offi cer down: Slowly Developing Threats: The Kyle Dinkheller Incident
faintly, in the video recording of the incident made by Deputy Dinkheller’s dash cam), and Brannan wasted no time picking up on it. He then tested the young deputy by blatantly re- fusing to comply with his commands and ini- tiating his disconcerting dance in the street. When Deputy Dinkheller failed to take fi rm control at this point, Brannan pressed the issue by rushing him; then challenging him both verbally and physically.
Brannan later commented that he had at- tacked Deputy Dinkheller because Dinkhel- ler had failed to show him proper respect. T is is signifi cant because Dinkheller had shown him the utmost courtesy and respect, which strongly indicates that Brannan saw Dinkheller’s courtesy as a distasteful sign of weakness. In addition, Brannan displayed an air of haughty superiority when talking about Deputy Dinkheller later. During his interrogation, he arrogantly commented that Dinkheller had been young and foolish, that he had clearly held the tactical advantage over him. Considering Brannan’s attitude toward Deputy Dinkheller, there is a good possibility that he would have acted diff er- ently if Dinkheller had used a fi rmer tone of voice, issued more explicit and forceful commands, and generally displayed a more commanding presence. A fi rm, no-nonsense demeanor conveys a level of confi dence and power that will often discourage resistance. T ere are no guarantees, of course, but we should strive to display a proper command presence at all times. Return to Question 1
Proper Application of Force Later, when it became necessary to apply physical force, Deputy Dinkheller was able to force Brannan to back off , but he didn’t follow through. Instead of decisively put- ting a stop to Brannan’s attack, he delivered a single, ineff ective baton strike, and then allowed Brannan to retreat. T is only made matters much worse. Now infuriated, and completely unaff ected by Deputy Dinkhel- ler’s eff orts to stop him, Brannan defi antly returned to his truck, retrieved his rifl e, loaded it, and calmly opened fi re. Once committed to the use of a given force option, it is imperative to employ it decisively and forcefully, and to keep it up
39 The Police Marksman May-Jun 2014
until the threat is either eliminated or it be- comes necessary to employ another force option. Anything less is likely to create the impression of weakness or lack of commit- ment, or, as in this case, it may serve only to anger your opponent. Force should never be applied inappropriately or in excess, but it is essential to use enough force to decisively bring the situation under control. It is also important to keep in mind that police offi cers are under no moral or legal ob- ligation to meet actively aggressive assailants like Brannan on equal terms. Police offi cers have the authority to use a level of force that is one step higher on the force continuum than that being used against them. Perhaps more importantly, offi cers are not required to use the absolute minimum amount of force necessary to defend themselves. T e courts recognize that it is not realistic to hold offi cers to such a strict and impracti- cal standard. Instead, the standard is one of objective reasonableness. As long as the use of force is objectively reasonable under the circumstances, it is justifi able, even if it is later determined that a lower level of force might have been equally eff ective. Excessive force is inexcusable, but offi cers have an ob- ligation to use whatever force is reasonably necessary to bring a violent encounter eff ec- tively under control before it escalates. Return to Question 2
Permitting a Motorist to Return to His Vehicle T e confrontation took an ominous turn for the worse when Brannan returned un- checked to his truck. T e most obvious con- sequence of this action was the fact that it enabled Brannan to retrieve his rifl e, but it also created two other serious tactical prob- lems. First, it put Brannan out of Deputy Dinkheller’s reach, thereby limiting Deputy Dinkheller’s options for controlling him; and second, it allowed Brannan to reach a position that aff orded him some cover next to the truck. T ese are tactical concerns that occur any time a motorist is permitted to return to his vehicle, whether he does so bla- tantly, as Brannan did, or more subtly, as more commonly occurs. Be especially wary if a motorist shows any signs of hostility, nervousness or deception.
It is often safer to keep the motorist inside his vehicle, but once he exits for any reason, don’t let him return until it is time for him to leave. Order him to stay where he is and deny any requests, no matter how seemingly inno- cent, to return to his vehicle. If he refuses to cooperate, most jurisdictions have laws that make it unlawful to interfere with an offi cer, disobey an offi cer’s lawful command, etc., so you can arrest him on one of those charges. Another option is to make a custodial arrest on the original traffi c charge (if permitted in your jurisdiction). T e important thing is to maintain control of the situation by placing the suspect under arrest as quickly as possible. It is signifi cant to note here that Brannan later commented that he would not have attacked Deputy Dinkheller if Dinkheller had used physical force to stop him from returning to the truck. He said he believed this would have put him at a disadvantage, leaving him no choice except to submit, but Dinkheller’s failure to apply physical force al- lowed him to maintain the tactical advantage. Return to Question 3
Reluctance to Shoot T e most critical element of this case was the fact that Deputy Dinkheller waited too long to employ deadly force. But before we criti- cize him too harshly, we must admit that police offi cers have a dangerous tendency to issue repeated commands when confronting armed off enders. We’ve all seen it happen, most have done it ourselves, and cop reality shows are replete with examples of it. Why Deputy Dinkheller hesitated we will never know, but there are some very likely reasons that need to be examined: T e fi rst is the fact that humans have an instinctive aversion to killing other human be- ings. Normal people don’t really want to take a human life unless absolutely necessary to de- fend themselves or others. It appears that this instinct is necessary for the preservation of the species, and is therefore very diffi cult to over- come. Since police offi cers are only human and are further constrained by their duty to preserve life when possible, it isn’t surprising that they so often withhold fi re long after they are no longer required to do so. Another likely reason why Deputy Din- kheller withheld fi re so long may have been
www.policemarksman.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46