Lawbreakers Are Hurting Themselves: Blame the Cops!

By Joel F. Shults, Ed.D

In another upside-down world, a man who died fleeing from police is now considered a victim of murder at the hands of the police. In late October of 2020, Washington D.C. officers observed 20-year-old Karon Hylton-Brown driving an electric scooter with no helmet and motoring down a sidewalk, both of which are illegal. The Revel electric moped sounds innocuous and even playful but weighing in at around 200 pounds with a top speed of 30 miles per house, it is not pedestrian-friendly. A quick internet search reveals several deaths of riders or pedestrians related to the whizzing cycles.

Two officers in separate patrol cars took up pursuit of the cyclist after Hylton-Brown failed to stop as required by law. Instead, he led officers on a circuitous chase which ended when he slammed into another motorist and died despite the medical attention the officers rendered. The rest of the account, as recounted in the federal indictment of the officers, cited a rash of accusations that the officers intentionally obscured and covered up some investigative facts, and violated acceptable pursuit policy.

As a result of the incident, one officer is charged with second degree murder, and both officers are charged with impeding the investigation. If the allegations against the officers, which include failing to make a complete investigation by leaving out witness statements and being deceptive about the details of the event, are proven then certainly they are to be held accountable.

But not murder.

A recent Supreme Court case affirmed that police officers are not required to be mind readers. That case, recently published, concerned officers responding to a domestic violence complaint where a woman call in fear about the appearance of her ex. Officers arrived and contacted the suspect. The suspect moved further away from officers, ignored their commands, and then picked up a hammer in such a way that the officers found it necessary to use deadly force to stop his threat. The officers sought qualified immunity, having been required to respond to the call and facing an uncertain and unpredictable situation within which they had to exercise split-second judgment. Those are the kinds of situations for which qualified immunity was developed by the courts.

Those pressing to hold the officers accountable for the hammer-wielding man’s death claimed that it was the officers’ decisions and behaviors that caused the dead man’s behavior. If true, this would mean that the person refusing to follow the officers’ commands and warnings, blatantly displaying a deadly weapon, and leaving the officers no other recourse was dead because the officers failed to predict how the suspect would react. In other words, maybe the cops shouldn’t have even shown up. Or maybe they should have let the hammer fly to see if it would hit its mark.

An important note in much use of force cases is not just the question of whether the officers were in fear for their safety. This is the claim that critics make “All you have to do is say you were scared and you’re justified in killing!” This is wrong, factually, on two counts. One is that fear must be reasonable. It is not an entirely subjective claim that must be believed. Secondly, the fear is for the whole potential of the situation. Would the person’s throw of the hammer injure an officer in a way that disabled their ability to continue to handle the situation?  Would the hammer, if thrown, distract the officers while the assailant obtained another weapon? If the suspect’s attack allowed him to escape, would he have injured the 911 caller? It would be foolish to think the police would predict that the suspect would suddenly comply, but also predict that the whole thing is no big deal and nobody is going to get hurt.

Which brings us back to the murder charge for our Washington, D.C. officer where it seems we want our laws enforced until the suspect gets hurt, then it wasn’t worth it. We know at least one headline in a blog somewhere is going to say “scooter driver murdered by police”. How about scooter driver would be alive today if he’d pulled over?”

A retired police chief Joel Shults is an award-winning writer, college professor, trainer, and first responder chaplain. He is the author of several law enforcement-related books and numerous articles. He serves as a municipal judge and a coroner’s investigator in rural southern Colorado. He can be found on twitter @chiefshults, and online at joelshults.blogspot.com and streetsmartforce.com