Ohio gun lobby holds sway over legislature -- lock, stock and barrel

Police procedure experts say shooting to kill is the only way to realistically remove the threat posed by a dangerous suspect.

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- After the shooting death of a 12-year-old Cleveland boy at the hands of a police officer came the familiar question: Why did they have to kill him? Why didn't they shoot the gun out of his hand or shoot him in the leg?

Police responded with the familiar refrain: We don't shoot to maim. If there is a threat that requires lethal force, we shoot to kill.

But where did that policy come from? In this age of sophisticated weaponry and training techniques, can officers be trained to shoot suspects in a less deadly way?

Some officers are able to do this. Just six days after Tamir was killed, a seven-year veteran police officer in Akron shot a man in the leg who was holding knives to a woman's throat.

Police officers who come face-to-face with armed and dangerous suspects are trained to "shoot to kill," but experts say that phrase doesn't account for the complexities of an officer-involved shooting.

As the Cleveland community grapples with questions about whether the police shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice was justified, the U.S. Department of Justice's report on the Cleveland Division of Police uncovered a history of failures within the department - especially in how officers use deadly force.

Justice officials found cases where Cleveland police shot at people who were following their orders and even victims of a crime who were fleeing from danger.

Though not a part of the Justice Department's investigation, the Tamir Rice shooting is indicative of Cleveland officers' habit of turning to deadly force as an initial response rather than a last resort.

But when Officer Timothy Loehmann fired twice at Tamir's stomach, he was following long-established deadly force protocol that would justify the shooting if the boy posed a life-threatening risk.

Northeast Ohio Media Group asked law enforcement experts and researchers to shed light on why officers target vital organs when they fire their weapons, rather than attempting non-lethal shots.

Going for the "kill zone"

Asked whether police officer training historically teaches a "shoot to kill" philosophy, veteran officers overwhelmingly answered "yes," but said death isn't necessarily the end goal.

"Killing isn't the objective," said Geoffrey Alpert, professor at University of South Carolina who researches high-risk police activity. "The objective is to remove the threat."

The most effective way to do that is to shoot at a person's torso because it's the largest part of the body – and where a shot is most likely to incapacitate someone who poses a potential threat, Joseph Morbitzer, president of the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police said.

Officers train during target practice by firing at paper targets shaped like people where the bullseye is the chest near the sternum, according to Thomas Aveni, executive director at the Police Policy Studies Council.

Shooting to wound is a myth

Officers who shoot at a suspect's upper body are often condemned by the public for not aiming at an arm or leg instead, but experts say that only happens in Hollywood.

"You're shooting something that's moving and turning, and people don't make themselves an easy target," Aveni said."Those that advocate shooting a gun out of a hand like you see in Roy Rogers movies – that's just not a plausible scenario."

Hubert Williams, 30-year veteran officer and former president of the Police Foundation, said the philosophy is to shoot to kill or not at all.

"[An officer] wouldn't be justified in shooting unless there is a threat to his life," Williams said. "If there's a threat to his life, he has to take counter measures against that threat. So he's going to shoot not to stop him – he's going to shoot for the kill zone."

The law takes into account the difficulties faced by officers confronting an armed person.

Police are justified in shooting someone who they believe poses a life-threatening risk, but perception of danger is a difficult thing to legislate, according to Michael Benza, criminal law professor at Case Western Reserve University.

"Its not one of those things that we can give officers guidelines for," Benza said. "We recognize that they can sometimes shoot innocent people because they misinterpret the situation."

Still, he agrees that shooting to kill is the only plausible method for self-defense.

"Nobody who is trained in defending themselves or firearms is taught to shoot to wound," Benza said.

Shaping deadly force protocol

Crime waves in Chicago and New York shaped how police used guns in the last 150 or so years.

Police began arming themselves with guns in the mid-19th century, according to Thomas Reppetto former commander of detectives in the Chicago Police Department. Reppetto also served as the president of the Citizens Crime Commission in New York City and has written extensively on police and the American Mafia.

It wasn't until Theodore Roosevelt took office at the close of the 19th century that gun use became standardized. Roosevelt equipped the NYPD with revolvers and mandated target practice.

Police amped up their armory again in the 1920s in response to Chicago Mafia crime, which included machine gun attacks.

Repetto said police lore in New York and Chicago in the Prohibition Era was to avoid pulling a gun on duty. In the crowded urban areas, police limited their gun use to avoid accidentally shooting bystanders.

Reppetto said even though there were far fewer police shootings then, there was still public outcry over officers using deadly force.

The next big change came during the drug wars of the late '80s and early '90s, when the NYPD got 9-millimeter automatic pistols to replace their six-shot revolvers to keep pace with well-armed gangs.

Guns on trial

Deadly force policy has been altered in the past 30 years by three landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases.

A 1985 case nixed policies that permitted officers to shoot a suspect just because they are fleeing. The court ruled that a person has to be posing an immediate threat of serious physical harm in order for police to justifiably shoot them.

In 1989, the court said officers can use deadly force if it is proven to be reasonable based on the unique circumstances of a situation.

A 1994 case ruled that police are not required to use less lethal force (like pepper spray or a Taser) before resorting to deadly force (a gun) if there is a threat to someone's life.

No signs of change



It's very unlikely the shoot-to-kill policy will ever change, according to Terrry Dwyer, retired policeman and legal columnist for PoliceOne.com, an online police procedure resource.

Shooting at center mass is a long-standing police protocol that has the law on its side, Dwyer said.

In 2010, lawmakers in New York tried and failed to push a "minimum force" bill through the state assembly, which would require officers to shoot at suspects only to wound them.

While Dwyer said the sheer practicality of deadly force protocol has helped it withstand opposition over the years, legislators and activists are reviewing the ways officers use it.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine set a meeting for Thursday with the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission, which sets standards for officer training across the state, to review deadly force training.

In light of Tamir's death and the Justice Department's criticisms, DeWine wants to make sure police academies are doing everything they can to ease tension between police and the communities they serve.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio is also working on use of force policy recommendations for the Justice Department as it works to reform the division.

"The report was very vivid in depicting a police force that used force excessively - all types of force, not just deadly," said Mike Brickner, senior policy director for ACLU of Ohio. "This has been a historical problem in Cleveland and once we very much need to address," he said.