NON-LETHAL FORCE POLICE DEPARTMENTS
DISPATCHER: “Proceed, Providence, is that affirmative, is that the right
vehicle?”
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: Providence Rhode Island, November 9th, 2017. A call came across
the radio. Be on the lookout for a white Ford F-150.
DISPATCHER: “It’s a newer model, white Ford F-150.”
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: A suspect had stolen a police cruiser, then ditched it. Now he had
hopped into the truck.
DISPATCHER: “He just went over to the high speed lane, he is still continuing
on Route 10.”
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: Police quickly located a white Ford, and
pursued the driver up route 10 North to an exit ramp.
DISPATCHER: “He just went on the 95 North. He may be getting stuck in traffic
there.”
PAUL JENSEN: They surrounded him. It was 9 o’clock in the morning, in heavy
traffic. He tried to flee the scene. And they proceed to put 40 9mm rounds into
the cab, and it turns out it was the wrong guy.
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: The white pickup was a Ford. Just not the right Ford. The driver,
who was killed, had nothing to do with the stolen police cruiser. A grand jury
found the shooting to be justified anyway, because the man’s driving was
putting lives at risk. The Rhode Island ACLU said it was the officers who put
lives at risk by firing at the truck.
PAUL JENSEN: I’d be the last person in the world to second guess an officer in
that type of situation, but in many of these instances, you have to question
whether there was something else that could have been done to prevent them
being in that situation where it’s shoot or be killed.
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: Of the many difficult questions that surround a police shooting in
America, Paul Jensen’s has long been on the periphery. He’s the CEO of
Massachusetts-based Security Devices International, SDI for short. SDI has
spent nearly a decade developing products Jensen believes can safely stop a
threat from a range of distances without the officer having to shoot to kill.
VOICE: “Live on the range. Fire!”
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: One example. SDI’s 40mm blunt impact round, or BIP. Fired from a
military grade grenade launcher, it’s what they call a stand
off weapon. Traveling at 300 feet a second, it’s accurate at up to 160
feet hitting a target with the force of a baseball coming off a bat. Its
silicone tip expands upon contact, slowing the round and broadening the area of
impact. It’s very painful, but it doesn’t penetrate the skin.
PAUL JENSEN: Stop breathing and gently pull it. Dead center.
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: Jensen won’t say how many BIPS SDI has sold, but he does say the
company has doubled its sales in each of the last three years. It sells to
police departments all over the U.S. and also law enforcement groups in Canada,
the Middle East, and Asia. But the company is competing in a crowded space.
There is the ML-12 out of Indiana, a device that can fire 12-gauge less lethal
rounds, everything from pepper spray projectiles to bean bags. Or the Defenzia M-11 out of Arizona. It looks like a handgun and
it shoots rubber impact rounds. Or this bullet slowing device from Alternative
Ballistics, also from Arizona. All of these products have been sold to police
departments. Which raises the questions, “How often are they used?” and “How
effective have they been?”
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: What about real data points? Are you getting reports from police
officers that say we’ve fired the device this many times, or we pulled out the
device in this type of scenario. Anything like that?
PAUL JENSEN: I don’t believe there’s any central repository for that type of a
database where law enforcement across the board inputs that kind of data, how
it’s used, how frequently it’s used, when it was used effectively and when it
was not used effectively, so we don’t see it on an incident to incident basis.
JON SHANE: What you are trying to do is predict an outcome.
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: John Jay College of Criminal Justice Professor Jon Shane is a
retired police officer. He says that’s exactly the kind of data that police
need. But it’s near-impossible to find.
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: Who’s keeping track of police use of force and where is this
information being held?
JON SHANE: On a national scale, it’s sort of spread around to a few different
places. The FBI has some of the data. The CDC, the Centers for Disease Control,
they have some of the data. There’s some emergency room data also. But all
these disparate systems are not linked. We don’t know the micro-interactions
between the victims, the offenders, the officers, the environment. We have no
idea how those things coalesce and come together to make a shooting.
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: Shane says this is a byproduct of how policing is structured in
America. Each of the country’s 18,000 police departments operate and report
independently. There is no standard for data collection regarding the use of
force. Shane says it is this contextual information, details that range from
the race and age of the officer, to the race and age of the victim, to the
specific details of the shooting, that are critically important. He believes, a
national, shared database that includes this type of information would not only
influence police tactics and strategies, but, potentially alter outcomes.
JON SHANE: Once we’re able to collect information on three different things.
The offender, the officer, and the environment, we are going to see how those
three things come together to make a police shooting. We’re going to be able to
identify what happens at each of these given stages and how different
situational circumstances will inform what that officer could or could not have
done.
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: But Shane says absent a mandate
from the Federal Government, it’s unlikely such a database will ever be
created. Some police departments are not waiting.
CHIEF GARY MACNAMARA: We need to have conversation about the use of force with police
officers. But, sometimes the conversations are unfortunate, because all of our
officers are often times judged by one or two high profile cases. Conversation
is good, but understanding is better.
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: Gary Macnamara is Chief of Police in
Fairfield Connecticut. He and his colleague, Chief Keith Mello of nearby
Milford, say law enforcement in their state has set out to modify and improve
training in how and when it uses force.
CHIEF GARY MACNAMARA: We train our officers more in when not to use force than when to
use force. We train them in the use of force, non-lethal and deadly force, but
we take greater effort in that decision making process not to use force unless
it’s appropriate.
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: This type of de-escalation training is now mandatory for all new
Connecticut Police Officers.
CHIEF KEITH MELLO: We’re focusing more on mental health issues. Trying to better
understand that person in the field. But we’re also now, probably more so than
in the past, looking at the conduct of both the officer and the suspect, did
the conduct cause the situation to be escalated?
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: Was there a push from the state, was this in response to a
particular incident? Why the official change?
CHIEF KEITH MELLO: It’s certainly a result of some of the high profile incidents
we’ve seen throughout the country, many on YouTube. And when something like
that happens, we all ask ourselves the question how would I have handled that?
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: In 2015, using funds from seized assets, the Milford Police
Department invested in this training simulator called the Virtra-V
300. They share it with eight other Connecticut Police Departments. It allows
officers to run through virtual scenarios.
DETECTIVE TYRONE DANCY: “Sir, what’s your name sir? What's your name?”
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: In this scenario, Detective Tyrone Dancy has responded to a call
from a distraught man holding a baby on the side of a bridge.
DETECTIVE TYRONE DANCY: “We can work it out, absolutely, nobody is hurt.”
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: All the while, Detective David Pecoraro is listening, escalating
or de-escalating the simulator accordingly.
MAN: “Do you really, really think you can help me?”
DETECTIVE TYRONE DANCY: Absolutely we can help you.
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: In this instance, Detective Dancy was able to calm the man,
convincing him to peacefully surrender.
DETECTIVE TYRONE DANCY: I thought if I took my gun out it might escalate based on his
mindset, and his reckless behavior, he may have decided to toss the baby, or
maybe suicide by cop. I thought if I presented a firearm it would escalate the
situation and made it worse.
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: But the simulator is not just about de-escalation, it’s also about
preparation. Here, Detective Dancy is coming in as a backup officer, responding
to a domestic disturbance.
MAN: “He’s got a knife!”
DETECTIVE TYRONE DANCY: “Drop the knife. Drop it!”
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: You didn’t draw your firearm until the knife came out.
DETECTIVE TYRONE DANCY: Until I saw the knife. I went to what we call the low ready
position, where I’m ready to take a shot if need be. I can’t do it now, because
there are people who are in the background who could be hit if you fired your
weapon, but in the meantime let me use my verbal skills to try and de-escalate
this.
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: What about a less lethal option? In this scenario, is a less
lethal option available, or possible, or even reasonable?
DETECTIVE TYRONE DANCY: With what we’re presented now, no. The only time we would use
that kind of a scenario with less lethal is if we had what we call a contact
cover option. Where you had an officer who was free with a deadly force option
while you present the less lethal force option.
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: In this instance, Dancy shoots, but he misses. And his fellow
officer is stabbed and killed. In fact, this scenario is one of the most
difficult, officers almost always miss.
DETECTIVE TYRONE DANCY: You hear people say why don’t you just shoot him in the arm or
the leg, it’s very difficult to do that. It is very difficult to shoot a moving
target, let alone shooting them in the leg while he’s moving. Very difficult.
We train to shoot at the center of most available mass. And, even doing that is
proved to be difficult on a moving target.
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: Do you think this type of training increases or decreases the use
of force?
DETECTIVE DAVID
PECORARO: You know, there’s a lot
of emphasis on use of less lethal, but the reality is many officers throughout
the state, and throughout the country, have been killed because they didn’t
recognize the situation that required deadly force. So, it’s not whether or not
it increases or decreases the use of deadly force, I think this machine does a
very, very good job of allowing officers to be trained in the proper use of
many levels of different force.
CHIEF GARY MACNAMARA: Data combined with information combined with discussion combined
with training, all collectively, hopefully, will have a difference.
CHIEF KEITH MELLO: And that’s really where we’re trying to put our focus. Could we
have handled this differently. Not could we use force,
but should we use force.
###
|
TIMECODE |
LOWER
THIRD |
1 |
3:16 |
PAUL JENSEN CEO, SDI |
2 |
3:52 |
JON SHANE JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE |
3 |
5:56 |
GARY MCNAMARA CHIEF, FAIRFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT |
4 |
6:21 |
KEITH MELLO CHIEF, MILFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT |