Who's going to do this job?
the Chris Taylor problem
Oftentimes experienced police officers are asked whether or not they would recommend a career in law enforcement for their own children.
There are certainly arguments in the affirmative.
But. The most real example of why no reasonable person would/should go down this career path (or want their loved ones to) is the recent conviction of Officer Christopher Taylor.
Former Austin, TX police officer Christopher Taylor just may be the unluckiest cop in the country.
He has been involved two Officer Involved Shootings (OIS) and both times he was prosecuted for his actions.
The thing is - both times that Officer Taylor utilized deadly force, his decision was reasonable and in line with training, policy, and law.
The very government who taught him when to use deadly force - has actively tried to imprison him - for following that training.
This is beyond absurd.
The First One
In 2020 Officer Christopher Taylor used deadly force as suspected drug dealer Michael Ramos fled the scene in his vehicle and tried to mow down police officers.
Officer Taylor was prosecuted but jurors couldn’t reach a decision on whether he committed murder. The hung jury came after 12 days of arguments and four days of deliberation. Officer Taylor is not being retried in this case.
The Second One
In short.
Officers were dispatched to a crazed man, armed with a knife, making threats at an apartment complex in 2019.
Officers took the elevator to the 5th floor to make contact with the subject.
As the elevator door opened - there he was - Mauris DeSilva, standing there holding a knife.
Officers gave him commands to “Drop it!”
Mr. DeSilva refused to cooperate and instead took a few steps towards the officers.
Now, he was within five feet, armed with the knife, leaving officers trapped in an elevator with nowhere to go.
Officer Taylor and one other officer discharged their firearms - killing Mr. DeSilva.
Officer Taylor was charged with Deadly Conduct, a 3rd degree felony, and faces 10 years in prison. He was convicted yesterday after 3 days of jury deliberation.
The main issue that prosecutors had with this case was the tactics used and training adhered to by officers. The DA didn’t understand why the officers took the elevator instead of the stairs and didn’t wait to use force until Mr. DeSilva started slashing the knife at the officers.
My question:
If it was illegal for police officers to utilize deadly force in this situation - then what should the police officers have done?
Show us where there is clear training or policy that instructs police officers to not perceive this as a deadly threat.
The thing is
Let me tell you something about police officers…
If police officers are adequately trained on policy, tactics, and the law - the vast majority of the time they will apply those principles, even in the midst of dynamic situations - without issue.
Police officers are very good at learning a technical skill and then putting it into practice in real life scenes.
Police officers are also incredible body cam breakdown experts. They know when one of their own breaks the law or violates policy.
There is a reason why you know zero police officers who are out there defending the cops who were charged/convicted in the Tyre Nichols case. Those officers’ actions were an obvious violation of law and basic human decency and they garner no sympathy from the rest of us.
The heartache is when police officers do follow their training, respond reasonably to a deadly threat, and are prosecuted anyway. That’s what police officers have a difficult time grappling with.
This list sadly keeps growing, but here are a few:1
Christopher Schurr
Brad Lunsford
Bailey “Mac” Marquette
Eddie Duran
Chris Taylor
Final Thoughts
This Chris Taylor conviction is going to sit unwell with all of us - until the next one comes along. And, there will be another one.
How may more until no reasonable person would sign up to do this job?
Not an exhaustive list. There are unfortunately many more. Here are just a few from cases that I covered recently.
Austin P.D. is understaffed due to officer betrayal and defunding. This persecution will not help the city get back to healthy manning anytime soon.
There's a significant gap between public perception and reality when it comes to police use of force. Studies have shown that the public tends to overestimate the prevalence of police use-of-force incidents, especially those involving racial minorities. This overestimation is often driven by media coverage and personal biases.
For example, a study by the Manhattan Institute found that respondents significantly overestimated the number of nonlethal and fatal police use-of-force incidents, particularly those involving Black Americans. The study also noted that these overestimates were largest among liberal respondents.
It's important to note that while some police use-of-force incidents are indeed serious and warrant attention, the perception of their frequency can be distorted by various factors, including media representation and individual biases
The role of local prosecutors is complex and requires balancing the need for accountability with the realities of legal standards and evidence. Now Liberal prosecutors have indeed been vocal about police use of force, often advocating for reforms and accountability measures. For example, prosecutors like Kim Foxx in Chicago and Larry Krasner in Philadelphia have campaigned on promises of systemic reform, focusing on issues like excessive force and racial disparities in policing sadly often forgetting the realities of legal standards and evidence, and they ignore the supreme court cases dealing with use of force'
The Supreme Court has ruled on several key cases related to police use of force, which have helped shape the legal standards for evaluating such incidents. Here are some notable cases:
Graham v. Connor (1989): This case established the "objective reasonableness" standard for evaluating police use of force. The Court held that the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the benefit of hindsight1.
Tennessee v. Garner (1985): This case addressed the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect. The Court ruled that deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Plakas v. Drinski (1997): The Court ruled that there is no constitutional duty to use the least amount of force necessary when deadly force is authorized.
Brown v. United States (1921): This case is considered the original decision that laid the groundwork for the "objective reasonableness" standard later articulated in Graham v. Connor.
City of Canton v. Harris (1989): This case addressed the liability of municipalities for failure to train their officers adequately, which can lead to excessive use of force.
These cases have had a significant impact on how police use of force is evaluated and have influenced training, policies, and public perception of law enforcement actions. what most of the public doesn't know is that local prosectors already have approved every police use of force policy for each police department they work with.