By Steve Pomper
Police officer arrests man in Baltimore (Keith Allison, CC 2.0)
Enough! What is it with media’s and cop critics’ careless (malicious) reporting about police officers compelled to use lethal force on “unarmed” suspects? Reporting like that can help lead to an officer’s unnecessary discipline, termination, or bogus criminal charges.
One faulty method is by reporting the suspect was “unarmed,” but only after reviewing the incident and then applying that fact to during the incident when the officer could not have known the suspect was unarmed and aren’t about to bet their lives on it. Or worse, immediately reporting, by assumption, without review, that the suspect was unarmed.
For example, the media will report on videos of officers shooting “unarmed” suspects when the officers had no opportunity to pat down the suspects for weapons, never mind search them. They may indeed be unarmed, but the officer doesn’t know that at the time.
Saying unequivocally that suspects who haven’t been searched, or even frisked, are unarmed is a false and dangerous statement. Yet the media, radical leftist cop-haters, including politicians, continually accuse cops of shooting “unarmed” suspects as if the officers could/should have known that.
Before continuing, let’s briefly address what constitutes a police search of a person, under the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is one of our most fundamental natural rights, which cops protect daily. In fact, blow this one, and your whole case can get tossed. I once had a vacationing officer from Holland ride-along with my partner and me.
A driver ahead of us committed a minor traffic violation, and we were discussing whether to make a stop. The Dutch officer appeared perplexed, leaned forward, and said, “You mean, you need a reason to stop cars here? In Amsterdam I can stop any car at any time I want” (quote).
Even in a modern, enlightened country like the Netherlands, the difference between Americans and the Dutch (and other peoples) is the U.S. Constitution. Yes, American police need a lawful reason to stop a person.
Here’s a basic view of various police searches relative to potentially armed suspects.
First is the quick visual check. Cops scan people for “suspicious bulges,” hinting at concealed weapons. This is noninvasive and not seeing any bulges does not mean a person is unarmed. But it’s better than nothing in cases where the officer’s Spidey-sense tingles, but there’s no reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat-down, or frisk, without consent.
A Terry Stop (the so-called “stop and frisk” the Left freaks out about) came from a SCOTUS decision. This ruling allows officers to detain people briefly, having reasonable suspicion a person may be involved in criminal activity. Officers pat the person (frisk) over their clothing, for concealed weapons. This is more invasive than a visual check but also does not mean a person is unarmed.
A search incident to arrest happens after police arrest a suspect, and the officer can more thoroughly search a prisoner, including under clothing, within pockets, and inside shoes. After this search, except for the unlikely possibility of a small edged weapon (knife or razor blade) secreted in a body cavity, officers can be reasonably sure the suspect is unarmed—at least, not with a firearm.
The strip search, as alluded to above, may include a body cavity search (which, in my day, mainly involved checking for, sorry for the indelicacy, “booty dope”). Yes, it’s as nasty as it sounds, but people do try to hide stuff “up there.”
Sorry for that visual, but now that you have a cop’s perspective, do me a favor and hold the media accountable. Please, never again take media or cop-hater comments about an officer shooting an “unarmed” suspect without engaging your critical thinking and taking into account the reality that no good cop can consider a suspect who hasn’t been searched to be unarmed. That must remain a factor at least in the back of an officer’s mind.
I’ll leave you with this real life example as reported in 2022 by CBS Colorado News. During this incident, a Denver police officer had arrested a suspected car thief. During an initial on-scene search incident to arrest, the officer found drugs and recovered a handgun.
After transporting the suspect to the jail, while removing his handcuffs, the suspect got to another gun he was concealing, and fired a shot, which struck the officer in the neck. Other officers shot the suspect multiple times. The officer recovered, and I really don’t care what happened to the attempted cop killer.
Think about that. Even though the police had searched this suspect, he remained armed and used that arm against a cop almost killing him.
So, any time you learn of a cop shooting an “unarmed” person, without having all the facts, wait before you make any conclusions. In almost every case, you’ll learn about evidence that supports the officers’ actions.