Abstract

This positional paper examines institutional law enforcement (LE) deadly force encounters with the mentally ill in the United States, with an emphasis on those who threaten or attempt suicide by cop while armed with a weapon other than a firearm. Research reveals a disproportionate number of mentally ill people are killed by police during LE confrontations. The social psychology of suicide by cop and the contributory LE institutional facilitation of these encounters is examined. Causational attribution is attributable, in part, to LE epistemological correlation factors that include a one-size-fits all shooting methodology of shooting center mass body-torso that invariably produces death, a lack of LE crisis intervention de-escalation training, and other contributing sociological geopolitical-jurisprudential factors that are elucidated. LE use-of-force is exegetically examined in the legal context of requirements that it be objectively reasonable and necessary. A reduction in homicides of the mentally ill at the hands of LE is conceptually possible if the institutional culture of LE agrees to increase crisis intervention de-escalation training for officers, and LE modifies its shooting tactics, so as to permit discretionary implementation of incapacitating force, permitting a more calculated disabling level of force, using a fewer rounds fired methodology. Such a change in policy and tactics could mitigate the number of mentally ill fatalities with LE encounters, potentially improve community policing relationships, and reduce wrongful death litigations and settlement awards that are routinely paid out by municipalities with tax dollars. The author recommends the implementation of a pilot program that would test the efficacy of these change proposals.

Highlights

  • A reduction in homicides of the mentally ill at the hands of law enforcement (LE) is conceptually possible if the institutional culture of LE agrees to increase crisis intervention de-escalation training for officers, and LE modifies its shooting tactics, so as to permit discretionary implementation of incapacitating force, permitting a more calculated disabling level of force, using a fewer rounds fired methodology

  • The use of deadly force by law enforcement (LE) has a long history in the United States, including many changes and restrictions over the years that have been influenced by public policy, legislation, judicial due process, changing social attitudes, and community policing strategies

  • If the shooting tactics previously described are objectively necessary in felonious assaults against officers, and this tactic is justified by research, science, and officer safety, why would officers not use this same strategy on 5150s who threaten officers or who threaten suicide by cop? Suicidal 5150 threats fall into a unique sui generis category all their own

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The use of deadly force by law enforcement (LE) has a long history in the United States, including many changes and restrictions over the years that have been influenced by public policy, legislation, judicial due process, changing social attitudes, and community policing strategies. Suspects are known to wear bullet proof vests or military grade body armor, so that they can survive a gunfight with police officers For all these reasons, officers are universally trained to shoot center mass, multiple times, so that they don’t miss their target, or die in these assaults. Institutional policing needs to modify its shooting tactics with suicidal mentally ill people in a more propitious manner without killing the very people they are supposed to protect and defend. Mitigating these fatalities is an achievable goal. The term suicide by cop identifies 5150s who intentionally confront LE so as to provoke a shooting that results in the 5150’s own planned death

Objective
Discussion
Recommendations
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.