Law-enforcement officers have a difficult, dangerous job, and those who place their lives on the line for the protection of the public are deserving of gratitude and trust.
That trust, however, can be diminished when law enforcement is seen as being above the law, and Washington’s statute regarding the potential prosecution of officers serves to reinforce that view. Last week, the state’s Use of Deadly Force in Policing task force voted 19-14 to suggest the removal of language that makes it nearly impossible to hold rogue officers responsible for deadly force. The Legislature and the governor next year should heed the recommendation.
Washington’s law regarding the use of force, which was passed in 1986, requires prosecutors to prove “malice” in order to hold officers accountable for a negligent shooting; it also absolves officers if they acted in “good faith.” A Seattle Times investigation last year deemed it the most stringent deadly-force law in the country, and the record would seem to support that. From 2005 through 2014, 213 people in Washington were killed by law enforcement, and one officer was prosecuted — an Everett officer who was acquitted by a jury.
Proving malice or proving that an officer did not act in good faith presents prosecutors with a mountainous task. It is a high standard — too high — to have to prove what was in an officer’s head when he or she pulled the trigger to stop a suspect. The mere definitions of the words are subjective, creating what King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg called “the perfect defense.”
Law-enforcement officials say that removing such a defense could plant doubt in officers’ minds, leading to indecision at times when a split-second reaction can endanger police or the public. This is a valid concern, and lawmakers must remain cognizant of the difficult and life-threatening situations that are faced by officers on a daily basis. But removing the word “malice” from the law still would allow police to discharge their weapons “if there’s imminent threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or a third party.”
This is a more reasonable standard that is in line with other states and will allow officers to do their jobs effectively while enhancing the public’s faith in law enforcement. Even in states that make it easier to prosecute officers for unwarranted shootings, such prosecutions are rare. According to the Wall Street Journal, about 1,200 people were killed by police in 2015, but only 12 officers were charged with a crime and none were convicted of manslaughter or murder.
The vast majority of the public understands the difficult situations that police often are confronted with, and most police shootings easily stand up to scrutiny. But the rare instances that do not withstand that scrutiny serve to increase mistrust between law enforcement and citizens. Festering mistrust has been exacerbated in recent years with some highly publicized shootings across the nation, and all too often police have become the targets of ambush attacks. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 61 officers nationwide have been killed by firearms this year. That is a huge increase from 41 fatalities last year, but remains below the rate that saw 71 officer deaths in 2011.
Any measures that can help protect police are worth considering, but allowing officers to have carte blanche when it comes to deadly force is counter-productive. The Legislature should follow the recent recommendations of the task force.
