Law Enforcement–Perpetrated Homicides. Tom Barker
and reckless action when the officer is performing a legal objective. Finally, some LEO homicides are murders for sex, to conceal a crime, to profit from crime and other personal reasons.
The Utility of Crowdsourced Data
Officer-involved fatal shootings and the link to racial bias dominates the politically charged debate over police homicides (Legewie & Fagan, 2016). Unfortunately, the lack of adequate databases has led to research findings supporting racial bias in police shootings and other studies have found no racial bias in police shootings (Ruane, 2017). As James Comey, former Director of the FBI at the time is quoted as saying, “how can we address concerns about officer-involved shootings if we do not have a firm grasp on the demographics and circumstances of those incidents” (Ruane, 2017: 1131). According to Ruane, a journalist filled this gap with his innovative crowdsourcing and internet searching technique—Fatalencounters.org.
Legewie and Fagan’s (2016) study used the crowdsourced database, Fatal Encounters in their research. Fatal Encounters goal is “to create a comprehensive national database of people who are killed through interactions with police,” and it includes accidents and deadly domestic violence incidents involving police officers. Other crowdsourcing techniques are now in use, adding to what is known about police homicides.
The Counted, another open-source database compiled by the Guardian, collects data on “Any death arising directly from encounters with law enforcement.” A third open-source database comes from the Washington Post that collects data on “All shooting deaths from on-duty police officers.” The researchers Legewie and Fagan do not include accidental homicides or police-caused domestic violence homicides in their definition (Legewe & Fagan, 2016: 13). This approach is now the norm in police shooting homicide research and makes a significant contribution to an understanding of police shooting death homicides (see Zimring, 2017). However, as we have continually stated, LEO-perpetrated homicides encompass more than shooting deaths. We begin our discussion of types of police-perpetrated homicides with LEO-accidental homicides.
Accidental LEO-Perpetrated Homicides
Truly accidental homicides may be excusable (O’Hara & O’Hara, 1988). Excusable homicides occur when a lawful act is done in a lawful manner and without negligence and results in death. The acts do not involve intent or reckless and negligent action on the part of the officer. For example, a police officer while responding to shots fired call accidentally slips on the wet ground and discharges his weapon and kills an innocent person standing on the sidewalk. Caution. The officer’s negligent or reckless act may be a proximate cause of the homicide. For example, there was no reason for the officer to be running with his finger on the trigger—a violation of training and his department’s policy—when the suspect was not in sight (actual case based on the author’s personal experience while serving as an expert witness for the plaintiff in a civil wrongful death suit). Officers are taught that the Golden Rule of Gun Safety is “keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.” In this case, the homicide was not excusable, and the officer’s actions were not justified. The officer lost his job and was indicted for misdemeanor and felony charges, and was subject to civil litigation. All three outcomes or a combination of one or more can happen in similar situational circumstances. Many “accidental” homicides appear “lawful,” but the situational details are questionable.
Moreover, police officers kill themselves, each other, loved ones, and civilians accidentally in two ways: first, the homicide is the result of a lawful act of violence done lawfully with no intent or expectation that harm would occur. A police cruiser is driving down the street at the speed limit and a pedestrian with his headphones on steps in front of the police car and is killed. This is an example of accidental and excusable homicide. Suppose this police cruiser was driving down the street 20 miles per hour over the speed limit without his lights or siren on. The pedestrian crosses the road in the crosswalk and does not see the speeding police cruiser and does not have time to react. In this case, the officer is driving unlawfully, but he did not intend to kill anyone. The officer’s “accidental” actions could lead to criminal—involuntary manslaughter—civil, or departmental charges.
Accidental Fatal LEO Shootings
A discussion of what is or what is not an accidental homicide is clouded by heated and debated controversy. There are seldom right or wrong conclusions that satisfy the parties involved. One of the most controversial accidental police fatal shootings before the events of 2014 and 2015 occurred in the early morning hours on New Years Day 2009 when a white Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police officer shot and killed an unarmed black man and claimed it was an accident.
Oscar Grant Shooting 2009
Twenty-two-year-old Oscar Grant was returning home from San Francisco on a BART train when a fight broke out among the “hammered and stoned” passengers celebrating New Year. The fight was broken up, and the conductor announced that the police had been notified and would meet the train at the next stop—Fruitvalle station in Oakland. What happened at the Fruitville station is still being debated today. However, numerous witnesses and cell phone videos are clear on significant facts. Nine officers responded to the scene and were greeted by an angry and rowdy crowd. The first two officers on the scene detained Oscar Grant and his friend. His friend was handcuffed, and Grant was placed prone on the ground. Grant was told he was being arrested and BART officer Johannes Mehserie attempted to handcuff him. Mehserie had difficulty getting Grant’s hands behind his back. Mehserie stood up, unholstered his semi-automatic weapon, and shot the prone Grant in the back. Why the officer shot Grant is in dispute. Several witnesses reported that Mehserie appeared stunned and said “Oh my God” several times. The officer would claim that the shooting was an accident. He meant to use his Taser to control a combative Grant and pulled his weapon in mistake. The shooting was an accident.
The video images of the incident were widely broadcast and streamlined locally, nationally, and internationally sparking several days of rioting and demonstrations and calls for the officer to be prosecuted. The news media carried dueling interpretations from police use-of-force experts. On January 12, 2009, the Alameda County District Attorney filed a murder complaint against Mehserie, and he was arrested. A change of venue was granted citing extensive media coverage and protests and riots in Alameda County. The trial was held in Los Angeles.
The defense claimed the shooting was an accident. The prosecuting attorney told the jury that Mehserie was guilty of second-degree murder. The judge offered the jury four alternatives: acquit or reach three conviction options to include second-degree murder—fifteen years to life in prison, voluntary manslaughter—three to eleven years, or involuntary manslaughter with two to four years in prison. The jury returned a guilty verdict of involuntary manslaughter, and he was sentenced to two years in prison with double-time credit for time served. Mehserie was released from prison on June 13, 2011. Several civil suits followed the conviction. BART settled with Grant’s young daughter for $1.5 million and $1.3 million to Grant’s murder.
Other Similar Examples
On March 3, 2013, an unnamed New Hope, Pennsylvania, veteran police officer entered the cell of an inmate being processed to aid a fellow officer in an altercation with the inmate. The second officer yelled “Taser,” “Taser,” and pulled his service revolver and shot the inmate in the stomach. The officers realizing the inmate had been shot and gravely wounded administered first aid and transferred the inmate to the hospital. He survived. The Buck’s County District Attorney is quoted as saying the shooting “was neither justified, nor criminal, but was excused” (Rodriguez, April 12, 2019). It was excusable, he added because the shooting was the result of the mistaken belief that the officer thought he was deploying his Taser instead of his gun—an accidental shooting. The officer was allowed to retire. There are problems with this decision. There is evidence of reckless or negligent behavior by the officer. Why was the officer in a cell with a weapon, in the first place? Guns are usually not allowed inside custody settings. Even more disturbing is the mistake of drawing a gun instead of a Taser. Tasers are carried on the opposite side of the handgun and cross-drawn to prevent these kinds of errors. The shooting officer carried the Taser on the same side and in front of his weapon in violation of police