LAPD’s policy change is a model for other departments

Deena Baum | Daily Trojan

“Sometimes, the threat is too immediate, the potential injury to others or the officer is too grave. When there is time, however, we should never take a life when we have the option of resolving a situation without doing so.”

This statement, made by Los Angeles Police Department Police Commission President Matt Johnson earlier this month, is exactly what everyone concerned about police brutality needed to hear. Incidents of shootings that result from situations that could have been defused are all too common in Los Angeles. LAPD’s change in policy to one that favors de-escalation and more in-depth review of shootings by officers signals a truly great step forward for the department and stands to address some of the biggest concerns that L.A. residents have about their police force. Approved two weeks ago, this new policy is remarkable for reinforcing non-lethal training and de-escalation techniques. It has the best chance of reducing the likelihood of unnecessary deaths caused by police action.

On August 11, 2014, Ezell Ford, a young schizophrenic man, was walking home in South Los Angeles around 8:20 p.m. A pair of LAPD officers attempted to arrest him on suspicion of drug possession, and after an officer pulled on Ford’s shoulder from behind, a fistfight ensued. Within 13 seconds, Ezell Ford was shot after reaching for the officer’s gun while both were on the ground. He died two hours later from his wounds.

At the Los Angeles Police Commission public hearing one year after the shooting, the biggest concern that community members had, including Ford’s family, was the never-ceasing question: Why weren’t less lethal alternatives used on the young, schizophrenic man when he was accosted by officers? Ford was previously arrested by one of the officers involved, and was known by community members and his family to be mentally ill. He was unarmed and doing nothing wrong prior to his attempted arrest. There were no drugs in his possession or at the scene of the incident. He reacted to being suddenly pulled from behind at night. It was a situation that, had the officers been trained to act more calmly and less physically, probably would have ended very differently. Had the officers been trained to primarily use the taser in their squad car, the night may have likewise ended very differently. The officers, evidently, were not.

It finally appears as if the Los Angeles Police Commission heard the voices of the people at that hearing and across the country, and took their comments to heart. De-escalation training, as well as making more non-lethal weapons and training available to officers, will go a long way toward ensuring that a situation like the one in which Ford lost his life will not be repeated.

However, the policy change is not without its critics. Jamie McBride, director of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, an officer’s union, made the claim to the commission that “if an officer is killed as a result of this use-of-force policy that you want to revamp, their blood will be on your hands.”

He has a point. Reducing officer reliance on quick trigger fingers may indeed result in more officer deaths in split-second situations. However, the assumption that this is the norm ignores the overwhelming majority of stops and searches by police that do not reveal the presence of a firearm or other weapon.

Police officers must always react reasonably to situations, in line with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Connor, et al. Sometimes that means the officer has a hand on his weapon. Sometimes that means that the officer speaks in a relaxed tone and attempts to calm a frantic suspect down before engaging with them further. From a legal and an ethical standpoint, reason, not paranoia, ought to guide the actions of L.A.’s finest.

The Los Angeles Police Commission made a wise choice in altering its policy to reflect an emphasis on the value of human life on both sides of the badge. Police officers’ lives are important, and so too are the lives of those they protect and serve. Higher accountability and a wider variety of non-lethal alternatives are indicative of a good start to an era of better policing in the world’s most interesting metropolis.

Other metropolitan police departments should take steps to mirror the LAPD’s decision in the interest of protecting citizens and keeping in line with federal standards. While a policy change alone will not end instances of police brutality or unnecessary shootings, an expression of commitment to those ends is necessary for police departments across the United States. It is very likely that after the LAPD’s new policy has remained in place for a length of time, its benefits will be laid bare, and it will serve as a model for similar changes nationwide.