Officer Involved Shootings: An Officers Perspective

Officer Involved Shootings:  An Officers Perspective

In light of recent, high profiled officer involved shootings, I felt compelled to put into words what other police officers feel.  Today’s officers face more scrutiny than ever before due to the technological advances of video, cell phones, and media coverage, to name a few.  This article is simply to give the reader a chance to think about these incidents in a more objective view.  After all, the media coverage today reaches more potential jurors than ever before.  This also has dire consequences and makes the entire legal process much more difficult for everyone involved.

By now, the Ferguson, MO shooting is “yesterdays” news.  However, the aftermath is felt around the country in ways most people don’t consider.  For most people, they get up in the morning, get ready for work, and kiss their loved ones goodbye and head to their jobs.  Some are laborers working in the hot sun; some are serving our food at the various restaurants, dry cleaners, parking lot attendants, and a host of other professions.  The last thing on their mind is whether or not they will come home at the end of their day.  Officers, however, strap on their protective vests, uniform, belt, check their firearm and other equipment, praying they don’t have to use any of it.  They kiss their loved ones goodbye and know the dangers they may have to face.  Their stress level is among the highest in any profession.  So, an officer’s life span is cut short, in many cases, because of the profession he or she chose.

Police officers watch the same news outlets as the rest of the public.  Officers are well aware of what the public thinks when officers make decisions.  And believe it or not, most officers are just as appalled as the rest of society when officers make bad decisions.  But, I haven’t seen a single news story where a reporter has asked a patrol officer what he or she thinks about some of these incidents.  Instead, the head of the agency has to address the public.  Street officers are smart enough to keep their mouths shut because what they say will definitely be used against them in the future.  Additionally, the officers still have a job to do.  They have to face the same reality day in and day out. 

Now, before we rush to judge officers based on a news story or a video, we need all the facts.  Bits and pieces of the facts are insufficient and do nothing but make it much more difficult on an already difficult job.  After all, every scene an officer goes to, someone wants him or her there, and someone doesn’t.  And sometimes, no one wants the officer there, but he or she has a job to do.  Can you imagine having to do your job thinking, “If I make the wrong decision, a person’s life could be ruined?  My family could be ruined.  The mayor will not support me.  The chief might support me, but quickly enough, this incident could become political.  Does that guy have a gun pointed at me?  Is he going to shoot me or someone else?  Was that a gunshot I heard?  Should I shoot now or wait?  No matter what I do, I will probably be sued.”

There are not many professions that I know of in which people have that kind of a thought process in a matter of seconds.  When an officer second-guesses him or herself, he or she could lose their life.  There is no time for second guesses. 

The death of any person is tragic.  It’s more so when it’s an officer-involved incident.  But what appears to get lost on the public is that police officers are people too.  They have feelings.  I once assisted in an officer involved shooting incident in which an officer killed an armed suspect that was attacking a fellow officer.  One of the bullets passed through the suspect’s jacket and hit an innocent woman who was walking a child in a carriage.  The stray bullet struck the woman in the arm.  She was only slightly injured.  I interviewed the officer who fired those shots.  He was extremely emotional after the entire incident.  He kept telling me he never intended to hurt the woman.  Both the woman and the family of the deceased, armed suspect sued the officer.  Shortly after receiving the notification of the lawsuit, the officer committed suicide.

These incidents are just as real to the officer as they are to the families and individuals involved.  All of this seems to get lost in the haste to rush for judgment. 

My final point deals with the legal process.  There are numerous people that do not want the police to “police themselves.”  Apparently there is some fear of a cover up or distrust between the citizens and law enforcement.  I don’t care who investigates these incidents as long as the integrity of the investigations is kept sacred.  Leaks to media outlets not only hinder investigations, but they let out information that truly needs to be protected.  After all, the integrity of the investigation cannot go understated.  However, this protection of the integrity of the investigation is also a double-edged sword.  The public may view this as a cover up.  However, having conducted hundreds of investigations, I can tell you this is extremely important.  This prevents a suspect from confessing to something he or she did not do.  Additionally, investigators are able to determine factual witnesses from people who just want to get involved.

Trying a case in the media prior to any case going to trial is simply not justice.  It does not matter who the defendant is, all defendants are entitled to a fair trial.  The trouble with today’s media, and I am referring to all media not just broadcast media, is that it is instantaneous and constant.  From the Ferguson shooting to the shooting in South Carolina, videos and false statements were broadcast almost immediately.  Never before have we been faced with such immediacy and falsehoods that taint jury pools almost from the instant an incident happens.  Today, people who have no idea what they are talking about immediately vilify the officer.  Some just want their 15 minutes of fame while others want to get the “truth” out.  The trouble is, video only tells a portion of the story.  The investigation will reveal the events in a much more logical and thorough fashion than just the video.

Finally, only after all the facts have been collected a prosecutor or grand jury can render a decision.  No matter what, the decision rendered will not be good for everyone concerned.  Someone on either side of the incident will be negatively affected. 

No legal system is perfect.  But, ours here in the United States is much better than anywhere else in the world.  So, the next time you watch the news and see a controversial story, take a deep breath.  Relax and wait for the true details to emerge before rushing to judgment.  In Spanish, there is a saying I love to use. Las apariencias engañan.  This basically means not everything is as it appears.  Nothing more could be more apropos than this.

Security at Major Events

Coordinating security for corporate offices, hotels, apartments, convenience stores, and just about every other possible location can have its challenges.  Coordinating security at major events, however, is especially challenging.  This article will focus on some of the challenges I faced when coordinating security for several events and locations in Houston, Texas for Super Bowl XXXVI.

All NFL cities desire to host the Super Bowl.  The money the event brings along with the international exposure for a city are tremendous.  But, one terrorist attack, one shooting, or one highly publicized breach of security can harm that city for many years to come.  As a result, most event coordinators take security measures for large events, such as the Super Bowl, very seriously.  I learned that is not always the case, however.  Some events are simply hosted to generate money and security is not a major concern.

I became involved in one of the largest events during Super Bowl XXXVI due to the fact I coordinated security for two high-end nightclubs in downtown Houston.  The owners decided to create what became Super Bash.  This event was to host over 70 live bands over a period of five days.  Additionally, the ownership of the club also owned a restaurant nearby.  Security for the nightclubs, restaurant and Super Bash became my responsibility.  Discussions began about eight months prior to the Super Bowl.  Naturally, there was a lot to discuss. 

One important point to note here, the security director should be included in all executive level meetings.  Sometimes, the meetings may not generate much in the security related field.  However, I was included very early on.  During these meetings, sometimes, I said nothing.  But, I still learned a lot.  I was able to obtain information on the various vendors, hosts of the events, and number of people expected at each event, just to name a few.  For the Super Bash and one event at the nightclubs, meetings with representatives with the City of Houston were also necessary (more on that later).  I was fortunate to have owners who took security very serious.

About six months prior to the events, I had my first meeting with ESPN.  They were going to host a party at the nightclubs the Friday before the Super Bowl.  The head of security with ESPN traveled to Houston and met with the owner and me on several occasions.  We discussed many issues and concerns that their security folks had.  One thing in particular was the use of firearms.  In Texas, it is a felony offense to carry a firearm in a nightclub with very few exceptions.  Naturally, the head of security wanted to ensure that the people he was there to protect were going to be well protected inside the clubs.   Dealing with ESPN was the most professional experience I had as a security coordinator.  Their event came and went with no issues at all.

The Super Bash presented a totally different set of challenges because the event took up two huge parking lots downtown.  The parking lots were across the street from one another and each had different stages featuring different bands.  The City of Houston denied permits to block the common street due to the fact the street was a major exit route for other major venues.  The only remedy we could come up with was to hire additional officers to man the intersections watching for both pedestrians and vehicle traffic.  This plan worked out fine.

Another challenge was the main stage.  One thing we had not planned on was a large crowd rushing the stage.  The first night our headliner played, a child and an adult woman were pinned against the stage due to the crowd pushing toward the stage.  I addressed that by pulling two officers from other assignments in an effort to move people away from the stage.  In a crowd that is drinking, excited, and beginning to get a little unruly, this was quite a challenge.  However, every night after that, I had additional officers assigned just to watch the stage.  Mind you, we did not hire any security companies.  All of these officers were police officers.

A local hip-hop radio station hosted one event at the nightclubs.  I had concerns about that event from the start and made my concerns known to the management.  The event called for blocking off an entire city street as a red carpet walk for celebrities.  The ticket prices for this event were extremely high.  The radio station advised that they would handle the security on the outside of the building for the entire event and I would coordinate the security inside.  On its face, this sounded like a good plan.  However, I had experience with this radio station in the past and security was never a concern for them.  Because they actually blocked off a city street, they did have some police officers on site.  However, once the celebrities had entered the club, the radio station sent their security home and abandoned their posts outside.  This created a huge problem for those of us working the clubs.  People were demanding that they be let in and the people manning the door were not allowing them entry.  Some became quite unruly and uncooperative, including a couple of NFL players.  Once again, I was forced to move additional officers away from their primary posts in order to deal with unruly crowds outside.

When all was said and done, we had no serious problems throughout the entire week.  All of our challenges were met and solved.  I was fortunate to have great management to deal with that included me in just about every area of planning.  Finally, I had over 60 officers working at all of these events during peek times throughout different sites.  They all performed at an extremely high degree.

The crux of this article is quite simple.  Keep the security director involved in all high level meetings.  Even the meetings do not appear to be security related, a lot of great information can be obtained that will assist in the security efforts.  As a security director, be patient and flexible.  Security issues are likely to arise.  How you handle them will dictate your performance.  Finally, hire people that are going to perform their duties at a very professional level.  This made my job as the security coordinator much, much easier.

Search Warrant or Consent to Search?

Not long after I promoted to sergeant, I was training in a patrol division.  I was riding with another sergeant when we received a call from two patrol officers.  They were at an apartment complex and had chased a male into an apartment.  They requested a supervisor go by with them.  So, as part of my training, we went.

Once we arrived, we saw the two patrol officers and two women standing in front of the apartment where the suspect allegedly ran.  One of the women was holding a small child, under a year old.  As per protocol, we spoke to the officers first.  They both said that they observed a young male engage in what they believed was a “hand to hand” transaction with another male.  The officers, both in full uniform, and in broad daylight, approached the two men and both took off running.  The officers pursued one of the men, allowing the second male to get away.  They chased the male around the corner of a building and suddenly lost sight of him.  As they immediately rounded the same building, a woman came out of a downstairs apartment.  The officers inquired if she had seen anyone running by.  She claimed she did not.

Seconds later, a second female exited the same apartment carrying a small child.  She indicated that a male had run into the apartment and was hiding from police.  The officers asked for permission to enter the apartment to look for the suspect, while at the same time calling for a sergeant, as per policy.  One female said the officers could go into the apartment, while the second woman declined to allow entry.  So, the officers waited until our arrival.

As it turns out, the two women were sisters.  The first female that exited the apartment was uncooperative and very loud.  The second female was more concerned about her child and was much more cooperative.  She kept trying to get her sister to agree to allow the officers to search the apartment.  I will address some of the related legal arguments shortly.

I decided to talk to the uncooperative woman.  First, I established that both she and her sister were on the lease.  She expressed that she did not feel the police had any right intruding on her private property.  She also stated that no one was in the apartment other than her sister and her sister’s baby (and she was adamant about that).  All three of these facts are very important.  Although she was upset, she was still answering my questions. 

I then told the woman that based on the information I had obtained, I believed that I had enough “probable cause” to obtain a search warrant.  While I was talking to the woman, one of the officers was talking to the other sister obtaining information on the suspect they had chased.  I told her that by her preventing us from searching her apartment for a wanted suspect she was violating the law and that once I obtained a search warrant, she would not be afforded any other opportunity to avoid jail.  Texas has a legal statute specifically regarding hindering apprehension of a suspect.  This was a perfect scenario for such a charge.  I then told the woman that neither she nor her sister would be allowed back inside the apartment until we had completed our search.  At that point, I reached for my phone to call the district attorney in an effort to have a search warrant drawn up.  I guess the woman thought I was bluffing because she suddenly had a few more questions.  I explained to her that she could avoid all of the drama if she simply signed a “consent to search” form allowing us to go inside the apartment and apprehend the subject the officers pursuing.  Once again, she insisted no one was in her apartment.  Finally, she agreed to sign the consent form.

Once inside the apartment, the officers performed their search and I stood at the doorway and looked inside.  I noticed right away something looked odd about the couch, but I couldn’t put my finger on it.  But something just didn’t look right.  The officers cleared the rest of the apartment and were surprised they didn’t find the suspect.  Suddenly, I saw the couch move.  It was an odd movement, under the fabric along the back of the couch.  I pointed out the movement to one of the officers.  We then pulled the cushions off and flipped the couch over on it’s back.  Now, one would think that the whole couch would have just flipped over.  Nope.  Not this one.  Instead, it just slowly rolled over on its back.  Then, we saw our suspect.  He had crawled inside the couch!  Obviously, someone helped him by placing the cushions over the top of him.

Needless to say, we arrested the male.  We later learned he had an open felony warrant and still had some drugs in his possession.  He was the only person we arrested that day.

Now, these circumstances bring up several legal questions.  First, did we have enough information to provide us sufficient probable cause to obtain a search warrant?  My answer is yes.  Remember, the officers lost sight of the suspect for just a few seconds prior to finding the first woman outside her apartment.  They did not see the suspect go inside, but they assumed so due to the circumstances and the time frame involved.  Secondly, when questioned, the first woman said she had not seen anyone run by her.  That was important because if she had been standing outside the apartment when the officers rounded the corner, she would have seen a male run by.  Thirdly, when the sister exited the apartment a few minutes later, she was cooperative and told the officers the male they were chasing was inside.  She gave permission to search the apartment.  So now, the officers have conflicting information from two different women who claim they live in the apartment.  Based on the totality of the circumstances, I believe that there was sufficient probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

Now, here is another legal issue regarding consent.  Both women claimed to be on the lease for that apartment.  Based on their own words, the officers may use that information to help gain entry to the apartment.  The law states that either party may give consent to search the premises.  However, a recent court decision has clarified who may withdraw consent.  In this case, either sister can withdraw consent at any time, but the person withdrawing the consent must be present at the scene.  So, changing the facts of this case just for demonstrative purposes, if we had arrested the uncooperative sister and taken her to jail and the cooperative sister signed the consent, the jailed sister would not be able to withdraw that consent.  In this case, both sisters are present and neither is under arrest.

The consent to search itself is another legal hurdle.  A defense attorney could argue that the uncooperative sister was coerced into giving her consent.  That argument will always be disputed at an evidentiary hearing.  The point here is, the officers could explain the legality of their actions and any applicable consequences to people involved in order to gain consent.  The legal argument becomes whether the person giving consent were actually doing so because of a threat by law enforcement or by their own free will. 

Finally, in this case, the officers were looking for a suspect.  They are only allowed to search the areas in which a person’s body could fit. So, going through drawers would not be permissible.  In such a case, should evidence be found in those drawers, it could not be used as evidence in a case against anyone, because it was obtained outside the scope of the consent.  Basically, if a judge determines that a search was deemed illegal, all evidence recovered from the point when the “illegal search” began would be suppressed. 

The lessons learned here are numerous.  First, as a supervisor, have faith in your officers.  Now that doesn’t mean go in blindly and allow them to do whatever they please.  The facts in this case allowed me, as a supervisor, to assist the officers in their lawful search.  Second, most people just want to understand their legal obligations when they become involved in incidents such as this one.  Although the first sister was loud and uncooperative in the beginning, once she understood the legal ramifications, she immediately agreed to allow us to search.   Could she argue coercion in a court of law?  Yes she could, and most do.  However, judges make these decisions long after the case has been filed.  Officers should not be afraid of what might or might not happen to their case once it reaches the courtroom.  They should concentrate on doing the job right from the beginning.  This will allow them to provide the best possible service to the community they serve while also preparing solid criminal cases that will withstand legal scrutiny.

Legal Disclaimer

My articles are designed as a training tool.  Although I discuss numerous legal issues and possible resolutions, the reader should always consult with an attorney prior to making any legal decisions.  I am not a lawyer.  These articles are based on real events that I have personally experienced.  I write in layman’s terms to make it much easier for the reader to grasp the concepts and legal issues, not to offer legal advice.   Please keep in mind that every state has varying laws regarding the legal issues mentioned in these articles.  Always consult your local attorney for legal advice.

Responding to People in Mental Health Crisis

During my 22-year law enforcement career, I became involved in countless situations in which I personally dealt with people in mental health crisis.  My first incident involved a Hispanic male armed with a pistol.  I learned a significant amount from that single incident:  so much, in fact, that I made the decision to join the Houston Police Department’s Hostage Negotiation Team.  The techniques I have learned over the years can be applicable to almost anyone, at any time, in just about any situation.  In the following paragraphs, I will recount a few incidents in which I was involved and discuss the techniques used to end each the situation safely.  Understand that this is not a specific “how-to guide” that may be applied to every situation.  Instead, the use of these techniques will simply allow a person that becomes aware of a certain situation - to be able to attempt to stabilize the incident prior to first responders’ arrival.

One warm fall evening, my partner and I were busy on another scene waiting for investigators.  A supervisor had joined us and we were just casually talking and waiting while securing our scene.  Suddenly, we heard two gunshots at the apartment complex across the street.  The supervisor instructed me to go across the street with him to investigate.  My partner was behind to wait for the other investigators.

As we pulled into the complex, the supervisor turned right, and I turned left.  As I rounded the turn in the parking lot, I saw a group of people and heard yelling, then I heard a woman scream.  I thought this must be the area where the gunshots were fired.  As I exited my patrol car and headed towards the group of people standing in the courtyard, I heard the dispatcher send out a “priority one” call on my radio.  (That is an emergency call.)  I did not hear the nature of the call, but learned later that it was a “Suicide in Progress” call. 

As I cautiously approached the group,  I took notice that there were several children playing and running around in the courtyard.  Suddenly, an older Hispanic male rushed up to me with a pistol in his hand, pointed at his head, yelling at me to shoot him.  He was cursing, screaming, and lunging directly at me.  I drew my sidearm and immediately tried to find a safe place to get to for cover.  I backed up toward the parking lot yelling at the male to drop his weapon.  Fortunately, he continued to follow me, constantly lunging at me with the pistol still at his head.  At this point, I started just to focus on his chest in case I had to shoot him.  I continued to shout at him to drop the pistol and he was shouting at me to shoot him.

Eventually, we wound up in the parking lot.  The male began to chase me around a vehicle.  Around and around and around we went.  I had difficulty trying to keep him a safe distance and keep cover between us.  Finally, I decided to stop moving around the car.  I took a stance at the hood of a vehicle and he was in the middle of the parking lot.  It was at that time that I noticed back up officers arriving.  I lost all sense of time.  To me, this all happened in a matter of seconds.  I learned later on that it actually took 4 minutes for the first officer to arrive after he was dispatched to the “suicide in progress”. 

Now that other officers were on scene, we were able to set up a perimeter in which the suicidal male was now contained.  I was then able to settle myself down and concentrate on what the male was shouting.  I then detected he had a very strong Spanish accent.  I speak fluent Spanish so I decided to talk to him in his native tongue.

The results were immediate.  It was literally similar to turning off the light switch.  The male responded by not shouting and began simply talking.  He quit lunging at me as well.  My biggest fear in the beginning was that if I shot him, I was taking a huge chance at possibly wounding an innocent bystander.  Then, my fear changed to the possibility that another officer would shoot him thinking he was going to hurt me.  Now that he was not lunging at me anymore, my own fears began to subside.

I learned during our conversation that the male was depressed.  He was on probation from another county for some misdemeanor offense and he was afraid that I would take him to jail for having the pistol.  I was able to convince him that I wanted to get him to a hospital for psychological evaluation.  Although he did technically violate state law, I was more concerned for his mental health.  I also learned that he had a wife and two young children.  The male was also intoxicated.

After about 25 minutes, the male made a final lunge with the pistol and threw it in the grass.  I was then able to hand cuff him and get him to the hospital.  The pistol was loaded with one bullet in the chamber.

Another incident happened just a few months after the first one.  While on a routine patrol with no partner, I saw a female walking along a very high over pass.  I did not notice any vehicles around, but I figured she must have broken down somewhere.  As I approached her, she turned and looked at me.  She then suddenly climbed on top of the guardrail.  She appeared to be in her early twenties and she was crying.  Once again, I found myself dealing with a suicidal person.  I called for back up and had the freeway and roads below shut down.  I then approached her.

The female immediately started yelling at me that she would jump if I came any closer.  However, we were faced with some other very critical issues.  First, we were on a freeway over pass and there were cars passing by us.  I was also listening to my radio and trying to get back up so they could handle the logistics while I dealt with the female.  Suddenly, we had a helicopter overhead, sirens of approaching units, and the noise of a crowd gathering below.  As you can imagine, one of my biggest obstacles was being able to hear the woman.

I explained this to her as well.  She acknowledged and allowed me to move a little closer.  Now, I am no fool, I was not going to get close enough for her to be able to grab me and pull me down with her.  Instead, I got close enough so we could hear each other.  One tactic I used was to talk softly.  This allowed me to get close enough to actually hear her.

After about two hours of talking, or rather listening to her, she suddenly told me to pull her off the railing.  She was weak at this point and needed assistance.  Another officer and I pulled her to safety and took her to the hospital.  I learned that she was the victim of domestic violence and she had a small daughter.  She was also intoxicated.

Now, although these two scenes differ significantly, they are also similar in a number of ways as well.  First, both people were intoxicated.  As a negotiator, it is important to me what the person has ingested.  Alcohol has extreme affects on various medications.  Additionally, depressed people have the tendency to self medicate.  They may use various substances in an effort to make themselves either feel better or escape reality.  What they don’t realize is that seldom happens.  Instead, they push themselves even further into depression.  The affects of drugs and alcohol are totally different however.  In these cases, I highlight this fact only because it is an important consideration when talking with a person in mental health crisis.

Secondly, both individuals were suicidal.  They each had different reasons, but they were not intent on hurting someone else.  This too is important.  For the purposes of this article, it is important that the reader focus on just the suicidal person.  The techniques used in these two instances can also be applied to other people in mental health crisis, but there are simply too many different scenarios to cover them all.

Thirdly, although not specifically mentioned in the scenarios, both of these people felt like they had no other choices but to take their own lives.  They were “looking for a permanent solution to a temporary problem.”

When responding to situations such as these, it is important that the first person to talk to the individual be calm.  There are several things one can do in order to accomplish that small task.  Take a few deep breaths.  Speak calmly and allow the other person to vent.  Sometimes, the person just wants to be heard.  Under no circumstances, engage in an argument with the person in mental crisis.  This is counter productive and only serves to agitate the individual. 

LISTEN to what the other person is saying.  The simplest way to measure that is to employ what’s known as active listening.  Active listening is not simply repeating what the other person is saying.  It is rewording what the person said in a manner that makes it clear the message was delivered.  The next step to active listening is labeling.  Labeling refers to applying a feeling to what the person is describing.  I have provided an example of labeling below:

Person in distress (PID) in this scenario is Jim.  The first person that finds Jim distressed is Bruce.

Jim:  “I’m lost my job, my house, and my wife.  She claims I’m always drunk.  I can’t find a job anywhere and have no other place to go.”

Bruce:  “Jim, I understand you feel desperate because you’ve lost everything you live for.  Is that correct?”

That is a very basic illustration of both active listening and labeling.  The goal, of course, is to get the person in mental crisis to move into problem solving.  This may take some time.  As the first person to address the person in mental health crisis, however, your job is simple.  Stay safe and try to get the person to calm down.  You will most definitely want to call 911 and get the police and fire department involved.

Other things to consider, prior to first responders arriving on scene, is try to obtain a list of medications the person has taken and if illicit drugs or alcohol are involved.  There are a number of factors to consider when first responders or negotiators begin talking with this person.  Also, try to ascertain if the person has been diagnosed with any mental disorder.  If so, who is their doctor or therapist?  Try to get as much information as possible so that it can all be passed on to the negotiators. 

In a lot of suicidal situations, the person may want to talk to a specific person.  Do not let that happen.  In my experience, the person just wants to say goodbye.  That is just one delay tactic.  When the person is making demands, stall, stall, stall.  As a person who was just thrust into this situation, you don’t want to make any decisions of this nature.

The nature of this article is simply to provide very basic information should the reader become involved in any of these types of situations.  It is impossible to cover the vast majority of situations in a brief article.  I have spent years in training and experience gaining this type of knowledge. Just remember to keep calm, utilize active listening and labeling, and try to gain as much information about the person in mental health crisis as possible prior to first responders’ arrival.