Whether on the streets of Minneapolis, Portland, Milwaukee or Arizona violent confrontations between police officers and citizens are not only hair raising for those involved, often needing in injury or death. They can also be unbelievably costly for the community in money lost, property destroyed, emotions exhausted and public trust eroded. These confrontations often arise out of suspects failing to obey lawful commands or officers escalating situations far outside the need for an arrest. These types of confrontations no matter who is at fault for the conflict will initially be blamed on the officer involved. Rightly so in some cases, but not nearly as many cases as the media and the vocal anti police activist would have you believe. Confrontations from poor decisions by police officers often lead to departmental discipline, civil litigation, criminal prosecution, media rebuke and community scorn. Can something be done to improve decision-making by individual officers and minimize these incidents? I believe so, with innovative training and competent legal guidance.
Let me go back to one evening in my career as a street cop…
The rock stung my pride as much as my leg, but it didn’t matter to me which would hurt the most. I was soon in full stride chasing the disgruntled concertgoer who had thrown it. I didn’t think twice about abandoning my traffic directing duties to give chase. No matter that several hundred angry citizens were swarming about, some getting into their cars and attempting to drive through the crowds that had gathered in the parking lots and spilled into the streets. They had reason to be angry I thought, but not at the police.
A local promoter had promised an appearance by James Brown at the Southside Dancehall, but the “Godfather of Soul” had not shown up and the promoter was not refunding anyone’s money. He had called the police when the crowd turned ugly.
I caught up with the rock thrower in a nearby parking lot and several dozen onlookers immediately surrounded us and watched as the man quickly picked up a brick and turned to face me. We were 10 feet apart when he raised it overhead and threatened to “smash my face.” I unsnapped my holster lightly touched my revolver and ordered him to drop the brick. He drew back his arm and I looked around for help. There were no other officers in sight and I realized that no one had seen me run into the darkness. I was alone.
The crowd turned menacing and yelled for him to throw the brick. Neither of us made a move. Then one man came forward, took my adversary by the arm and said to me, “he’s just mad and a little drunk officer. I’ll take him home.“ I hesitated a moment, turned without saying a word and quickly walked away.
I never told anyone what happened that night. How concerned I had been for my own safety. How close I’d come to shooting a man. How I had backed backed down. My Academy and field training taught me to be confident and assertive, to show no fear. To take charge in my circumstances. Courage was praised. Medals were given for boldness and fearlessness in the face of danger. We weren’t supposed to back down. It was thought cowardly to give up on any situation and turn tail and walk away.
It was years later that I realized that the decision I had made in fear was the decision I should’ve made and with proper training I would’ve made easily, without hesitation. It was only then that I felt a flash of appreciation for the gentleman who came forward and gave me a chance to extricate myself from a bad situation, that was only going to get worse.
Good Training and Common Sense
In my current capacity as a consultant for police related issues and public safety communication, I frequently come across circumstances in which the genesis of the conflict with the officer arises from pressing an encounter with a citizen, when good training and common sense would dictate another path. It seems that as soon as an officer’s authority is challenged, or when he or she believes it’s being challenged, the citizens have failed to comply and arrest will soon follow. (This was a common doctrine when I was a neophyte patrol officer working the streets of west Phoenix). At this point, the situation can be resolved only by the Citizen doing whatever the officer commands, while apologizing profusely. This rarely happens. Usually the officer continues to press, the Citizen persists and arrest, injuries and lawsuits often follow.
I would like to describe two scenarios. They illustrate the serious ramifications for the citizen, the officer, and the department when the officers are not trained in the art of seeking alternative solution. Yes, some times we just need to stop pressing and back out. One was a tragedy. Both cost the municipalities involved precious taxpayer dollars. Both could’ve been prevented with proper training. Because these cases are real I have changed them enough to protect the identity of the department, but not enough to compromise the essence of the story.
Rational Retreat Point Ignored
Calvin Williams was off and angry and frustrated and had been since being shot while standing on his grandmothers porch two years ago and left a paraplegic. Calvin was wounded in an unprovoked drive-by shooting. He was not a gang member, had never been arrested and would spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair as a result of his injuries. He was 20 years old.
On this night Calvin had argued with his girlfriend about the future of the relationship and had left her house boiling with emotion. It was past midnight. He began wheeling himself rapidly and erratically down the middle of a four-lane city street that was usually lightly traveled at this time of night. However, he proved to be enough of a traffic hazard to prompt at least one phone call to the police department. When the first officer arrived he observed Calvin rolling himself in a marked bike lane along the curb. Calvin had apparently realized his pearl and had gotten out of the traffic lanes. When he saw the police car approaching he stopped and stuck out his thumb in a hitchhiking gesture that he would later describe as an attempt to be “funny.”
The officer stopped and informed Calvin he had received a call about him being a traffic hazard and that he could not use his wheelchair in the street or in the bike lane and, furthermore, it was also illegal to hitchhike in the city. All violated city ordinances. For Calvin Williams, being told where to wheel himself was the final straw. He viewed it as a gross affront to his already damaged self-esteem and he erupted in a foulmouthed rage. The officer, caught off guard by Calvin’s invectives, reacted angrily, telling Calvin to “get on the sidewalk and stay there!” Calvin, filled with resentment, rolled himself up a driveway onto the sidewalk and started home. The office returned to his car and while driving away he looked back to see Calvin rolling down another driveway back into the bike lane.
At this point the officer made a decision that later was hotly debated at trial. He stopped, backed up to where Calvin was again in the bike lane, got out and informed Calvin that he was going to cite him for miss use of the bike lane and for hitchhiking.
This infuriated Calvin Williams. He refused to identify himself and tried to roll away. The officer called for a back up and held Calvin’s wheelchair. And when a back up arrived nothing got better from any point of you. Calvin continued to refuse to identify himself, was belligerent, and then was placed under arrest. He physically resisted the officers refusing to be handcuffed and ended up face first on the pavement, his forehead cut and bleeding.
After several minutes Calvin was subdued and transported to the hospital where his head wound was sutured and inexplicably his blood drawn to determine if he was under the influence of alcohol. He was booked later that night into the county jail. The city prosecutor subsequently dismissed all charges and Calvin filed suit a year later.
The second case also involves an officer who continue to pursue a minor infraction beyond what I call the “rational retreat point.“ That is, that moment when officers can logically disengage themselves from a no-win encounter with citizens by simply walking or driving away. If the officers have been trained to recognize and act when they reach the “rational retreat point,“ their withdrawal can be calculated and self-assured. Training will have prepared them to make such a decision and they will not in anyway feel defeated. However, in this instance, the officer did not back away, instead he pushed the situation to the brink and the results for the citizen was not a head wound and jail, but death.
Stanley Stardust was an alcoholic and a regular occupant of the city jail, all for drinking related offenses. The only steady job he ever had was loading insecticide into crop dusters, but that job had ended four years ago and he hasn’t worked since. He lived on the outskirts of town with his sister and spent most days hanging around a rundown area of the city drinking with friends.
On this Saturday morning he had gotten to town early and luckily, he thought, found a drinking buddy with a six pack of beer left over from the night before. The two sat in the friends car, parked in a vacant lot, sipping their beer and talking. As Stanley finished his first beer he casually through the empty can onto the ground outside.
The first shift officer had just come on duty when he spotted Stanley and his friend sitting in the vehicle. He had circled the block and approach slowly through an alley to get a closer look at the pair. As he did he saw a beer can fly out of the passenger window of the car and land in the dirt lot. The officer, with perhaps an exaggerated sense of ownership of his beat, drove to the vehicle in which Stanley sat, exited his patrol car an ordered Stanley to get out and pick up the can.
Stanley, thinking he was about to go to jail again, got out of the car and stood by the passenger door. He emphatically denied having thrown the beer can. The officer, who had been on the department just six months, was surprised by Stanley’s blatant denial of an act he had just witnessed. The officer told Stanley he was a liar, that he had seen him throw the can and again ordered him to pick it up. Stanley again refused and at this point Stanley’s friend got out of the car, staying near the driver’s door.
The officer later stated that he felt threatened even though Stanley‘s friend had said nothing nor had he made any movement toward him. He slid his side-handle baton from his belt and holding it by one hand pointed it towards Stanley who’s within arms length. There are two versions of what happen next. Stanley’s drinking buddy said the officer poked Stanley in the chest with the baton, while the officer claimed that Stanley grabbed his baton. In any case a wrestling match for the baton began, and ended with both Stanley and the officer on the ground. The officer wrote in his report that while on the ground Stanley had tried to get the officers revolver from his holster and that he, the officer managed to get his weapon free, but with Stanley on top of him. He fired one shot point blank, striking Stanley in the chest and killing him.
What Prompted the Confrontation
What is it that prompted the officer to confront Stanley Stardust for littering? Tossing a beer can on the vacant lot was a misdemeanor. The offense was committed in his presence. He was being lied to. Should he have stood his ground and insisted that Stanley comply with his direction to pick up the can or face arrest? Could he have approached the initial contact in a less confrontational manner. The use of small talk to start a contact could have been much more conducive to dealing with a person who is most likely intoxicated or high.
Hindsight certainly reveals that pursuing the littering charge was not worthy of Stanley Stardust’s life or the legal torment to which the officer and his department leaders were subjected. But what about foresight? Could this officer been trained to recognize and extricate himself from a lose-lose confrontation or does every situation require the steadfastness of Sgt. Joe Friday in Dragnet.
Clearly, officers should be taught to recognize when they are in over their heads and that its alright to retreat or back down from an untenable situation. They should be taught to seize an opportunity to retreat when the projected negative outcome of the situation far outweighs any logical law enforcement objective.
Officers can be instructed in techniques to create an opportunity to back down when the “rational retreat point“ is reached if one does not present its self naturally. For example, while using body language and voice that indicate control, say to the subject “this is gone far enough, for your benefit I’m leaving.“ And then leave. Legal advisors, and attorneys who practice involves defense of police agencies, should encourage police chiefs to have their training commanders design a variety of strategies for backing out of those know when situations. This type of training would lend itself well to video presentation, role-playing techniques with virtual reality training. This could reduce the frequency of lawsuits. What is more important, when you teach an officer that it’s all right to back down it might save a life. It’s not always High Noon out there.
In these challenging times for law enforcement we need to remember where policing has come from over the past 50 years. Recall the challenges of women fighting their way into equality, to vote, be soldiers, police officers and firefighters. We must realize the challenges that many races have faced in discrimination and marginalized. African Americans and civil rights, the American Indian and the heritage and conflict with the government. Slavery for blacks and Chinese. The genocide of the Jewish people and those were mentally or physically challenged.
Abraham Lincoln lamented in his debate that “In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statues, or pronounces judicial decisions.”
These words were true then and are true now. I would changeless words public sentiment to public trust. Until we are demonstrate that the mass of police officers are thoughtful, honest and empathetic, the vocal minority will continue to judge a profession based on a fringe element of officers that have made poor decisions.