When Killing Became Just

BY CJ HARRINGTON

One of the greatest tragedies this summer in St. Louis may not have been what happened in Ferguson. Only four miles away, on August 19, Kajieme Powell was killed by the police. The police were called about Powell shoplifting two soda cans and a honey bun from a convenience store. Powell, 25 years old, was known within the community to have mental disabilities. When the police arrived on the scene, they came out with guns raised. Powell, holding a knife, walked towards one officer yelling, “Shoot me! Shoot me! Shoot me now!” He backpedalled and then walked towards the other officer with his arms lowered the entire time. Fifteen seconds after their arrival, the police shot Powell 12 times, killing him instantly.

St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson released the video (which he was not obligated to do), showing the whole encounter. Dotson also released an initial public statement saying that Powell charged the officers with his knife (something that clearly never happened). However, riots in response to Powell’s killing did not stir like those in Ferguson. CNN Anchor Don Lemon asked Dotson, in an interview, why this was. Dotson said, “As soon as it was over, I talked to the community…now they knew what happened and didn’t have to wait for it to go viral.” Dotson completely ignored the fact that he gave a version of the truth that didn’t align with video evidence. Even if Dotson’s talking to the community did ease tension, that shouldn’t explain a lack of outrage. Our society has continued to stretch the concept of a “justified killing” and refuses to fight against this growing injustice.

I completely believe that police should have the right to defend themselves and I am grateful for all of the work they do to keep our communities safe. However, I disagree with Dotson when he said in his public statement that, “Police safety is the number one issue.” I believe that when police academies preach “protect and serve,” officers are taking a serious, sacrificial oath to perform those acts in the best interest of everyone whom they are policing as opposed to letting those words only apply to themselves. Thus, if an officer can save someone’s life, even if that suspect is trying to cause harm, they should.

Unfortunately, that sentiment goes against the way police are trained. The Tueller Rule says that when dealing with a wielded edged object, the police should take action once the suspect is within 21 feet (some academies believe that this isn’t sufficient and suggest being allowed to pull one’s gun and shoot is merited even farther away). The Police Firearms Officer Association, a group which advocates for officers who must use guns in the line of duty, has reported research suggesting that shooting to wound is not a smart strategy due to its impracticality and it not being a legal or tactical necessity. According to the research performed on the topic, it is nearly impossible for an officer to shoot a suspect’s forearm or hand, which are the fastest moving body parts. The legs are a much more plausible option, but certain areas are rich in vascularity and, if hit, could lead to the suspect bleeding out in seconds. They also argue that if the legs are non-fatally hit, the suspect can still cause harm with whatever is in his hands.

Still, it seems plausible that someone has a better chance of living if hit in the legs as opposed to the torso or head. If a suspect happened to die from a shot to the leg, it could at least be understood that there was not an intention to kill. Although the result may be the same, the distinction between the two is crucial to having a community truly believing that its law enforcement has everyone’s best interest at heart. About the suspect still being a threat if hit in the legs, this clearly does not apply if the suspect has no weapons; it would drastically diminish the chances of an officer being fatally wounded by any knife; and it would even increase the chances to strike the suspect in the arm or hand to remove a gun (although this is something that is still probably too dangerous to attempt). Moreover, the use of other weapons like a Taser serve as another substitute considering the suspect is not carrying a gun. Dotson has said on record saying that he is content with his officers not using Tasers and choosing to use guns instead because “Tasers are not 100 percent.” However, guns are not 100% effective, either. Also, if you are going to encourage your officers not to use this potentially very useful tool, why ask for such equipment and make taxpayers pay for it?

Another obstacle to getting the police to have a greater appreciation for the lives they are protecting is the Supreme Court’s strict interpretation of Graham v. Connor. This case held that “an objective reasonableness” should be applied if a citizen wants to claim that excessive force occurred. The New York Times recently reported that there haven’t been any Supreme Court cases where police officers have been held responsible for their use of force. The most recent case demonstrating this phenomenon is Plumhoff v. Rickard. In this case, the police attempted to pullover a suspect for a busted taillight. The suspect misguidedly decided to drive away and went as fast as 100 mph. The police fired shots into the car (even though the suspect was not shooting) and the driver and passenger were struck and killed. The Supreme Court reversed the decision made in the Appellate Court and determined that the speeding car was a threat to the community, thus warranting the police to shoot at the vehicle. Given that the officers could have requested backup to set up a blockade at a future point, catch the license plate number and put a warrant out for the suspect’s arrest, or shoot at the tires of the car as opposed to shooting through the windshield, clearly shows how the Court supported an officer’s right to use lethal force even when not a tactical necessity.

When police do not do everything in their capacity to try to save a suspect’s life, they violate that individual’s right to due process. Our legal system is based on the notion of being innocent until proven guilty. Every suspect of a crime is entitled to a trial and it is not up to the police to issue death sentences or any punishment for that matter. It appears that the St. Louis Police Department understands this. They are the only major metropolitan police force to go beyond stating that it aims to protect lives in its mission statement. They include “A Statement on the Value of Human Life,” which states that “the use of deadly force will never be condoned as a routine response and police officers will exercise the highest degree of care in the application of such force.” This statement was featured in their annual report to the community in 2009 and continues to be highlighted on their website and subsequent annual reports. They also mention how it is the force’s duty to “honor the established principles of democracy,” which should include due process rights. However, it appears that the St. Louis Police Department is preaching something it does not entirely believe or enforce.

It is tough to comment authoritatively on what took place in Ferguson, as more evidence is still being collected. However, the video of how Kajieme Powell was killed is a clear indication that the current training for police officers does not coincide with principles of justice. Dotson should not have a false sense of confidence because there were no riots after Powell’s shooting. The lack of riots were not due to Dotson’s response. There was no uproar because those outraged would simply be bringing a knife to a gun fight.