Tag: Police Use of Force

What Happened after California Changed the Rules Related to Police Use of Deadly Force? – Public Policy Institute of California

Five years ago, state lawmakers limited the legal justifications for police officers’ use of deadly force. We examine recent trends in the number of people seriously injured or killed during police encounters as well as in the provision of timely medical care for those injured.
— Read on www.ppic.org/blog/what-happened-after-california-changed-the-rules-related-to-police-use-of-deadly-force/

Interview with Michelle Phelps – The Majority Report

This is the first time I listened to a podcast from “The Majority Report”. The interview was with Michelle S. Phelps, professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota, to discuss her recent book The Minneapolis Reckoning: Race, Violence, and the Politics of Policing in America. The interview begins at the 20:15 minute mark and can be access HERE. The interview ends at the 48:00 minute mark.

The podcast topic is what happened with policing in Minneapolis, MN. and police reforms more generally.

To be clear the Minneapolis Mayor and legislature (or any municipal executive and legislative branch) can end policing at anytime they want. This is unless police are part of the municipalities (or State) constitution, charter, or some other legislative prohibiting the dissolution the police department. The bottom line is that if the Mayor and Legislators have the votes they can put a end to policing in their municipality. This is true across America. Phelps said that many of the legislatures wanted to defund/dissolve the Minneapolis PD. Knowing that the Minneapolis government could have moved forward and cancelled police funding or more radically dissolved the police.

Why didn’t the Minneapolis government eliminate the police? Phelps said that Minneapolis has a large base of community activism which is highly coordinated. The “activism majority” leaned towards defunding or eliminating the police. It should have been easy for the Minneapolis government to defund or eliminate the police. Phelps said that people that vote most often were against the idea to reduce or eliminate the police and this influenced government officials.

What happened is that the rhetoric about the issue of defunding or dismantling the police eventually the turned into reality. Therefore the Minneapolis government had to stop being controversial or edgy and had to do what was the best for Minneapolis, which is keep the police and maintain funding.

There is no other municipal agency or other organization that can replace the police to fulfill it’s mission. Schools, Mental Health Services, Department of transportation, etc. none of these organizations can replace the police. Phelps said that police are only useful for being present at scene of a potential crime (deterrence) or to make arrests (but arrests are bad). Phelps forgot that police are authorized to use of force (most of the time the threat of force) which is necessary to make persons acting outside of societal norms to comply. There is no other organization better equipped, trained, or with authority than the police.

US police use force on 300,000 people a year, with numbers rising since George Floyd | The Guardian

Police in the US use force on at least 300,000 people each year, injuring an estimated 100,000 of them, according to a groundbreaking data analysis on law enforcement encounters.
Mapping Police Violence, a non-profit research group that tracks killings by US police, launched a new database, policedata.org, on Wednesday cataloging non-fatal incidents of police use of force, including stun guns, chemical sprays, K9 dog attacks, neck restraints, beanbags and baton strikes.
— Read on amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/28/police-use-of-force-violence-data-analysis

Is a TASER a Dangerous Weapon per se?

On 4/4/2022 a traffic stop by officer Christopher Schurr involving Patrick Lyoya resulted in the killing of Patrick Lyoya. The death of Patrick Lyoya is tragic. Officer Christopher Schurr was arrested and charged with second-degree murder. The defendant’s case (Schurr) hinges on the issue of whether officer Christopher Schurr’s use of deadly force was justified.

A recent appeal by Christopher Schurr was denied and returned to the lower court for trial. One issue that was mention in the Court Order was “whether the decedent was in possession of a per se dangerous weapon” (see the Court Order HERE).

My speculation is that officer Schurr’s use of deadly force rests on the argument that Patrick Lyoya possessed officer Schurr’s TASER – a “dangerous weapon”. It is difficult to find a single definition of a dangerous weapon in the Michigan Penal Code (MCL). Below are 3 definitions of a dangerous weapon from the MCL:

  • MCL 750.226(1) “a pistol or other firearm, or a pneumatic gun, dagger, dirk, razor, stiletto, or knife having a blade over 3 inches in length, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument”
  • MCL 750.82(1) “a gun, revolver, pistol, knife, iron bar, club, brass knuckles, or other dangerous weapon”
  • MCL 750.235b(4-a) “Dangerous weapon” means a knife, stabbing instrument, brass knuckles, blackjack, club, or other object specifically designed or customarily carried or possessed for use as a weapon.

The key to defining a TASER as a dangerous weapon is that it allows officer Christopher Schurr to use deadly force against Patrick Lyoya when Lyoya was in possession of the TASER. By the “letter of the law”, TASER may not be considered as a dangerous weapon (TASER is not specifically listed in the definition). However, according to the definitions of dangerous weapon, and in the “spirit of the law” a TASER used by Patrick Lyoya against police officer Christopher Schurr could certainly have had deadly consequences for officer Christopher Schurr. Thus TASER can easily be considered a dangerous weapon.

Patrick Lyoya, who was not trained with TASER’s proper use, could have easily used the TASER against officer Christopher Schurr in order to incapacitate the Schurr. As officer Schurr is being incapacitated, Patrick Lyoya could have stolen Schurr’s gun and used it to murder Schurr. If Patrick Lyoya had deployed the TASER against officer Christopher Schurr, theoretically, Patrick Lyoya could deploy the TASER into officer Christopher Schurr for the initial 5 second electrical cycle and then keep re-energizing the TASER for subsequent 5 second electrical cycles until the TASER battery is depleted of energy. A TASER can deploy about 150 total 5 second cycles (for a continuous 12.5 minutes of being tased).

Police officers are trained in the proper use of a TASER. The use of a TASER by police is guided by police training, police department policy, Michigan State law and prior court cases. Police use TASER for legitimate purposes like to gain control of an offender, protect other persons, or minimize injury to violent offenders. On the contrary a person never has a legitimate purpose to use a TASER against a police officer.

Because the possession of the TASER by Patrick Lyoya, officer Christopher Schurr was in jeopardy of being tased by Patrick Lyoya resulting in a felonious assault or death of officer Christopher Schurr. In the above mentioned example where officer Christopher Schurr was in danger of being tased, Patrick Lyoya was in possession of a dangerous weapon (TASER) and officer Christopher Schurr was justified in using deadly force.

FATAL FALSEHOODS: Setting the Record Straight on Police Shooting

FACTS:

  • Police rarely use force.
  • When police use force, it is usually limited and proportional.
  • Fatal police shootings are extremely uncommon.
  • Unarmed fatal police shootings are both exceedingly rare and largely justified.
  • Public perceptions around fatal police shootings and race are distorted.

Get the report here:

www.policedefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/LELDF-Report-Fatal-Falsehoods-Police-Shootings.pdf