When journalists look critically at deaths by police action they’ll find the vast majority have one thing in common – the deceased person’s thinking and/or their ability to communicate was impaired. The causes and severity of impairment may be different death by death. Typical causes are untreated mental illness, untreated addiction and alcoholism, untreated psychiatric injuries such as post-traumatic stress disorder, developmental disabilities, brain injuries, diabetes and epilepsy, neurological disorders, cultural and language barriers, dementia, and others.
We believe – after reviewing the public record of hundreds of deaths – whether the deceased person was impaired should be a primary concern to officers, investigators, police and city administrators, risk and insurance administrators, bond-holders, medical examiners, judges, district attorneys, plaintiffs attorneys, family, friends and neighbors.
These deaths are rare but predictable and are largely avoidable. It is incumbent on police bureaus and city administrators to provide recruiting, training, ongoing support, tools, funding, policy, procedure, strategies and tactics, sufficient so a zero tolerance policy for non-accidental police-caused deaths can assure citizens that police officers are safe to engage with persons who are impaired.
Firing multiple bullets into a person is not an accident. Beating and kicking a person who is on the ground and crying “Mercy!” is not an accident. Cutting off a person’s breath until they suffocate is not an accident. Tasering someone past the point of submission is not an accident.
“Suicide by cop” is not an accident.
Merle Hatch had a gun and threatened to use it. He could have killed hospital staff, an officer or a bystander. His parents confirmed he started using drugs early and had at least a previous conviction. The police shot him because non-lethal methods don’t work at distance.
I agree that mental health services and police responses to perceived threats need to improve. However, there is a point at which there is not a choice, and lethal methods need to be used. This is just such a case. This is not a Chasse situation. This man was armed and threatening. Had the police not shot him, and he shot an innocent bystander, the police would be blamed for not protecting the public.
And what about the mental health system? Why did hospital staff allow him to get a gun? Why are involuntary holds so difficult to maintain? Why was he not locked in the hospital, his rights temporarily overridden to medicate him? The mental health system failed here, it can be argued. Lobby to drop the word “imminent” from Oregon laws so that more people can be treated as needed, not only during an acute crisis. Blaming the police, who are trained to fire at a threat that could kill someone else at any moment, is like blaming an officer for not curing someone’s cancer. It is not in their purview to treat, diagnose or medicate. Yes, they can use non-lethal means when the person in question is not armed with a deadly weapon; they can talk him/her down, stand off, or just leave to let the person calm down. But this armed man was an immediate danger to officers and the public alike. The mental health/medical system failed this man, not police.
Turns out he did not have a gun. But police “thought” he did because that’s what the hospital said. What do you have to say about that, Steven?