Should “police use of deadly force laws” need to be amended or just be legally enforced?

The continued and mounting incidents of a few high profile homicides involving non-White victims by White police officers has led to an ever-increasing chorus of calls to reform the criminal justice system. In WA State the shooting deaths of Native-American woodcarver John T. Williams and African-American Che Taylor has prompted social justice activists as well as concerned citizens trying to get the required 200,000 signatures for I-873 to be on the November ballot. This measure would amend the clause in RCW 9A.16.040 which pertains to the use of deadly force by police or any other such representative as authorized by the court. Specifically, the provision is to make police officers more accountable for any action resulting from discharging a firearm which results in the loss of life of another person [criminal suspect]. Proponents of I-873 want to remove the seven words which are: “without malice and with a good faith belief. . .  [RCW 9A.16.040/ Section 3].” The thing is, though, this so called “police shield” statute is not unenforceable as it is written, and it can stand judicial enforcement without the need for revision through the ballot process or the legislature.

Chapter 29 of the Substitute Senate Bill No. 4465, filed in the Office of the Secretary of State (April 2, 1986), relating to [the use of] deadly force; amending RCW 9A.16.010 and RCW 9A.16.040- creating a new section, is as follows:                         

DEADLY FORCE

9A.16.010                                                       Section 1

(1) “Necessary” means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of [deadly] force appeared to exist, and that the amount of [deadly] force used was “reasonable” to effect the lawful purpose intended.

(2) “Deadly force” means the intentional application of [deadly] force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death [chokeholds??] or serious physical injury.

9A.16.040                                                       Section 2

(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is “justified” in the following causes:

(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1) (c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of a crime, the police officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect(s) if not apprehended:

• poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer, or
• poses a threat of serious physical harm to others

Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace (police) officers as “a threat of serious physical harm” are the following:
(a) The suspect threatens the police officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or
(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction of serious bodily harm.

Under these circumstances [previously mentioned] deadly force may also be used [subjective determination??] if necessary, to prevent escape from the officer [i.e. Section 2 ii/iii], where if feasible, some warning is given.

(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such an act is “justifiable” pursuant to this section.

In order to get a clearer understanding of the most significant and crucial words in the statute, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary will be used as a reference.

Malice (syn) - Implies a deep-seated, often inexplicable [unreasonable/unjustifiable] desire to see (or cause) another to suffer [pain, injury, violence, or harm].

Desire (verb) - To cause pain, injury, or distress to another; (syn) - stresses the strength of feeling, often implying strong intention or aim (objective purpose).

Justifiable (adj)/justify (verb) b [1]; to show having sufficient legal reason [for an action??].

Reason (noun) 1 b; a rational ground or motive to act upon. c; a sufficient explanation or logical defense, esp.; something (as a principle of law) that supports a conclusion that explains a fact or a client’s action.

So, in those cases where a police officer uses deadly force resulting in the death of another person, the established standard as enumerated in this provision Substitute Senate Bill No. 4465 (Chapter 29) has precedent. To determine as a rule of law whether the action taken by a police officer is legally justified and lawful, certain prongs have to be satisfied, namely:

• Was the police officer attempting to arrest/apprehend [they were not free to leave] a person in the commission of a crime? And if so,
• Was there sufficient probable cause to believe that the person posed a serious threat to inflict serious physical harm to the police officer, or
• Was there probable cause that person committed a crime where serious physical harm was inflicted upon another [or was there an immediate/imminent threat of such]?
• Was the use of deadly force resulting in the death of another person sufficient and legally necessary because no reasonably effective alternative to the use of deadly force appeared to exist at the time, and that the amount of deadly force used was “reasonable” to effect the lawful resolution of the matter?

This article has provided concise information regarding the use of deadly force that the legislature has codified into the criminal law code for the state of Washington (RCW), and it is sufficient without revision or amending for any plaintiff that has standing to bring legal action for criminal prosecution against police who cause the death of someone unlawfully. The intent behind initiatives such as I-873 are certainly worth pursuing but the main thing is that instead of trying to create a new law the prosecution and courts should just enforce the law that’s already on the books instead of blindfolding justice.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
June 14, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com