Cops Need To Stop Shooting People In The Back
As a civilian, I was taught that shooting someone as they are run away is never justified. The police should be held to an identical standard.
Over the weekend, the United States witnessed the shooting of Rayshard Brooks, a 27-year-old black man, at the hands of Garret Rolfe, a white officer of the Atlanta Police Department. In the wake of the murder of George Floyd where the United States erupted in weeks of emotionally intense protests calling for long-overdue police accountability and reform, Rayshard’s slaying feels especially poignant.
What started off as a long sobriety test at a Wendy’s drive thru devolved into a scuffle between Rayshard and the officers that culminated in him getting shot three times in the back whilst running away from the officers. He would later die on the operating table that same night.
During the scuffle, Rayshard managed to get his hands on one of the officer’s tasers and, as caught on camera, fired the less-than-lethal device in the general direction (albeit very blindly) of Rolfe, who was in his pursuit.
I don’t have any doubt that the guilty officer used this taser incident as a plausible explanation for shooting Rayshard, and I know for certain without seeing it that the police apologia corners of the Internet have already latched onto this as justification. Of course, this line of reasoning ignores the fact that a taser is designed to be less-than-lethal, save for those with severe heart conditions, something that I assume no patrol officer worth their weight in salt has.
Also ignored is the fact that if Rayshard’s shot did connect, there would be another officer in pursuit. Most police tasers are single shot weapons; once discharged, they must be reloaded and can’t be instantly redeployed or “fired” like a semi-automatic handgun. Knowing this, the second officer could’ve run Rayshard down and apprehended him. Alternatively, the second officer could’ve tended to his downed colleague and called for back-up to detain Rayshard. I’m only speculating here as I am not police (though in this same vein, I will admit that I find it pathetic that two grown men couldn’t apprehend one intoxicated man; I’m no wrestling expert, but I would’ve assumed that police were trained for such a scenario).
But what I am is a man, a black man that is both angry and tired that yet another black man was needlessly killed in cold blood by a uniformed police officer.
Watching the video from which I captured the still image at the top of this page, I was instantly reminded of the 2015 shooting death of Walter Scott in South Carolina as he ran away from former officer Michael Slager during a traffic stop. Both of these events are eerily similar: a black man runs from a police officer and instead of being chased and apprehended, is nonchalantly gunned-down multiple yards away.
In. The. Back.
Not while charging or fighting the officer (not that either of these two hypotheticals warrant automatic justification of the use of deadly force). But while running away with their backs turned to the police.
Slager received 20-years in prison for his callous actions that cost Walter Scott his life (let us not forget, however, that he claimed his innocence for two years in spite of the damning bystander video showing that Walter posed the opposite of an immediate threat), and given the current climate, I am a bit more expecting of justice being served to the officer that gunned down Rayshard (though I am nowhere close to holding my breath).
Still, I am frustrated that once again we have seen yet another officer violating one of the most important legal and moral lessons concerning self defense: you do not shoot someone that is running away from you.
I think most reasonable people can agree that if someone is running away from you, then they no longer pose any immediate or deadly threat.
In May 2018, I sat down for a four-hour firearm safety course as per Massachusetts state requirements for getting a firearms license. The MA licensure process is long and strict when compared to most other other states, and though I do believe there are areas where the process could be improved, I had zero qualms with being mandated to take a safety course.
Firearm ownership is a massive responsibility and while it may seem intuitive to any person of moderate intelligence to keep their firearms locked and inaccessible to unauthorized persons, there are other, less inherently intuitive lessons to be learned in such a course that makes it worthwhile.
Around the halfway point in the class, my instructor provided the class and I with a few what-if scenarios concerning a common reason for ownership: self-defense. One such scenario questioned whether or not it is ok to fire at a home invader that was running towards your front door but had successfully nabbed your new television.
The answer was an absolute and resounding no.
Yes, this person is booking it with your expensive television set, a luxury that you may have saved up for for a while. Unfortunate as that is, that does not justify shooting this person as they no longer pose any imminent threat to you or your loved ones. Whatever item they may have pocketed is irrelevant.
As my instructor made very clear: the only time someone should be drawing and using a firearm on a person is if they absolutely, positively, without-a-doubt believe that their life is in imminent danger (as a related tip: never brandish a firearm, a knife, or any other weapon like some wannabe tough guy; not only is it a legal offense in many jurisdictions, but there is a high chance that you will end-up needlessly escalating the situation).
Though I concede that fear is often subjective and can be predicated on a litany of harmful misinformation and stereotypes, I think most reasonable people can agree that if someone is running away from you, then they no longer pose any immediate concern to you. Be it escaping up the street or making for your front door with some of your stuff, once they’re headed the other way, so is any potential danger that may have come with them.
As someone that considers himself to be a levelheaded individual that has de-escalated at least four confrontations on the verge of becoming fist fights, I am a full proponent of this philosophy of refraining from unnecessary violence. Barring the most extraordinary of circumstances, shooting at a “runner” is legally and morally wrong.
Legally speaking, your average self-defense scenario and argument would take a significant — if not a fatal — blow upon evidence demonstrating that you shot someone as they were trying to get away from you. In most jurisdictions, one must have a reasonable belief that an attack is imminent, among other criteria, to demonstrate a justified use of deadly force. Firing at a runner is a good way to go from being a sympathetic aggressé to a vengeful aggressor.
Morally speaking, firing at someone that is running away from you is ethically bankrupt. Jumping back to the earlier home invader example, is your television set really more valuable than a human life? I don’t believe it ok to break into someone’s house and steal their belongings. At the same time, I don’t believe that stealing warrants a death sentence and would be hard-pressed to be convinced otherwise.
If you discovered someone trying to break into your front door and you scared them off with a baseball bat, would you then proceed to chase that person down the street, bat held high over your head and ready to smash?
Oh, and miss me with the whole just shoot him in the leg bit that people like to throw around. I detest this line of logic for several reasons, with the first and biggest being that as previously mentioned, the only time that you should be presenting a firearm on a human is if they present as an immediate and deadly threat. If there’s no peril, then there’s no reason to shoot.
Secondly, shooting someone in the leg is not without danger. Depending on how you count them, the human leg has somewhere between 6 to 10 major arteries and veins. Given that the average person probably couldn’t even name two of them, let alone identify their general location, there’s a very real chance that your supposed non-lethal leg shot could turn lethal should you hit one of these vessels. There’s a reason why firearms are considered a use of deadly force, with hitting a major blood vessel being one reason.
Lastly, in a scenario like this, you’re going to be under an immense amount of stress. Given that you are not a trained sharpshooter and that you’re not as great of a shot as your monthly trips to an indoor range may make you believe, I’m skeptical of your ability to confidently hit a moving target as narrow as a human leg while your heart is pounding at 200 beats per minute.
Having read all of that, if you’re still unsure as to whether or not it is justified to shoot at someone while they’re running away then ask yourself this: if you discovered someone trying to break into your front door and you scared them off with a baseball bat, would you then proceed to chase that person down the street, bat held high over your head and ready to smash?
Sure, you’re understandably furious that someone would try and break into your castle. I certainly would be. But putting emotion aside, if this person is running away from you and your house, are they really still a threat that warrants a rundown and several wallops from a Louisville Slugger?
No, they are not.
Now replace the baseball bat with a firearm. Does the response change?
No, it does not.
If you think otherwise, then clearly you are not ready for the ethical responsibility that comes with owning a gun (or even an under-the-bed baseball bat).
Having volunteered as an EMT for two-and-a-half years, I can begin to empathize with the stress that law enforcement officers deal with when responding to a call. From my own experiences, I am aware of just how far left an otherwise normal response can turn in the blink of an eye.
The events surrounding Rayshard Brooks questioning, attempted arrest, and ultimate murder is an example of an otherwise routine DUI call abruptly going sideways.
That said, there was no excuse for Rolfe to draw and discharge his weapon on Rayshard as he was running away. Rayshard’s drunken nabbing and firing of a taser, a weapon that is purposefully designed to be nonlethal, did not warrant the response that it did.
And if tasers do in fact pose such a deadly threat, then perhaps police departments should consider reevaluating their lackadaisical usage of the devices. Considering that 32% of deaths resulting from complications from taser use are amongst black people compared to the 29% of deaths made up by white people and in spite of black people only making up around 14% of the US population, there ought to be a serious review of the protocols concerning taser usage, anyways.
Regardless of this conversation, nothing changes the fact that Rayshard was unjustifiably gunned down as he was running away. His back turned, he posed no discernible threat to either officer, and certainly not one that warranted the use of a lethal weapon.
If I or any other civilian were to have done the same to Rayshard, there’s a very good chance that we’d come out of the legal proceedings as convicted felons. And rightfully so, might I add.
In the case of Rayshard’s murder, as well as that of Walter Scott, and every other person — black or white, male or female — that was shot in the back while running away from the police, I opine that the responsible officer should be held to a near identical legal and moral standard as any civilian.
This is what accountability looks like.
