So miscommunication happens. The site where a hit-and-run vehicle fled, a guy waving around (not menacingly) a metal pipe that he ignores orders to lay down (because he’s deaf), standers-by shouting stuff (“He’s deaf!”) that might not be intelligible to the officers on the scene. I can see that happening, as a one-off tragic thing.
But when you have serious variance in how the police officers respond, even when they are both right there with each other, apparently not communicating — then there is clearly a problem. And since the police can use lethal force, it’s a lethal problem.
About six other neighbors joined in, frantically trying to get the officer’s attention. But less than a minute after the episode began, a second officer arrived and immediately pulled out his handgun, Mr. Rayos said. While people continued to scream, the first officer fired his Taser at Mr. Sanchez, while the second fired his handgun, the police said.
Capt. Bo Mathews, a spokesman for the Oklahoma City Police Department, said Wednesday that the second officer, Sgt. Christopher Barnes, fired multiple shots and that Mr. Sanchez, who was hit more than once, was pronounced dead in front of his house.
Two cops were there. The first to arrive had his Taser out. The second one to arrive immediately escalated to a handgun, either ignoring what his colleague had judged to be what was needed or simply not noticing. The first cop felt that a non-lethal (usually) stopping weapon was sufficient. The second, standing right there, decided instead that the only thing to do was to fire several shots until the man was dead.
That indicates a major problem with the training and judgement of the Oklahoma City PD. And given continuous anecdata, a problem with more than just them.
Captain Mathews said the police did not know yet why one officer pulled out his Taser while the other had his handgun. “You can get tunnel vision or just get locked in on the person with the weapon,” he said, speaking generally about what officers can encounter during chaotic scenes.
If that’s meant to be an excuse or use of lethal force, it’s a pretty poor one.
Despite Pleas, Oklahoma City Officer Fatally Shoots Deaf Man – The New York Times
An officer’s command to drop a two-foot-long pipe did not register with Madgiel Sanchez. A second officer who arrived fatally shot him.
I just don’t understand why a gun is ever needed in a situation where someone is at a distance with a club or knife. You’ve got all the time in the world. There’s no rush. You shouldn’t even have it out. It’s insane.
+Kee Hinckley To play devil's advocate, given that it was a hit-and-run (though apparently of an object, not a thing), there's some implicit threat of violent activity. The victim was holding something that looked like a weapon, even at a distance — but the actual shooting didn't take place until he was only about 15 feet away (per another story covering this) (which is in rushing distance if someone has not drawn), and had (for tragic reasons) not responded to verbal commands or to the officers waving firearms at him.
So I can see having a gun out — and I can even see the second cop arriving pulling out their firearm when they could see the first cop had a weapon out, which speaks to the dangers of escalation.
That said, the disparity in the use of force is deeply troubling here, and with it the willingness to kill in the face of not-yet-imminent mortal danger.
Fundamentally behind that, I believe that cops are trained too much that their lives and safety take priority, and that the department and union have their backs if that means they take down the "bad guy" before it's absolutely necessary. I don't want cops hurt, but we hand them lethal weapons to protect ourselves first, them second, and that's how they should treat the job or else get out.
This happens all too often with deaf people. Police really don't like it if they think you are not obeying them instantly.
Police in these situations self-panic. Their escalating screaming creates its own crisis.
Similar things have happened in Australia. In one instance a group of six cops responded to a schizophrenic man who was having a psychotic episode and waving a knife on Bondi beach. Two of them shot him down. Between the six of them they should have been able to beat him into submission with batons. Hell, they could have kicked sand in his face and jumped him from behind.
It also helps if the cops aren't habitual drug users, of course.
http://www2.sl.nsw.gov.au/archive/events/exhibitions/2010/onehundred/100-objects/Exhibit-096.htm
smh.com.au
That's where the prioritization comes in. Police (at least in the US) appear to be trained to (a) consider anyone they meet a potential criminal / threat, and (b) value their own safety over any non-officer they encounter.
The result seems to be that anyone who confirms in any way that they are in fact a threat — through non-compliance, by having something in their hand, by reaching for something in their pocket, or, heck, even by being some level of threat — is more easily and quickly killed to ensure officer safety than subdued.
Especially if the target is not white (which prejudice seems to afflict cops of all races).
Trained police are entitled to panic. Untrained civilians are not.
There's another training/experience issue here: as others said, cops are currently trained to act as though everyone is an immediate, existential threat that must be subdued quickly and at all costs; average people not only have no such indoctrination, but have little firsthand experience of mortal threat or physical violence. When a cop asks for your ID or asks what you have in your pocket, you instinctively reach for it as you would if anyone asked; you want to answer the inquiry with evidence as you would in any other encounter in your everyday life. "Do you have ID? "Yes, here."
This is normal, and we have to train law enforcement to work in the normal world with the rest of us. We can't ask people to do normal things and then shoot them for doing it. That's either utter incompetence or murderous malice.
Neither are acceptable.
Police here in Bloomington/Normal did a similar thing with a deaf man, cuffing and stuffing him while neighbors yelled that he was deaf and could not understand them. The man had not committed any crime – in fact no crime was committed by anyone. Later, witnesses tried to get some answers or at least some dialog, they were stonewalled. The police chief simply said that his officers acted properly.