July 12, 2003

Most of you no doubt are as grateful as I am for this week's lesson in police tactics from the Denver news media. I frankly had no idea that so many of my colleagues were steeped in law enforcement theory and could so quickly diagnose what went wrong a week ago when 15-year-old Paul Childs was shot to death by officer James Turney.

I myself have kept an open mind on the question of who was at fault since I seem to recall a case or two in which the full set of facts, when they finally surfaced, were not kind to the glib and easy judgments of the opening days. But others dismiss such worries and have rushed instead to tell us exactly where the Denver Police Department failed.

At least two newspaper columnists - and Lord knows how many of the talking heads on radio and TV - have insisted, for example, that the shooting was caused by a lack of police training in how to handle the mentally impaired. This is a crackerjack theory that might even be true if the first officers on the scene knew or should have known everything that we now understand about the victim. But that hasn't been established.

Other commentators seem to believe that the fault lies in Turney's soul. He just doesn't appreciate the pain that a killing inflicts - their evidence being that he has killed two black teenagers with disabilities in 18 months. Why was he still on the street after he shot the first one, the chorus exclaims. What is it about this police department that refuses to heed such warning signs?

These are compelling questions, to be sure, and we must treat them seriously. But we must also insist that those who ask such questions treat them seriously as well and not merely use them as rhetorical clubs. They must tell us, in other words, exactly what the department should have learned from the first Turney shooting based upon the facts of the case.

You've no doubt heard that Turney shot a hearing-impaired 18-year-old in the early morning of Jan. 30, 2002, after the teen ignored commands to stop approaching the officer with a drawn knife. Now here is what you probably haven't heard:

• Several hours earlier, police had been called to the house because the teen, Gregory Lee Smith, had smashed objects, knocked a door off its hinges, and thrown a brick or concrete block through a car window before disappearing into the night.

• When Smith finally returned, he was still agitated. He grabbed a knife and at one point pleaded with his mother to kill him before retreating to the basement. By this time police were once again on the way.

• When Smith saw Turney at the top of the stairs, he slammed the door. Turney went down the stairs with his gun drawn, tried the basement door and then returned upstairs, where he was joined by another officer. As they stood there, Smith's sister called for her brother to come out. He opened the door and started up the stairs, drawing a knife as he ascended. Both officers shouted for him to stop and to drop his weapon. He didn't. They fired at almost exactly the same time.

Now, what do the critics make of these facts, which aren't really in dispute? Several other officers overhead Turney's shouted warnings to Smith. His sister's own statement shortly after the event confirms how she called him. And by the way, although Smith was hard of hearing, he wasn't blind, and both officers who shot him were in uniform.

So what is it that Turney did wrong? Should he have retreated as Smith approached? Fled the house? Holstered his gun and tried to kick Smith back down the stairs? Surely those options, if not laughable, bear their own risks, and not just to the officers.

Or is the supposed problem that Turney should have positioned himself somewhere besides the top of the stairs so the confrontation would not escalate so quickly? Even if this were true (and I don't buy it), would such a decision really warrant benching an officer from street patrol?

Or do the critics believe police should have cleared the house when they arrived and waited for a crisis-intervention expert to take charge even though Smith had been violent and they didn't know what kind of weapons he might be harboring below?

The fact is that Turney did what the vast majority of his colleagues might have done in the same situation. Critics who say the department should have treated Smith's shooting as a red flag against Turney are suggesting, in effect, that any cop who shoots a teenager should never ride a beat again. This is a destructive, outlandish recommendation that would result in officers simply turning their backs on potentially violent situations lest they be punished for doing their jobs.

Several commentators also seem to believe police should assume that weapon-toting young men will back down if given sufficient opportunity. But police can't make such assumptions because experience teaches them otherwise. Some people - Damien Morton, to cite one example - will attack them against all odds.

If you remember Morton, it's probably because of a News4 tape showing him being roughly removed from his Denver jail cell in August 2002 by sheriff's deputies. But Morton had a problem with cops long before that incident. According to official reports, he'd assaulted numerous officers, including at least five with head butts and fists during the previous six months in confinement. And during a courtroom appearance he threatened a deputy prosecutor and then charged at her, forcing her to leap onto the judge's bench.

Last weekend, in what was probably the inevitable denouement to Morton's life, he was shot to death by Las Vegas police.

Police know there are sociopaths like Morton lurking where they least expect them. Denver officer Kurt Peterson encountered one last November during a routine traffic stop after he told a passenger to remove his hands from his pockets. Instead, the man shot Peterson in the face with a .38-caliber gun he had concealed. Peterson told me this week that he lost 60 percent of his hearing and still suffers from loss of movement and nerve damage - but, by the way, is back on the job.

Given the tragic and yes, disturbing shooting of Childs, I don't know whether Turney is a bad cop or just a cop with bad luck, but I do know that it would be foolish to reach a conclusion just yet. The caterwauling about justice is understandable, but it needs to cut both ways. The officer deserves it, too.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

MORE CARROLL COLUMNS »

Copyright 2003, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.