I’m still perusing the articles in the Review-Journal regarding officer involved shootings in the Las Vegas valley and amazed on how skewed the RJ’s “investigation” is.
The RJ has stated that the focus is on LVMPD’s activities and that the investigation is a result of a year-long effort on the RJ’s part. No outside, unbiased entities were involved UNTIL the RJ, upon doing its own research, provided their own findings to the outside agencies and asked opinions of those agencies. At one point, a professor stated “based on (your) data…”
Percentage comparisons between departments showed a higher number of LVMPD’s officers were involved in shootings versus other departments. Again, no consideration of Metro’s interaction with over 30 million tourists and visitors, and no per capita comparisons between local jurisdictions.
The RJ article states that 97% of the findings of 500 cases reviewed by the Use of Force Board, comprised of officers and civilians, rules in favor of the officer(s). It cites that officers, such as Officer Pease, “who show patterns of poor judgment and multiple lapses in police procedure with fatal consequences - rarely face discipline when they shoot and kill”. If I read this right, if an officer has had what is considered by some, as poor decision making skills, and he is placed in a life or death situation, and he has the tools to protect himself or others, he shouldn’t react because he should be punished because of his past?
I invite anyone to be placed in the same circumstances, or ANY life or death situation, given the same tools, and see how they react. But before they react, tell them their past history will be held against them however they act. “Remember when you wet your bed as a child?” “You’ve been arrested for DUI or domestic violence”.
Inquest results were also listed, and the vast majority was shown as “unanimously justified” for the use of deadly force. Others show a 6 to 1 vote in favor of the use of force. The folks that sit on these boards are civilians, not department members.
Jury of your peers? Sound familiar?
What is the complaint? Are the officers being judged? The jury selection? The preparation by the attorneys? The venue? I’m confused. It seems that the complaint is that officers, doing their job, protecting their lives and others, are deemed justified, in all avenues, when they use force.
Not all incidents are perfect, and all the incidents have their critics, regardless how “black and white” it seems, and the majority of the incidents that are ruled justifiable show the suspect had a clear-cut intent and ability to harm/kill the officer or someone else. The officer sometimes had to make a split second decision.
Basically, if you point a gun at an officer, you will be met with deadly force. The same goes with trying to run them over with a vehicle. Bring a knife to a gun fight? Who’s going to lose? That’s the rules.
It’s unfortunate that shootings do occur. Someone loses a life. Someone takes a life. There is more than one victim. There are family members, friends of both the person who lost their life and the person who took it.
Hints have been made that alternatives to deadly force need to be used. There already have been issues raised with the use of less-than-lethal alternatives, such as “Tasers”, bean bags and other types of less-than-lethal shotgun rounds, batons, etc. Each is a tool on the officers belt and the training on each is extensive, but each can cause severe injuries or worse (hence the less-than-lethal designation). Each tool has been highlighted by the media when it is used with dramatic effects.
But with each dramatization by the media of any officer’s use of force, regardless of the tools used, the media slowly biases the public’s perception of the folks that are sworn to protect and the department’s reaction to such articles.
LVMPD administration has developed a “kneejerk” reaction to the public’s response to issues, forming committees, additional reviewing teams, additional training, getting more civilians involved, all at additional cost to the already financially burdened department.
Not once, during my tenure in the department, did the administration ask the line personnel their opinion about how change should come about. Decisions were always made at the upper levels, by administrators that had not seen any street time in several years, yet the sheriff repeatedly states that he remembers where he came from.
No wonder department morale has been at an all-time low.
To be continued…
