This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
offi cer down Overwhelming Physical Force: The Carl Everett/Linda Mason Incident


On the other hand, the motive can be even more sinister. He may be trying to hide evidence of a much more serious crime, or attempting to distract you while an accom- plice escapes, goes for a weapon, or moves into position from which to attack you. In any event, eff orts to hide something should be viewed as a danger sign, even when in- vestigating the most minor violation. By missing these danger signs, and ham- pered further by the strong emotions associ- ated with the confrontation, Offi cer Everett fell into the trap of focusing exclusively on a single threat. As Choi became increasingly hostile, Everett’s attention became riveted on him and he forgot about Roper alto- gether. T e best way to combat this kind of mental tunnel vision is to always stay fo- cused on safety as your fi rst priority. Make a habit of always asking yourself questions like: “What is there about this situation that could be dangerous and what can I do about it?” Besides improving situational awareness and helping you plan ahead, this helps keep your emotions in check so they won’t negatively infl uence your thoughts and actions. T e key is to continually ask these kinds of questions on every call you handle and every street contact you make, no matter how nonthreatening they may appear to be. When done repeatedly, this will eventually become a mental habit that helps keep your mind free of unwanted emotions, open to new information, and adaptable to changing circumstances, all of which are vital to offi cer safety. Once this “game” has become thoroughly ingrained as a habit, it is still best to continue “playing” it regularly at the conscious level, but it will still be “playing” at the subconscious level even when you don’t. T is in turn provides a vital safety cushion for those times when you are not mentally at your best. Return to Question 1


Deadly Force Would Offi cers Everett and Mason have been justifi ed in using deadly force against their assailants? As in any other use-of-force incident, the answer to this question lies in whether their actions were objectively reason-


able under the totality of the circumstances. It would certainly have been reasonable for Everett to use deadly force in order to keep from being disarmed, and it would be very hard to argue that Offi cer Mason wasn’t in grave danger of losing her life when both assailants ganged up on her. Nor would it be easy to deny that Everett would have been justifi ed in using deadly force to res- cue Offi cer Mason as Roper slammed her into the walls, especially in light of the fact that he was in poor condition to stop him any other way. Later when Roper and Choi ganged up on Everett and brought him to the ground again, now with a badly injured leg, the severely weakened offi cer was in no shape to eff ectively defend himself from a vicious assault with no end in sight. All things considered, there didn’t appear to be any other alternatives except to use deadly force or be beaten into unconsciousness, which for an armed police offi cer entails the grave risk of being killed with his own gun. On the other hand, normal human be-


ings are reluctant to kill others, even when justifi ed, and police offi cers in particular are even more so because of fear of the social and legal repercussions that usually fol- low, even when their actions are later de- termined to be justifi ed. T is is especially true in this post-Ferguson era, with all the politics, uncertainty and unrest that fol- lows so many police shootings. Add to all this the fact that it is much harder to justify deadly force when the suspect is unarmed, or armed with anything other than a fi re- arm, and the decision to use deadly force becomes considerably more difficult to make. In addition, most police training em- phasizes the fearful consequences of making the wrong decision, which only adds to the confusion, stress and reluctance to apply deadly force even when clearly justifi ed. T is is not meant to imply in any way that offi cers should not be very careful be- fore resorting to deadly force. To the con- trary, with the legal right to use deadly force comes the awesome responsibility to use it only when necessary and within the law. To do any less violates our solemn duty to those we are sworn to protect, and brings


with it serious legal consequences. How- ever, we also have a duty to ourselves, our families, our fellow offi cers, and even our citizens to use the level of force necessary to protect ourselves and others from crimi- nal violence. Unfortunately, it isn’t always easy to balance the two. Often the deci- sion is about when and how much force to use is clear-cut, as when threatened with a gun, but not always. In fact, sometimes it is enormously diffi cult, and the consequences of making the wrong decision can be tragic and far-reaching.


So, what can be done about this prob-


lem? T e harsh reality is that there are no perfect answers. Considering the speed at which most deadly encounters occur, and the confusion, fear and stress they generate, we fallible human beings sometimes make the wrong decision. Unfortunately, in the real world, things sometimes go tragically wrong, but we have to do our best to keep those times to a minimum and proper train- ing holds the best hope for doing so. However, the kind of training needed goes


well beyond what is currently available from most police departments and academies. It must start with the establishment of a solid foundation of knowledge regarding depart- ment policy, statutory law, and case law re- lated to police use of force. Well thought-out classroom lectures that encourage questions and discussion can be used to build this foundation, but this is just the beginning. T e goal is to develop an understanding of use of force law that is suffi ciently in-depth to enable offi cers to respond appropriately to a wide range of tough real-world situations, and this cannot be achieved with classroom lectures alone. Much more is needed. Case studies about actual incidents involving questionable use of force, followed by in- depth classroom discussions about why the offi cer’s actions were justifi ed or unjustifi ed, are one very eff ective way to do this. Another is to thoroughly study and discuss key court decisions regarding use of force, starting with the two landmark US Supreme Court decisions, Tennessee v Garner and Graham v Connor. T is encourages deep thought and helps offi cers gain a better understanding of


68 The Police Marksman Summer 2015


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  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76