Fatal Force Only as a Last Resort

Two police shootings this week--one in front of the White House, the other in Montrose--raise a disturbing question: Whatever happened to the idea of shooting a suspect only as an absolute last resort? This is not an easy question to ask, for police officers have an exceedingly hard job in dealing with sometimes vicious criminals and sometimes homicidal psychotics. Yet in both of this week’s cases, officers could have chosen not to use deadly force.

Federal law enforcement officials in Washington defended the actions of the U.S. Park Police officers who fatally wounded Marcelino Corniel on Tuesday. The transient was shot in the abdomen and leg after he menacingly waved a knife at officers, then ignored an order to drop the weapon. A police spokesman called the shooting “just a normal police reaction to a man with a knife.”

But was that reaction the only one possible? A pistol is standard issue for U.S. park police. Batons, pepper spray and Mace are not. In other parts of the country such non-lethal tools often have been used to subdue violent suspects. An investigation should determine whether they could have been of use in this case.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has said little about the killing of Aaron Cease, a mentally troubled man who was shot 12 times after he lunged at officers with a broken crutch. Twelve shots to subdue a man with a broken crutch?

Officers point out they put their lives on the line daily and rightly complain about Monday morning quarterbacking. But since police sometimes are the arbiters of life and death, there clearly is a need for good training and good equipment and, most important, good judgment.