Eddie Irizarry Jr. was killed by Officer Mark Dial in Philadelphia during a routine traffic stop. If Officer Dial had the impossible benefit of 2020 hindsight available to him in real time - he would not have shot and killed Mr. Irizarry. This is an objectively reasonable fact.
Incidents like this involve a complicated mix of crime, psychology, and claims of racism. This is where the perception of ‘police violence’ clashes with the very real limits of human performance under extreme stress.
What Happened
On August 14, 2023 twenty-seven year old Mr. Irizarry was involved in a fatal Officer-Involved-Shooting (OIS) with Philadelphia police.
Officers Mark Dial and Michael Morris were on patrol and had been following a vehicle driven by Mr. Irizarry that was allegedly driving in a reckless manner. Mr. Irizarry eventually turned the wrong way down a one-way street and a traffic stop was initiated. There was nothing unusual about this traffic stop.
Upon contact Mr. Irizarry remained in the driver’s seat of the vehicle but was holding a knife near his leg. The knife had a black handle.
Officer Dial fired six rounds as he approached the driver’s side of the vehicle and Mr. Irizarry sustained a fatal injury. Officer Morris yelled “Gun!” and “Knife!” just prior to the OIS. Officer Dial claimed that he believed that Mr. Irizarry was armed with a firearm.
Aftermath
Officer Dial was quickly fired from the police department and charged with murder. Last week all charges were dismissed by Philadelphia Municipal Judge Wendy Pew after she watched the body camera video and heard arguments from attorneys. Judge Pew stated that she agreed with the position from Officer Dial’s defense team “100%”.
The District Attorney's Office had said following the decision that they would be filing an appeal. A motion to reinstate the charges against Officer Dial has been filed in the Court of Common Pleas (a higher court).
There were riots in the streets of Philadelphia after the dismissal. Over fifty people were arrested over several nights as violent maniacs used this as an excuse to loot stores and terrorize neighborhoods.
Lululemon and Apple stores were specifically targeted by the vandals. Something tells me that stealing expensive yoga pants has nothing to do with some vague notion of ‘police brutality’. And, even if a police officer did commit a crime or make a mistake during a stressful situation - rioting mobs terrorizing the city will only ensure more use of force by police officers who are tasked with maintaining order.
Perception
It might be difficult to believe if you have never been in a situation so stressful that the rapidly unfolding events defy reality in the moment. When humans are under extreme stress they often endure: tunnel vision and auditory exclusion. These are real things that happen to the human body that are no fault of the individual.
Oftentimes, police officers experience these things during an OIS. Instead of honestly admitting the limits of human performance under stress - anti-police activists and the “trust the science crowd” would rather assume that the worst possible motive of a police officer is the only possible motive of a police officer.
Analysis
If you watch the body cam footage as a stand alone single piece of evidence - this OIS does not appear to be objectively reasonable.
This is precisely the danger of basing an unwavering opinion on a solitary single short video.
Body camera footage does not depict what an officer saw or heard. Only what was picked up by a camera.
The perception of the officer is a relevant factor in every use of force case.
Whether anti-police activists acknowledge this or not.
The legal standard is clear (Graham v. Connor).
The court will evaluate what the officer knew or should have known at the time.
The perception of the officer is relevant.
Not the perception of Ben Crump from the comfort of his home.
The court will then evaluate whether or not the perception of the officer was “reasonable”. Or, would another officer in a similar situation behave differently?
Consider:
Was the officer’s perception reasonable?
Was the officer’s action reasonable given that perception?
Opinion
Officer Dial believed that Mr. Irizarry was armed with a gun. Officer Dial responded by shooting Mr. Irizarry. If Officer Dial’s belief was reasonable - then the shooting was within the law. If Officer Dial’s belief was unreasonable - then the shooting was not within the law.
Within a split second, Officer’s Dial’s partner (Officer Morris) yelled “Gun!” and Officer Dial observed Mr. Irizarry holding a knife with a black handle (that he thought was a gun).
The combination of those two things, while in the midst of an adrenaline dump - creates an unfortunate situation where Officer Dial’s belief was likely reasonable.
The combination of those two things also caused Officer Dial to make a fatal mistake of fact. Mr. Irizarry was not holding a gun. And if Officer Dial knew that - he never would have utilized deadly force.
Officer Dial believed in the moment that he was in danger.
That belief was reasonable.
Officer Dial responded with deadly force.
Officer Dial made a mistake of fact.
Final Thoughts
If I was the family of Mr. Irizarry - I would demand a prosecution of Officer Dial.
If I was the family of Officer Dial - I would explain that human performance under extreme stress is imperfect.
Both sides are reasonable.
Where do you fall?
When I review these type of situations, I like to watch the video prior to reading any of the explanation for what happened. The reason for this is that when you watch something after you've been told what happened and after you've been told what to look for, your brain fills in for what you didn't see or hear during the actual incident. In other words, if you read the description of the incident first where it says that the officer's body cam picked up that the object was a knife, your brain might fill in and you might actually see the knife yourself but there's no evidence the officer saw that.
Just watching this video without much context, what I saw was an officer who ran up to a vehicle and immediately saw something or some action from inside of that vehicle that caused him great concern. The officer was reacting to something that caused him to fear for his safety when he drew his firearm, started shooting and running away at the same time. That's not something a reasonable officer would do if he didn't feel there was a threat or if he only saw a knife from someone inside of a vehicle with the door and window closed.
What I saw from this officer absolutely convinced me that the officer believed his life was in danger and that he needed to use deadly force to prevent that Danger from occurring. That's not to say that you don't need context, simply that this is my methodology. When I read the description of the incident and learned that the officers partner had yelled the word "gun" , everything kind of fell into place. It explained that the officer was primed to believe that the suspect had a gun and when the officer saw the suspect grabbing for something that was dark in color, he could reasonably believe that the item the subject was reaching for and starting to hold towards him was in fact a gun.
Based on my observations of the officer's reactions and then the context being added, I believed from day one that this was an objectively reasonable use of force.
I feel that the Officer was reasonable.
The guy fled the wrong way down a one way street. With a knife at the ready. Why?
We are seeing more and more cops getting shot at.
Just stop fleeing and resisting!