fbpx

Unarmed but Still Dangerous: The Facts Behind Some OIS Headlines

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

When police shoot an “unarmed” individual, the implication or outright accusation by media and activists is often that the deadly force was unjustified because the subject, without a weapon, was “defenseless” and thus could not have posed a threat.

Now a newly published study by two criminal justice researchers paints a far different picture. Their findings should be shared with PIOs and other LEOs responsible for communicating reality to the civilian world.

After reviewing all reported cases across a two-year period, the pair found that:

  • “When police officers used deadly force during an encounter with an unarmed citizen, they were, in fact, facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to themselves or a third person” in nearly 90% of the situations.
  • The rest involved “accidental shootings or unintentional discharges” rather than deliberate targeting.
  • Unarmed subjects shot by intent included those who were attempting to disarm an officer…drown an officer…throw an officer from a bridge or rooftop…strangle an officer…gesturing as if armed with a real weapon…keeping hands concealed despite commands…and charging toward an officer with apparent intent to assault.

“Being unarmed,” the study concludes, “does not mean ‘not dangerous.’ ”

Unarmed and Dangerous: Patterns of Threats by Citizens During Deadly Force Encounters with Police

Their findings are published as a small but pricey book titled Unarmed and Dangerous: Patterns of Threats by Citizens During Deadly Force Encounters with Police, available in hardcover and (less expensive) Kindle formats at Amazon.com.

The research was conducted by Force Science News subscriber Dr. Jon Shane, a former captain with the Newark (NJ) PD and now an associate professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and Zoe Swenson, a special investigator of corruption matters with the New York City Dept. of Investigation.

UNARMED MYTHOLOGY

Shane and Swenson were spurred into the first-of-its-kind project by a frustrating realization: While the shooting of unarmed individuals is a particularly sensitive flashpoint in the current contentious debate over police practices, the public reporting of these events “often lacks contextual details necessary to make a reasoned judgment” about whether a given shooting is justified.

In the absence of a thorough description of the circumstances, the researchers write, “what dominates the media headlines [and drives protester outrage] is a modern-day story of David and Goliath; an underdog (unarmed citizen) set upon by an establishment villain (armed police officer) in a mismatched contest on an uneven playing field.”

With “unarmed” connoting “not dangerous or threatening,” the offender is “often lauded as a martyr in the encounter,” as if he were “someone walking down the street minding their own business” when “summarily executed” by an “unreasonable, biased” cop.  “Unfortunately,” the researchers note, “most onlookers believe that if a police officer is not punished for using force against an unarmed person, then they are not held accountable.”

Hoping to supplant emotional mythology with facts, Shane and Swenson set out to fill the “vacuum of contextual details” about unarmed shootings.

CULLING CASES

There is no official, comprehensive, reliable database on law enforcement use of force in the US. So the research team turned to an unofficial compilation as their principal resource—the much-publicized but limited Fatal Force Database maintained by the Washington Post. This consists of publicly available reports of on-duty, police-related firearms deaths, collected from news reports, law enforcement websites, social media, and other spotty sources.

Checking cases the Post listed as “unarmed,” the researchers found that some of those individuals, in fact, were armed, just not with conventional weapons. These included offenders who confronted officers with a metal-tipped broomstick, tree branches, bear spray, a knife, rocks, and vehicles.

Some 20 cases from the database had to be set aside because they lacked “enough information to determine whether the officer or the public was facing an imminent threat” when the shooting occurred.

In the end, Shane and Swenson were able to isolate and analyze 112 instances in which officers had shot and killed a subject who was not armed with a real or improvised weapon. This group represents about 6% of all fatal shootings by LEOs during the study period.

REALITY CHECK

Most of the unarmed fatalities involved males (95%), white (40%) or black (38%), aged 20-39 (64%). Regionally, unarmed encounters occurred most often in the south (38%) and west (35%) and least in the northeast (5%).

Most of the unarmed fatalities involved males (95%), white (40%) or black (38%), aged 20-39 (64%). Regionally, unarmed encounters occurred most often in the south (38%) and west (35%) and least in the northeast (5%).

The actions of these individuals, as documented by the researchers, clearly shattered the myth that they were defenseless and non-threatening when they encountered the officers who killed them.

Nearly half were actively engaged in a physical assault on the officer when shot. This most often involved the use of “personal weapons” (hands, feet, teeth, head) and wrestling or struggling with the officer. Second most common was an attempt to disarm the officer.

The physical assault category also includes actual disarming of the shooter or other officers of their gun, baton, CEW, handcuffs, or other equipment; attempts to drown the officer or throw him or her off a bridge, roof, stairs, or other elevated surface; choking the officer; or pushing the officer to the ground and then mounting him.

In more than a third of the cases, the involved officer perceived the “threat of an imminent assault.” 

This includes “advancing/charging toward the officer” or making other “threatening or aggressive movement”; concealing hands “during a crime or flight therefrom”; assuming a “shooting or fighting stance” empty handed or with an object resembling or mistaken for a weapon; and reaching where a weapon might be hidden.

In a few instances, the unarmed suspect was shot while “escaping or eluding officers using a vehicle, recklessly endangering the public or other officers.”

In all, the researchers tabulated, roughly 9 out of 10 of the “unarmed” offenders were presenting an active or potentially lethal or severely injurious threat to the involved officer or others when shot. Most were not fleeing but were “at least standing their ground against the officer or were not under control,” the study notes. (Those shot accidentally or through unintended discharges comprised about 12% of the total.)

“When police officers used force,” the researchers say, “their actions were almost always consistent with the accepted legal and policy principles that govern law enforcement.”

CONTEXT MATTERS

Implicit in the findings is the need for more balanced and comprehensive reporting of police use of force against “unarmed” individuals.

“When the media portray the victim as unarmed and therefore defenseless (without additional context),” the researchers write, that can “certainly influence public opinion as well as [the] legal outcome.” It becomes “easier to persuade onlookers to accept the argument that the shooting is unjustified because the victim was unarmed.” And emotional assumptions “predicated on rumors, limited information, or lies” then overrun hard evidence in the public psyche.

As a case in point, Shane and Swenson cite the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, “where [the] widely held assumptions [that] Brown was unarmed and did not pose a threat to the officer could not be overcome…notwithstanding the factual evidence that Brown physically assaulted the officer.”

When the facts were presented, “a large segment of the population failed to modify” their unarmed-and-defenseless assumption. “Indeed, the objective evidence was rejected…as a product of a failed criminal justice system and illegitimate, biased investigators.”

When relevant information is “withheld or omitted, it is difficult if not impossible to reach a sound [judgment], which is what happens when citizens are labeled by the media as unarmed during a fatal police shooting without further explanation of the characteristics of the encounter….

“The assumption that unarmed citizens are not dangerous, violent, or threatening is itself dangerous to the lives of officers and the public they are sworn to protect.”

In passing, the researchers make this interesting observation: “The risk of dying from a police-citizen encounter is exceptionally low and an unjustified fatality is even lower.” It’s a fact that medical errors by doctors and nurses “kill many thousands more Americans annually than do the police.” Some contend that “the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States.” Yet there is “not nearly the same level of public outcry” about that as about police shootings.

1 Response
  1. […] “When police shoot an ‘unarmed’ individual, the implication or outright accusation by media and activists is often that the deadly force was unjustified because the subject, without a weapon, was “defenseless” and thus could not have posed a threat,” wrote Chuck Remsberg in the article, “Unarmed but Still Dangerous: The Facts Behind Some OIS Headlines.” […]

Leave a Reply

GDPR

  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.

Analytics

We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: support@forcescience.org
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.