"If necessary to prevent escape, an officer may, after giving a warning, if feasible, use deadly force to effect the arrest of a person only if there is probable cause to believe that the person has committed a felony which involves the infliction or threat of serious bodily harm or the use of deadly force or poses a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or to others."
With Metro on pace to top 30 officer-involved shootings this year (20 resulting in 11 deaths so far, compared to 13 last year resulting in nine deaths) you could be forgiven for thinking Metro's new mantra is "to serve and protect and bust a cap in a suspect's ass."
In some cases, the facts appear cut-and-dried. Police killed 21-year-old Amir Crump in February after he gunned down officer Henry Prendes. But cops fatally shot 17-year-old murder suspect Swuave Lopez twice in the back in May after he slipped out of a patrol car and fled on foot.
Truth is, deadly force is one of many crime-fighting options police have at their disposal.
Metro training documents denote various categories of force. Low lethality includes causing "blunt trauma" and using weapons like stun guns or Tasers. Significant force pertains to anything that causes medically treatable injuries to the head or sternum. Reportable force is required to overcome unruly subjects; it may result in injury or death and includes such methods as intentional traffic collision or use of a canine. Reasonable force is required to force compliance (arrest, stopping a vehicle, seizing items) and in gauging the severity of a criminal threat. And cops can choose from a handful of less-lethal de-escalation methods: talking, pepper spray, batons, handcuffs, low-lethality shotguns (they shoot beanbags filled with metal pellets), chemical agents (such as tear gas) or K-9 units. These use-of-force options are simply guidelines, says Metro spokesman Jose Montoya, meant to balance officer and public safety.
"Every situation is different," Montoya says.
But given Lopez's state of restraint—handcuffs—couldn't officers have used the low-lethality shotgun?
"We don't know what the officers saw or felt," Montoya says, declining comment on the Lopez case.
Apparently legally defensible according to state law—Lopez was a suspect in the murder of 18-year-old Kyle Staheli; during the coroner's inquest, the officer who shot Lopez claimed he had reason to believe the handcuffed suspect had immediate intentions to find and kill the person who turned him in—the Lopez case raises questions about the appropriate use of deadly force.
(Lopez's family has filed a $23 million wrongful death lawsuit against Metro. The local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada have called for a wholesale revamp of an inquest process they say favors cops. The ACLU's national office has been vocal about police use of force for years, monitoring cases and producing a community-action manual in 1997. )
One law-enforcement official who didn't want to be quoted on the Lopez case says the ability to subdue fleeing felons has practical applications.
"Take this hypothetical situation: A cop breaks down the door and sees you kill your wife, drop the gun and run for the door. That cop has a reason to believe you are an imminent threat to the public because of what you did and thus believes that you shouldn't be allowed to leave."
But police also have discretion in how to respond. For instance, Metro policy says low-lethality shotguns can be used "against persons who are armed with a weapon, excluding firearms. ... This includes, but is not limited to an edged weapon, club, pipe, bottle, brick, etc."
Deadly force rules direct officers to "fire their weapons only to stop and incapacitate an assailant from completing a potentially deadly act. Members should shoot at 'center body mass' for maximum stopping effectiveness and minimal danger to innocent bystanders."
Cops encounter tense situations almost every day, says North Las Vegas police spokesman Tim Bedwell. Most interactions end with little or no injury. Since 2000, the NLVPD has had one to three officer-involved shootings per year (at 350 officers, the department is about a fifth the size of Metro). There were three officer-involved shootings in 2004 (including two fatalities), none last year and, to date, two (including one fatality) this year. NLVPD's low-lethality arsenal includes Tasers, pepper spray and a 40-millimeter weapon that fires foam bullets—"they pack more punch" than bean bags, Bedwell says. Like Metro's, NLVPD's policy gives cops wide latitude on using force: One section reads: "Officers will use only that amount of force which is reasonable and necessary to overcome resistance, effect an arrest, prevent escape, subdue an individual offender, restore order to a disruptive group, protect the public, protect other lives when other available measures are insufficient or accomplish lawful objectives."
For NLVPD officers to use deadly force, Bedwell says, three things must be present: ability ("The person possesses the apparent ability to inflict serious bodily injury or death"), opportunity ("The person is believed to be in a position where he is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death"), and jeopardy ("By word or action, the person appears to be likely to inflict serious bodily injury or death"). In addition, Bedwell says, the officer must apply "preclusion," meaning that he or she believes there's no other level of force capable of effectively dealing with the threat.
If those metrics were applied to the Lopez case, would he react the same as Metro cops?
Not wanting to second-guess Metro, Bedwell retreats to NRS 200.140: "Homicide is justifiable when committed by a public officer ... in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; when necessary to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty; when necessary: (a) In retaking an escaped or rescued prisoner who has been committed, arrested for, or convicted of a felony; (b) In attempting, by lawful ways or means, to apprehend or arrest a person; or (c) In lawfully suppressing a riot or preserving the peace."
Knowing this, were the 600 shots fired during a February standoff with a gun-wielding Christopher Hawkins—who'd shot at cops earlier in the day— justifiable?
Bedwell won't comment specifically. "It takes as much time (and maybe more) to react once an officer sees a threat is ending as it does to react after seeing a threat begin. This is why officers sometimes fire what seems like an excessive number of rounds in a gunfight, or use what seems to some like too many blows to subdue a suspect in a fight. Consider how many shots you can fire or how many blows you can deliver each second when you fear for your life. Officers have a sworn responsibility to stay and confront threats. Imagine if the officers involved in the 1997 North Hollywood shooting had simply left in the face of the superior firepower possessed by suspects Emil Matasareanu and Larry Phillips. The police cannot simply get in a car and drive to a safe distance, leaving suspects or armed suicidal persons as a threat to the public. Situations develop quickly and when someone presents a deadly threat to an officer or the public, the officer has a professional obligation to eliminate that threat."
In the end, it seems the threat is in the eye of the beholder.
Back in 2001, Billy Ray Finks Jr. allegedly stole a car. Cornered by North Las Vegas police, Finks jumped out of the car and brandished a chrome revolver. Finks' passenger, Demario Payton, said his friend got out of the car with his hands up. Officer Anthony Bailey testified during a coroner's inquest that he fatally shot Finks because Finks refused to drop the weapon (later discovered to be a toy gun). The City of North Las Vegas settled last year with Finks' family for $35,000, city attorney Carie Torrance calling it a "smart business move" in the Las Vegas Sun.
"It was a classic example of the difference between reasonable and necessary force," Bedwell says. "It's reasonable if you point a gun at me—and I don't know it's a toy gun—and I shoot you. However, it's not necessary, but the officer has to know it's a toy gun."