Not-So-Good Guys with Guns: On the Origins of the NRA

LITERARY HUB--THE NEW PRESS

Police Are Trained to Live in Fear.

A police officer tries to block an activist from advancing past the steps to the state courthouse in St. Louis. (REUTERS/Adrees Latif)

 WASHINGTON POST
 By Joel F. Shults August 27

Joel Shults is a retired police chief for Adams State University in Colorado. He has worked for more than 30 years in uniformed law enforcement and criminal justice education.

 

 I don’t blame anyone for being shocked and offended when an armed government agent hurts or kills a civilian. Our humane, visceral reaction easily overshadows cold facts. But facts will define the truth in our courts and the truth is that physics and anatomy make sense of a shooting like Officer Darren Wilson’s encounter with Michael Brown. While I don’t have unique access to the details of that deadly encounter, I am familiar with the science of officer-involved shootings. Based on that science, I can confidently dispel some commonly held beliefs about law enforcement and use of force that have colored the debate around Brown’s death.

1. “Police shouldn’t shoot an unarmed teenager.”

No gun doesn’t mean no threat. FBI murder statistics consistently show that more people are beaten to death with hands and feet each year than are killed by assault rifles. Of the 465 weapons used to commit murder in Missouri in 2012, more than one in four were not firearms. A person’s size doesn’t mean that they are aggressive, but one’s stature is clearly a factor in a fight.

2. “Even if he did feel threatened, Wilson didn’t have to shoot Brown so many times.”

Brain processes take time and often move slower than reality. A study published in 2003 showed that it takes a shooter about one-third of a second to recognize a threat, then each trigger pull takes one-tenth of a second. But the mental process of deciding to stop shooting takes longer than the decision to shoot. The result is that another two or three shots can be fired as the senses, brain, nerves, and muscles put on the brakes. In other words, an officer can execute several trigger pulls after a visual input indicates a subject is no longer a threat.


Further, multiple shots don’t guarantee that a person will not continue to advance or attack. And it can take over a second for a body to fall to the ground after being fatally shot. This leaves even more time for shots to be fired before an officer’s finger stops pulling the trigger.

In total, whatever happened in Ferguson likely happened in the time it takes to sing the first four words of the national anthem – and the officer was forced to make quick decisions to keep up.

3. “Why do police keep killing all these unarmed people?”

Commentators like to infect sentences with phrase like “increased police violence” and “all these brutality cases.” A society in which children will see 16,000 murders as entertainment on television by the time they are eligible to vote will find it quite easy to believe that the police are shooting up their cities just like on their favorite cop show. But reality is much tamer than popular belief. Police use of force is rare.

A study cited by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that out of a reported 45 million face-to-face contacts annually between citizens and the police, fewer than 1 percent of those citizens reported any use of force. Of those who did report use of force, 74 percent self-reported that their own behavior instigated the force.
The most recent FBI crime report cites 410 people justifiably killed by police in 2011, the most recent FBI reporting period, 310 people killed by citizens acting in self-defense, and a 10-year average of 54 police officers killed in the line of duty. A study reported in 2012 in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin shows that 70 percent of police officers will face a deadly force decision an average of four times within a career. Just 20 percent shoot, and few kill.

For many, no facts will invade their opinion. But the current climate of mistrust is not sustainable. To repair the relationship, citizens must calm the rhetoric that assumes our nation’s police ranks are filled with psychotic brutes. Police leaders must take a breath and make innovative efforts to communicate with an unsettled public. Violent men and woman will continue to threaten our communities and police will continue to seek better ways to respond to the violence they encounter.

Photo by Robert Cohen, rcohen@post-dispatch.com

HUFFINGTON POST

The problems of racial harassment and police militarization are exacerbated by the fact that America has a heavily-armed civilian population. While there are no official totals, there are an estimated 320 million guns in the United States, approximately one per person. It is often said that America has a gun culture, one that some celebrate and others bemoan. Whatever one's personal views about guns, there is no denying their presence in every American city, from Philadelphia to Ferguson. Nor should we fail to recognize the profound impact this has on law enforcement.

Because there are so many guns out there, police officers are trained to live in fear of the very people they are supposed to protect and serve. Anytime a police officer pulls over a car, he or she must worry that the person inside that car will have a gun that could be turned on them. At training academies throughout the nation, new recruits are taught that cop-killers need two things: a will to kill and an opportunity to act. There's little an officer can do about will; anyone can have it without anyone else knowing. Officers can, however, limit the opportunities for a cop-killer to act by being prepared and quick to defend themselves.

In many police departments, the training involves the use of high-tech video simulations that put prospective officers in real-life situations where they'll have to decide whether to use force. A recruit will be shown a video of an encounter, shot from the point of view of the officer. In one, an officer will approach a vehicle pulled over for speeding when suddenly the driver pulls a gun and shoots. In another, an officer responding to a report of an armed robbery will enter a store when a potential suspect approaches and unexpectedly pulls what could be a gun out of his back pocket, only this time the gun is a wallet. The training is designed to prepare officers for a career on streets where a lot of people are armed and police have to make split-second decisions about the use of force. Police are trained, in other words, to be on edge.

The facts of the Brown shooting remain murky but the protests are motivated by a larger pattern: harassment of minorities by police. Communities of color know well that edgy cops and racial prejudice can be a dangerous brew. While inexcusable, racial stereotypes are predictably part of policing. Cops are taught to mistrust for self-protection, yet the vast majority of civilians they encounter are peaceful. It is little surprise that officers often fall back on racial or other stereotypes when faced with the difficult task of quickly determining who is a threat. Officers look for shortcuts to simplify high-pressure decisions. Such stereotypes are often misleading, reflecting the officer's biases especially in matters of race. They also endanger officers who lower their guard against people who don't fit the stereotypes and threaten civilians who do fit them.

The Brown protests have also set off a debate about militarization of the police since 9/11. That militarization is partially a result of our heavily-armed civilian population. The armored vehicles that have become the symbol of militarization are being purchased by law enforcement agencies to protect officers against gunfire. Police are equipping themselves with a variety of high-powered firearms because they feel outgunned by the criminals they have to defend themselves against. For some Americans, a high-powered weapon is just a fun toy to use at the gun range. For police officers, it is a threat that must be taken seriously.

As guns are part of the source of these law enforcement problems, no doubt some will suggest that gun regulation must also be part of the solution. Universal background checks, for example, can help keep guns out of the hands of those people who are more likely to threaten officers and other civilians. Restricting unusually high-powered weaponry reduces the need for the police to have even more powerful weapons for protection. Gun control, however, is no panacea and we should be realistic about what can be accomplished. This is not just a political question - whether the votes are there to support new laws - but a practical one. With so many guns already in circulation, police officers will not stop worrying about being shot and killed anytime soon.

Americans strongly support civilian gun ownership, and the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. There are some benefits to having this right, including the ability of people to defend themselves from criminals. Yet the shooting in Ferguson should also be cause to recognize how a heavily-armed civilian population adversely impacts policing and our communities.

Gun Ownership in U.S. Homes Down

Finally, some good news on guns. The number of American homes with guns has fallen over the last four decades, according to a national poll. It gets better: some drops are in the gun-lovin' south and Western mountain states. The General Social Survey, which is taken even two years, shows a clear drop in the rates across many demographics in America. In the '90s 43 percent of households had guns, while in the 2000s only 35 percent held firearms. In 2012, 34 percent of households had guns. The numbers are a sharp contrast to the idea that gun sales have been skyrocketing after Sandy Hook--which may suggest that existing gun owners are just buying more.

Read it at New York Times