell out of here”. My father was aghast, and my mom said “Jim, it’s a toy”. The kid ran away.

        The men in my family may be tough, but even they don't mess with the women.

Today, my parents would have reacted the same way. My mother showed strength in her opposition, and then compassion in not pursuing the kid or taking steps to detain him. Would the average business owner today do the same? Having been subjected to theft, burglary, robbery, and harassment, might a shop owner have reached instead for the firearm so recently declared legal to carry in New York City? Would the same kid pointing a toy gun be dead now? I doubt Mr. Justice Alito thought that far ahead. That is why we have to.

The use of lethal force is not a decision that can be made without preparation beforehand or with hesitation at the moment. The easy acquisition of a means of dispensing that force prevents the availability of the former, and the inevitability of the latter.