Denver Post

Police policies need fresh eyes
By Joseph G. Sandoval

Sunday, August 10, 2003 - The recent death of Paul Childs at the hands of a Denver policeman has focused attention on police procedure and behavior.

When discussing police, we often fail to understand the nature of policing as an occupation. Some commentators suggest that police work is the best known and the least understood institution of government.

Police do everything from delivering babies to exchanging gunshots with bank robbers. The wide range of tasks has led writer Egon Bittner to characterize the role of police as "Florence Nightingale in pursuit of Willie Sutton."

DETAILS

High-risk work Total number of people who died from occupational injuries in 1999, by selected job types: Construction trades 1,190 Farming, forestry and fishing 807 Trucking and nonflying courier services 563 Business services 161 Restaurant and bar service workers 146 Police 111 Finance, insurance and real estate 106 Amusement and recreation services 85 Educational services 78 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 1999.

There are some fundamental understandings that most of us have about the function of the police. When we've had our property taken, we call the police. When someone threatens us, we call the police. When we're involved in a traffic accident, we call the police. When the neighbor has a loud party that lasts until 3 a.m., we call the police. We even call the police when a yard across the alley is filled with junk cars, overgrown weeds and rats.

At the core of police work, however, is the fundamental understanding that American society has given police a virtual monopoly on the authorized use of deadly force. The courts and government place constraints on police, but they also provide to them a license to use force, even deadly force, in carrying out their tasks.

The challenge for society and for government is to ensure that the license is controlled and regulated and doesn't allow unbridled force to cause unnecessary deaths.

Police officers perform their work with a minimum of supervision. They frequently make decisions on their own without any guidance besides training and their own evaluation of the situations they face. Many times, if not most of the time, field supervisors arrive on the scene after an incident has begun or even after it's over.

Denver police reacted quickly when Paul Childs' sister called 911 to report his aberrant behavior on the fatal afternoon of July 5. Most know what happened 90 or so seconds after the first officer arrived. Officer James Turney shot and killed Childs.

While it serves no purpose now to speculate on the additional facts that will surface about this incident, there is a broader question: How do police respond to people engaging in behavior that threatens or potentially threatens others, and how should police respond to ensure the survival of those involved? It seems a relatively simple question, but the answers are complicated.

Since January 2002, seven men have died after Denver police officers shot them. In those seven incidents, four of the men were armed with knives; one was armed with a crossbow; the other two wielded handguns. In one of the incidents, a police officer was shot and seriously wounded before officers returned fire.

Using a handgun to subdue a person with a knife raises questions for some, especially when the person with a knife is killed. The controversy increases significantly when the person shot was emotionally or mentally disturbed.

In two of the recent incidents involving knives, the victims reportedly were suicidal. In the other two incidents, one victim had a mental handicap and the other was hearing-impaired.

These incidents raise the following question: What have the police department and the city learned from these shootings involving people with knives, especially when those individuals are suicidal or handicapped?

With the recent change in city administration, new officials have the opportunity to look with fresh eyes at that question and at police policies and procedures.

Here are some unsolicited suggestions for city and police officials in the hope that policies and procedures for police use of force can be improved.

The police currently rely on the findings of the district attorney in determining whether officers followed policy in shootings. The district attorney uses a criminal law standard in determining whether an officer committed a crime, a standard that's much higher than required by administrative law.

Police policy on physical force should not emphasize the criminal law standard. That is a starting point, but police officials are free to develop policy that places greater constraints on police behavior than do criminal laws.

Police, for instance, have developed policies that have curtailed pursuits under certain circumstances. The challenge in Denver is for police and government officials to develop a similar policy for the use of force, especially lethal force.

Suggestion number two is for the Public Safety Review Commission to conduct a quasi-autopsy analysis of the police killings of knife-wielding individuals. The goal of the reviews should be to increase the future likelihood that everyone involved in such incidents will survive. This may require a significant amount of work, but it may also prevent a significant amount of tragedy and work in the future.

Although city officials are wary of conducting such inquiries, going through an excruciatingly detailed analysis of these events may result in discovering the need for additional training or for increased supervision. Doing so would suggest to the public and to rank-and-file officers that there is a genuine concern for police safety and accountability. It will increase police credibility in the future.

The third suggestion is that the results of these quasi-autopsies be made public. Doing so would allow the public to know that officials are working toward a credible accounting for police actions.

These suggestions are a modest attempt to view incidents of police use of force in a different light. Perhaps current policy is adequate, but not everyone is convinced. There must be efforts to bring increased integrity to a process that seems to lack credibility.

The Erickson Commission studied Denver police shootings in 1997. One suggestion it made seems appropriate today. It said that the police "should take additional steps to more effectively demonstrate the thoroughness and objectivity of its investigation and reduce the appearance of preferential treatment by modifying its written procedures with regard to officer-involved shootings to require greater documentation of its actions, greater standardization of the testing and handling of the involved officer, and greater formality in the differentiation of its roles as employer and investigator."

Studying in depth the police shootings of four men wielding knives is a start. Making the information available to the public is essential.

The Public Safety Review Commission has the authority to conduct such a review with the goal of making policy suggestions. Police use of force is an important public policy issue, and everyone will benefit from such a review.