Much as I’ve questioned some of the subjects of the New York Times’ Room for Debate, yesterday’s flavor raised the big question of whether police use deadly force too often, and offered some very thoughtful responses. One debater, South Carolina law professor and former police officer Seth Stoughton, raised a deeply disconcerting point:
Every time a police shooting gets national attention, the difference in the conflicting attitudes that civilians and law enforcement have toward the use of force is glaring. That conflict drives much of the tension between police agencies and the communities they serve.
Indeed, as I’ve often noted, the First Rule of Policing is to make it home for dinner, a rule that every cop inherently applies in every interaction.
When cops evaluate a use-of-force incident, they ask whether it was justified, focusing on the legal rule set by the Supreme Court in the 1989 case Graham v. Connor. The Court held that officers may use force so long as it is “objectively reasonable.” To determine whether a particular action was objectively reasonable, the Court held, judges must view the situation through the deferential lens of “a reasonable officer on the scene.”
When civilians evaluate a use-of-force incident, they ask whether it was avoidable. They want to know whether the officer could have done something—anything—else.
