It seems like fatal shootings by police officers are a rising trend. Within the past three years, shootings in Ferguson, Missouri; Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Charlotte, North Carolina have been controversial because each case involved the shooting of a police officer and killing of an unarmed civilian. The Tulsa case was highly publicized because the officer shot her victim in cold blood with seemingly no provocation.
So why are more officers shooting first and asking questions later?
Officers may fire because they suspect their target is pulling out a gun. Sept. 16 in Tulsa, 40-year-old Terence Crutcher was gunned down by officer Betty Shelby outside his vehicle on the highway. Video evidence shows Crutcher’s hands were in the air.
Fearing imminent danger, officer Shelby shot Crutcher. Shelby stated she thought Crutcher was reaching inside the window of his car for something, but no firearm was found in Crutcher’s car.
Because of her actions, Shelby is facing charges of first-degree manslaughter. If convicted, she will face at least four years in prison.
Firing upon suspicion leads to unnecessary violence and loss of life. However, when most officers are trained, they learn to “shoot to stop,” which can cause them to overreact when they are in the field. In high stress situations, like when a suspect runs from an officer, it can be difficult for an officer to shoot someone in the arm or leg. The easiest area of the body to successfully hit is the torso, which can cause fatalities.
Many police departments that used to carry revolvers are now issued semiautomatic pistols that carry more rounds and use magazines. These pistols are highly effective and lethal.
It is legal for officers to fire if they feel their lives are in danger. Even though officers are coached to use “non-lethal” means of stopping a target if necessary, they are allowed to draw and fire their weapons if they are in “imminent threat of harm.” But when it is necessary for officers to draw their weapons?
Lt. Ronnie Roberts of the Charlottesville, Virginia, police department says an officer should match their actions to the level of threat that the situation poses.
This sounds subjective. If an officer’s best judgment is all that stands between a peaceful resolution and a civilian shooting, we have a problem.
Former Minnesota State psychology professor William J. Lewinski said police officers in imminent danger have “no choice but to act.” Lewinski, having testified for over 200 officers nationwide, frequently defends officers like Shelby and advocates that officers who draw their weapons “act appropriately, even when shooting an unarmed person.” Lewinski appears to believe that an officer’s life is more important than a civilian’s life. If so, I do not hold the same belief.
This flippant “shoot first and ask questions later” mindset that some police officers employ needs to change.
Suspicion is not a good reason to shoot. Simply drawing a gun can have a strong effect. By using a gun to threaten, a message can be sent to a non-compliant civilian without the officer pulling the trigger.
In the case of a fleeing target, police officers should be trained to aim for less fatal spots, such as the arm or leg to deter the target. Using a taser is also effective because it hinders criminals and is less lethal than a gun. Tasers can reach objects up to 35 feet away, including escaping suspects. However, the National Police Training website for law enforcement indicates the safe and effective use of a taser requires intensive training that “many departments don’t provide.”
Taser training needs to be mandatory for all officers. Do I believe that tasers should replace guns? No, I think both are important pieces of an officer’s equipment. However, I believe it is an officer’s duty to serve and protect civilians first and themselves second, not the other way around.

Gallery • 1 Photos