Officer Involved: Christopher Schurr
The Patrick Lyoya case
There are some Officer-Involved-Shootings (OIS) that police officers really care about. Cases where police officers all across the country - from big cities to rural counties - follow. In briefing rooms and coffee shops across the U.S. cops are studying the body camera footage, debating the tactics, and tracking the progress of the case.
There is not this level of interest in every OIS. This level of attention is typically stored in reserves and brought to the surface for cases where vast swaths of police officers whisper in symbolic unison, “damn, that could have been me.”
Why Certain Cases Matter
There are approximately 1000 deadly OIS cases a year in the U.S. Therefore, it would be impossible for officers to keep track of and study every instance of deadly force by police. The cases that garner the attention of police officers have two elements:
The actions of the involved officer have to be “reasonable” or within a range of acceptable behavior.
The officer has to be prosecuted for the shooting.
Officers have to be able to say, “If I was in that situation. I probably would have done the same thing.” And then realizing that doing the “same thing” could land them in prison for decades.
The two recent cases that come to mind are when Darren Wilson killed Michael Brown and when Garrett Rolfe killed Rayshard Brooks - both occurred after police were attacked by the offenders. Both of those cases are reasons why decent and educated people will avoid seeking employment for city police jobs.
Patrick Lyoya Case
The Patrick Lyoya fatal shooting by former Grand Rapids, Michigan police officer Christopher Schurr is a case that is being followed closely by those who work in law enforcement. That is because the actions of Officer Schurr were objectively reasonable given a totality of the circumstances.
What Happened
Officer Schurr was working a shift as a patrol officer in Grand Rapids, Michigan on April 4, 2022. Officer Schurr initiated a traffic stop on a vehicle that had a license plate attached - that belonged to a different vehicle. That vehicle was driven by Patrick Lyoya.
Once the vehicle came to a stop Mr. Lyoya exited the vehicle and approached the officer. Officer Schurr asked Mr. Lyoya for his driver’s license and explained the reason for the traffic stop. During this brief interaction it was thought that Mr. Lyoya may not be a native English speaker and Officer Schurr became concerned that Mr. Lyoya did not understand him. So, Officer Schurr asked Mr. Lyoya if he spoke English and Mr. Lyoya affirmed that he did.
Mr. Lyoya then ran from the scene and fled on foot. Officer Schurr chased Mr. Lyoya and caught up to him a nearby residential front yard. Officer Schurr first utilized empty hand tactics in an effort to get Mr. Lyoya into custody. When that was not effective, Officer Schurr utilized a Taser in an effort to get Mr. Lyoya into custody. However, the Taser was also ineffective in achieving the desired outcome.
During the struggle Mr. Lyoya grabbed for the Taser and the two men struggled for control over the weapon. Mr. Lyoya was able to overpower Officer Schurr and took possession of the Taser.
It was at that point, after Mr. Lyoya had stolen the Taser from Officer Schurr and had sole possession of it - that Officer Schurr utilized deadly force in response to what he perceived in the moment as an immediate deadly threat.
Decision Points
In all critical police incidents there are significant and specific decision points. These are moments when a police officer has multiple options and makes a choice. They go down a certain path on an unknown road. An objective analysis of these decision points at critical junctions on a timeline of events - form the backbone of any comprehensive case breakdown.
I ask, if you are going to criticize the actions of a police officer - be specific. Narrow down the precise moment in time where you feel that the decision made was unreasonable, against training, or unlawful. And then indicate what a reasonable officer would have done in a similar situation. That is the space where productive discussions can occur. Simply saying, “the officer is racist” is not helpful, really dishonest and no one reasonable will take you seriously.
Let’s breakdown some of these relevant decision points in this case.
The Traffic Stop
Officer Schurr initiated the traffic stop because the wrong license plate was on the vehicle. Stolen vehicles often have the wrong license plates attached. This was a legal and reasonable traffic stop.
The Initial Contact
Upon stopping the vehicle, Mr. Lyoya exited. This is unusual behavior as most people remain inside of their vehicles as police approach. Occasionally, someone exits because they did not realize they were being pulled over. However, in these cases when the person finally sees the officer - they almost always immediately apologize and sit back in the vehicle.
People who exit the vehicle and then remain outside when they start the interaction with police - are likely going to run or fight. All cops know this.
Despite this fact - Officer Schurr did not yell or curse at Mr. Lyoya. He spoke in a calm voice and showed respect to Mr. Lyoya by explaining the reason for the traffic stop and ensuring that he spoke English.
Officer Schurr’s kindness and level of respect was more generous than a lot of police officers would show when a felony suspect exits a vehicle on a traffic stop.
Chasing on Foot
Officer Schurr had not been given identification by Mr. Lyoya, therefore, it’s not like police could issue a warrant and easily arrest him later. Also, due to the wrong plates on the vehicle, the suspected crime was automobile theft/possession of stolen property - which is a felony. It is reasonable for police officers to engage in foot pursuits with unidentified offenders who are suspected of committing a felony.
The Use of a Taser
Officer Schurr initially utilized empty hand tactics as he tried to put an end to this incident without utilize any weapon systems. However, when Mr. Lyoya continued to resist arrest and Officer Schurr was not able to get him under control with just his hands - he escalated to the Taser. At this time Officer Schurr was dealing with an offender who was suspected of committing a felony, ran from police, and was actively resisting arrest. The progression to utilizing the Taser was a reasonable use of force.
The Use of Deadly Force
Officer Schurr shot Mr. Lyoya one time after Mr. Lyoya stole and had possession of his Taser. Since Mr. Lyoya had already actively resisted arrest by running, fighting with the officer, and stealing a weapon during this encounter - it was reasonable that Officer Schurr was afraid that Mr. Lyoya would utilize the Taser against him once he had possession of it. Nothing that Mr. Lyoya had done during this interaction would lead an honest person to believe that Mr. Lyoya had good intentions. It would be juvenile to pretend that Officer Schurr had no fear of Mr. Lyoya. Therefore, using deadly force in this situation was objectively reasonable.
Patrick Lyoya’s Decisions
Now let’s examine the decisions made by Mr. Lyoya and point out where the law or common decency would indicate that he made the wrong decision.
Mr. Lyoya was driving a vehicle that had the wrong license plates. (Felony)
Mr. Lyoya stepped out of the vehicle after the traffic stop. (Suspicious)
Mr. Lyoya ran from the scene and eluded Officer Schurr on foot. (Misdemeanor)
Mr. Lyoya resisted arrest by physically fighting with Officer Schurr. (Felony)
Mr. Lyoya stole a Taser from Officer Schurr. (Felony)
See the difference? Mr. Lyoya made multiple decisions that were unreasonable or unlawful. Officer Schurr was forced to react to those awful decisions in real time and under incredible stress.
Mr. Lyoya made these decisions because he did not want to face the consequences of his actions. He did not want to go back to jail. Mr. Lyoya had been arrested several other times for operating stolen vehicles. On the day in question, Mr. Lyoya had a “revoked” drivers license and three outstanding warrants for his arrest.
Criminals will do anything to avid jail. Even run from, fight with, and steal a weapon from a police officer
Immediate Deadly Threat?
As stated in our previous article on Tasers - a Taser is not classified as a “deadly weapon”. However, if an offender attempts to use a Taser against a police officer - the officer should view this as an immediate deadly threat. Here’s why:
It is not the actual shock of the Taser that is dangerous. The 5 second cycle of a Taser is really uncomfortable for the individual, but after the cycle is complete, the vast majority of people have no after effects and no lingering pain. The danger for a police officer is what could happen to them - if they are shot with a Taser, incapacitated, and unable to defend themselves. The individual who just Tased the officer could grab the officer’s gun or smash their head in with a rock. Therefore, a police officer should view someone who is actively trying to Tase them as a deadly threat and the proper and proportional response is deadly force.
If you are suggesting that a Taser is not a deadly threat - you are essentially asking police officers to trust that someone who just stole their Taser and used it against them - will not bash them in the face and or shoot them with their own gun - while they lay their incapacitated and defenseless. Please cite any use of force policy, police training, or law to back up your claim.
Shot in the Back of the Head
A lot of criticism of Officer Schurr is the placement of his shot - as he shot Mr. Lyoya in the back of the head. However, this criticism is unfounded. The issue is not the specific location where Officer Schurr shot Mr. Lyoya. The relevant issue is whether or not Officer Schurr was justified in using deadly force. Since, police officers are only allowed to utilize their firearms to save a life or to prevent great bodily injury to someone or themselves and since police officers do not “shoot to wound” - the exact placement of the shot is literally irrelevant.
Either Officer Schurr was lawfully permitted to utilize deadly force - or he wasn’t. This case is really that simple.
Charges Filed
Officer Schurr was charged with second-degree murder and will go to trial in 2023. We are following this case more than any other heading into the new year.
Schurr and Rolfe
As mentioned previously in the article, the Garrett Rolfe case haunts police officers nationwide and is one of the main reasons why Mike the Cop (listen to him and
on the best police podcast - Failure to Stop) left law enforcement.In short, Officer Rolfe was conducting a drunk driving investigation on Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta in June 2020. After the investigation a decision was made to arrest Mr. Brooks and the fight was on. Mr. Brooks fought with and over powered Officer Rolfe and Officer Brosnan. Mr. Brooks stole Officer Brosnan’s Taser, ran away, and as he ran he pointed the weapon back towards Officer Rolfe. Officer Rolfe then fired his weapon and killed Mr. Brooks.
Both Officer Rolfe and Brosnan were criminally charged. Officer Rolfe with murder and Officer Brosnan for lesser charges.
In 2022 the newly elected Prosecutor announced the dropping of the charges against Officer Rolfe (and Officer Brosnan) and said he determined it was "reasonable" for Officer Rolfe to use deadly force in the shooting of Mr. Brooks after he took a Taser from Officer Brosnan and gave Officer Rolfe cause to "reasonably believe the suspect possesses a deadly weapon." The prosecutor said that under case law a Taser can be considered such a weapon.
The charges being dropped in this case was some of the best police news of 2022. And I would argue that Officer Schurr was in greater immediate danger than Officer Rolfe - as Officer Rolfe was running behind Mr. Brooks. Whereas, Mr. Lyoya had possession of the Taser as the two men were in an active struggle.
Final Thoughts
The deadly force that Officer Schurr utilized on this day was objectively reasonable. Mr. Lyoya’s actions created an unnecessary situation where Officer Schurr was reasonably in fear for his life.
Mr. Lyoya had been arrested many times in the past and had never been injured by police officers. This is because he had never resisted arrest, fought with police, and certainly never stole one of their weapons. If Mr. Lyoya had acted in a similar manner in this instance - he also would not have been harmed by Officer Schurr.
Sometimes it seems simplistic to say that a person “shouldn’t run from the police” or “don’t fight with cops.” It sounds simplistic - because it is. Not attacking police like a violent maniac is a simple and basic level of decency that all people should employ.
Now, of course running from police should not be a death sentence. No one argues that it should. In 7 years with the Grand Rapids police department Officer Schurr has likely had dozens of people run from him - and had never been involved in a shooting. Mr. Lyoya was not killed because he “ran”. That is intellectually dishonest.
Mr. Lyoya was shot because after he committed a felony, ran from and fought with police - he stole a Taser from Officer Schurr. This specific act caused Officer Schurr to fear for his life - as Mr. Lyoya could easily have killed Officer Schurr if he had utilized the Taser against him.
Officer Schurr was in fear for his life and that fear was reasonable. Officer Schurr should be acquitted (or charges dropped entirely), reinstated as a police officer (if he wants), awarded backpay, and allowed to retire to a quiet life away from this dishonest circus.
This is an excellent case for the application of the Exigent Response Model, when the taser is obtained by Mr. Lyoya, that is when “Informed failure” makes Officer Schurr fear for his life, with very little time to consider and weigh other options and then go to “Productive Deviance” to save his own life. This is a model that could be used to educate and defend law enforcement (and others), and explain the need for action to juries!
No col worth their weight has ever put on their uniform in the hopes of killing someone. In our current era, the same cop who puts a uniform on actually dreads having to use deadly force. I wonder if the public at large will ever understand that.