A Cease Fire On Recent Shootings

by Matt Schramm

Within the past few months, our country has seen three major shootings; those being the theater shootings in Colorado, the shooting at the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin and the shooting at the Empire State Building in New York City.  Being a law enforcement (LE) student and having went through the 12 week/520 hour Basic LE Training Academy, I know how officers are trained to react/deal with an active shooter situation, I feel that the officers involved don’t get enough credit for their actions.  I didn’t look into too much of the Colorado and New York City shootings, but I was literally two miles away from the Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, WI as the shooting started.  In my own words, a gunman, Wade Page, entered the temple and began shooting.  The responding officer, Lt. Brian Murphy, was first on the scene and began tending to wounded victims.  The gunman then opened fire on Lt. Murphy, wounding him and taking him out of the fight.  The next officer on scene, Officer Sam Lenda, engaged the shooter and was able to get rounds on target.  Ofc. Lenda’s shot was not lethal, and the gunman then died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

            What caught my attention the most was media bringing up the question if it was right to use lethal force on Page.  Based on Wisconsin LE training, the use of deadly force is justified when someone acts in a behavior that has caused or immediately threatens to cause death or great bodily harm to yourself or other people.  That being said, engaging any active shooter with deadly force is justified.  A concern is usually raised with officers engaging an active shooter; that concern being that there are innocent civilians in the area that the shooter is in.  Media brings up the fact that it is dangerous for officers to shoot either at a shooter with civilians around or into/near a group of people where the shooter is near.  The “greater danger theory” then comes into effect.  The greater danger theory explains that it is ok to use deadly force on an active shooter even if he or she is in a crowd where an innocent person may be hit by gunfire.  This is justified because the gunman/woman is a greater danger if not engaged.  If the shooter isn’t dealt with, he/she will continue to risk lives of civilians.  If the officer(s) engaging the shooter were not to engage, the shooter would continue to harm people.  It justified for officers to engage the shooter in a crowd of people because if they were not to engage, the shooter could potentially harm more people.  Officers are trained in firearms to have target acquisition, identification and isolation.  Target acquisition is acquiring your target, identification is identifying the target from all the other variables in the scene, and isolation is isolating the target (in some cases to the best of the officer’s ability).  An officer, before deciding to use deadly force, has to think of all these factors in split seconds while still making sure he or she is acting in a justified manner. Ask any officer and they’ll tell you that their goal is to go home by the end of their shift, even if it means taking the life of someone else to protect their own.  One of my instructors left us with a good quote, which is something media and us, the public, can think of when an officer or officers are involved in an active shooter situation.  “It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.”  Ask any officer and they’ll tell you that their goal is to go home by the end of their shift, even if it means taking the life of someone else.