August 19, 2003

Cynics who insist that the Denver district attorney will eventually give his blessing to last month's police shooting of 15-year-old Paul Childs because that's simply what DAs always do should click on denverda.org and read the conclusions released last week in the police shooting of Christopher Jones.

True, DA Bill Ritter concludes that police broke no law in shooting Jones last March when he came at them with a knife, and indeed had reason to fear for their safety. But the DA is none too happy with police decisions leading up to the fatal confrontation, if we read correctly between the lines of his letter to Chief Gerry Whitman.

The hints of censure occur during Ritter's discussion of a decision by officer Scott Hartvigson to kick down the door to a bathroom in which Jones had locked himself.

"Whether that was the best tactical option under the specific facts of this case is a legitimate question to be assessed and answered by those responsible for other levels of review of officer-involved shootings," Ritter wrote. And as if to make sure Whitman doesn't miss the point, Ritter proceeded to elaborate on what needs to be considered: "When confrontations such as this are evolving, officers should keep in mind the gravity of the underlying criminal activity that forms the basis for contacting the party in the first instance; the desired outcome they are attempting to achieve; how quickly action must be taken; and whether disengagement and further planning is practicable. Along with the statutory authority for police officers to use deadly physical force under appropriate circumstances comes the associated responsibility to insure the decisions they make are sound and consistent with their objective."

Let's review Ritter's criteria and apply them to the shooting of Jones.

What was the "gravity of the underlying criminal activity"? Well, police had been contacted by a friend of Jones concerned that he might hurt himself or others, although he'd done neither. Police knew Jones was drunk, that he'd been verbally abusive to others and had thrown stuff around the house. But they also knew he was alone by the time they arrived since his friend met them outside the front door.

What was "the desired outcome"? Presumably to get him calmed down and possibly into emergency mental-health or alcohol treatment.

How quickly did action have to be taken? There was no hurry at all. No one else was in the house. Police didn't even know that Jones was armed with a knife until he burst out of the bathroom.

Was "disengagement and further planning . . . practicable"? Absolutely. Jones wasn't going anywhere - not without a police escort anyway.

In short, there was no reason for police to force an immediate climax to the intervention by kicking down a door. But once they did and Jones charged out with a knife, all options vanished. They had little choice but to shoot.

We hope Ritter is at least as forthcoming in his eventual report on the Childs shooting. Even if he concludes that no criminal charges are warranted - and we hasten to add we're making no predictions - he owes it to the taxpaying public, as someone who has investigated numerous police shootings, to indicate his opinion of how officers handled the call.

Copyright 2003, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.