Law Enforcement Restraint in the Use of Deadly Force within the Context of ‘the Deadly Mix’
| Author | Edward F. Davis,Anthony J. Pinizzotto,Benjamin J. Infanti,Shannon B. Bohrer |
| Date | 01 December 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1350/ijps.2012.14.4.289 |
| Published date | 01 December 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Paper |
International Journal of Police Science & Management Volume 14 Number 4
Law enforcement restraint in the use of
deadly force within the context of ‘the
deadly mix’
Anthony J. Pinizzotto†, Edward F. Davis‡, Shannon B. Bohrer§ and
Benjamin J. Infanti¶
†(Corresponding Author) Clinical Forensic Psychology Associates, 13807 Poplar Tree Road,
Chantilly, VA 20151, USA. Tel: +1 703 814 7989; email: cfpassociates@gmail.com
‡E. F. Davis Consulting, Goldvein, VA, USA
§Winterbilt, Emmitsburg, MD, USA
¶Marymount University, Arlington, VA, USA
Submitted 1 April 2012; accepted 21 July 2012
Keywords: use of force, deadly force, law enforcement restraint, ‘deadly
mix’
Dr Anthony J. Pinizzotto is the former senior
across the USA regarding their experiences
scientist/clinical forensic psychologist for the
related to the use of force. The results of the study
Behavioral Science Unit of the FBI at Quantico,
indicate that approximately 70 per cent of the
VA.
police officers sampled had been in a situation
Edward F. Davis is a retired Detective Lieuten-
where they could have legally used their firearm
ant from the Metropolitan Police Department in
but chose not to. Furthermore, police officers
Washington, DC. He is a former criminal invest-
exercised restraint in deadly force in 93 per cent of
igations instructor with the FBI’s Behavioral
the situations in which they could have legally
Science Unit in Quantico, VA.
fired their weapon. Rather than an excessive use
Shannon B. Bohrer retired from the Maryland
of force on the part of these officers, great restraint
State Police as a sergeant. He was a firearms
on their part was displayed. The interchange
instructor for the FBI and the range master for
between the law enforcement officer and the
the Maryland Police and Correctional Training
offender in high-risk situations in which deadly
Commission.
force can be used legally and ethically is complex,
Benjamin J. Infanti is a graduate of Marymount
dynamic and rapidly changing. To understand
University in Arlington, VA, specialising in foren-
why officers in these situations very frequently
sic psychology.
choose not to use deadly force is examined within
the context of ‘the deadly mix’.
ABSTRACT
Reports often claim a widespread use of excessive
force on the part of American law enforcement
INTRODUCTION
officers. Although documented cases of excessive
Occasional news articles and television
force do occur, this presumption of widespread
reports bear banner headlines claiming gen-
force may be overstated. This paper reports the
eral and widespread use of excessive force
International Journal of Police
Science and Management,
findings of a survey questionnaire administered
on the part of America’s law enforcement
Vol. 14 No. 4, 2012, pp. 285–298.
DOI: 10.1350/ijps.2012.14.4.289
by the authors to 295 sworn, active police officers
officers (Johnson, 2007; Lendman, 2010,
Page 285
Law enforcement restraint in the use of deadly force
RTAmerica, 2011). Some radio comment-
unnecessary, unwarranted and dispropor-
ators and citizen call-in programmes occa-
tionate — is both unlawful and unethical,
sionally claim to know of increasing
and has no place in the American system of
incidents of police use of excessive force.
justice.
Scholarly articles have been written on the
Rather, this paper reflects our discussions
issue of excessive force in law enforcement
with thousands of police officers through-
as a human rights and public health concern
out the country over the past 30 years while
(Cooper, Moore, Gruskin, & Krieger,
teaching, conducting research and engaging
2004). Documented cases do, in fact, exist
in case consultations on various law
of law enforcement officers using excessive
enforcement-related cases regarding the use
amounts of force, even deadly force. How-
of force — to include use of deadly force —
ever, is this presumption of widespread
in law enforcement. Some cases involved
force overstated? And are these assessments
situations in which the officers used force
of violent encounters based on objective
and others in which force was used against
facts and realities or subjective feelings and
them, to include serious injuries and death.
motivations?
In addition to speaking to the officers
Public scrutiny of police use of force is
involved in these situations in which force
unavoidable (Alpert, 2009). The controversy
was employed, we also had the opportunity
surrounding a violent encounter between
to interview many of the suspects/offenders
police and citizens increases in accordance
in these cases.
with higher levels of force used by the
Our experience has revealed that a very
officer in the situation (Brown, 1994; Gill
large number of officers have been in mul-
& Pasquale-Styles, 2009). Attempts to lessen
tiple situations in which they could have
the severity of this community response
used deadly force, but were able to resolve
through efforts to eliminate police discre-
the situation in a way in which deadly force
tion are foolhardy, as administrative policies
was not used, and serious injury was
and legislation cannot account for every
avoided. The current body of research on
situation that a police officer may encounter
deadly force does not address directly this
on the streets (Geller & Scott, 1992). Thus,
measure of ‘restraint’. Instead, researchers
assessments of police violence, including
have thoroughly studied factors related to
those involving deadly force, must create a
situational, organisational and environ-
distinction between correct police action
mental determinants in the use of deadly
and reasonable police action (Binder &
force (White, 2003). Such factors include:
Scharf, 1982). A correct judgement is
perceptual distortions during the incident
outcome-based and involves the use of
(Klinger & Brunson, 2009), the interactive
hindsight in examining the aftermath of a
effects of time and space during the incid-
violent encounter. A reasonable judgement
ent (Crawford & Burns, 2008), the impact
incorporates the factors involved and
of administrative policy (Bohrer, Kern, &
information available to the officer at the
Davis, 2008; Lee & Vaughn, 2010; Mays &
time of the decision to use force. This
Taggart, 1985; White, 2000), characteristics
distinction is even more vital in the analysis
of police officers involved in violent incid-
of deadly force situations (Villejoubert,
ents (McElvain & Kposowa, 2008), and a
O’Keefe, Alison, & Cole, 2006).
litany of situational variables during the
This paper does not intend to justify, or
incident (Sharps & Hess, 2008; White,
even attempt to explain away, any use of
2006). One explanation for the lack of
excessive force in law enforcement. ‘Excess-
research on restraint is that researchers do
ive’ force — specifically, force that is
not study non-events (Lester, 1996). As a
Page 286
Pinizzotto et al
result, situations in which police officers
of fire (Pinizzotto, Davis, & Miller, 1997),
could legally and reasonably employ deadly
examined 40 incidents of serious assaults on
force, but chose not to, are overlooked in
law enforcement officers. In 2006, the final
the research literature (Binder & Scharf,
publication, Violent encounters (Pinizzotto,
1982). By focusing on the salient cases
Davis, & Miller, 2006), expanded the scope
where deadly force is used and not on the
of the first two studies and focused on
more subtle cases where restraint is used,
specific topical issues regarding the use of
our understanding of deadly force in law
force in law enforcement.
enforcement is incomplete.
Each study within this law enforcement
This led to the following issues. (1) We
safety trilogy, as well as subsequent articles
know how many individuals are killed by
using data from these studies, focused on
law enforcement each year. On average,
some aspect of what we termed ‘the deadly
there are approximately 385 individuals
mix’, that is, the dynamic interaction of the
justifiably killed by law enforcement each
officer, the offender and the circumstances
year (US Department of Justice, 2010).
that brought them together (Pinizzotto &
However, we do not have even an estimate
Davis, 1996, 1999, 2000; Pinizzotto et al.,
of the number of times officers were justi-
2005, 2007; Pinizzotto, Davis, Bohrer, &
fied (legally and ethically) to use deadly
Chaney, 2009). Any encounter where an
force, and did not. This paper therefore, will
officer was assaulted or killed transpired in a
discuss some very preliminary data regard-
dynamic, evolving scene that included the
ing the issue of ‘restraint’ in the use of
perceptions of the officer and the offender.
deadly force within the law enforcement
These perceptions and the concomitant
profession. (2) There are no national data-
interpretations were altered by the actions
bases available that collect and report on the
of each person as they interacted. Based on
number times officers are legally and ethic-
those assessments and assumptions of each
ally justified in using deadly force, but
other’s behaviours, each acted accordingly.
resolve the situation without the use of
At that moment, the fluid movement of
deadly force. One recommendation of this
‘the deadly mix’, set in motion when the
paper is to remedy that shortcoming in the
offender and officer came together, began
literature.
to shift. All of this occurs within only
seconds, but has life-altering consequences.
Lester (1996) suggested that a fully con-
THE DECISION TO USE OR NOT TO
ceptualised theory...
To continue reading
Request your trial