by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright December 6, 2000
All Rights Reserved.

ranking up the damage control, LAPD police chief Bernard Parks staged an immediate press conference to counter a highly controversial coroner’s report confirming suspicions that TV actor Anthony Dwain Lee was shot in the back. Killed on Halloween night by officer Tarriel Hopper in a hail of gunfire, Parks defended his action within the department’s guidelines on using deadly force. Current LAPD policy permits lethal force when an officer believes his life is in danger. When you consider that there are countless situations—in the course of everyday police work—involving some degree of danger, giving the green light to open fire sounds way too vague and permissive. Allowing human perception to guide the use of deadly force invites error and unwanted mistakes. There’s a huge difference between brandishing a firearm and pointing it with the intent to kill, in terms of triggering the use of deadly force. Inviting police officers who perceive imminent danger to open fire crosses a dangerous line. Giving officers the latitude to use only personal perceptions provides too little guidelines on using deadly force.

       Stepping up to the microphones, Parks defended Hopper and offered an alternative explanation to the coroner’s incriminating report. "It’s clear from the angle of the shots there was movement by Mr. Lee," said Parks, suggesting that Lee might have twisted his body, bending his back toward Hopper’s gunfire. With the Rampart scandal still on peoples’ minds, the public’s already skeptical of farfetched explanations, especially from key bureaucrats known for covering their tracks. While Parks is in a no-win situation, stepping forward to forcefully dispute more common sense explanations only makes matters worse. Parks should take his cue from Texas Gov. George W. Bush whose lips have been wisely buttoned, allowing his surrogates to battle relentlessly for the White House. Offering alternative explanations is risky business for officials whose department has recently paid a heavy price for egregious civil rights abuses. Like mayor Riordan, Parks is drawn to the microphones, but sometimes hurts his cause by giving the opposition more ammunition with which to attack his credibility. Publicity stunts—especially press conferences—can occasionally backfire by offering too much unwanted information. Sometimes less is more.

       Raising another dark cloud over the LAPD, the County Coroner says that Lee was struck four times in the back, raising eyebrows about official police accounts. Claiming that he opened fire out of self-defense after Lee reportedly pointed a replica .357 magnum semiautomatic at officer Hopper, Parks supported his use of deadly force. Finding lead in Lee’s back and head opens a can of worms about the veracity of the department’s claims. "He [Anthony Dwain Lee] could not have withdrawn a gun from his waist and pointed a gun at the officer and then have been shot four times in the back . . . It’s impossible," said Cameron Stewart, an attorney with the law firm of Johnnie L. Cochran, now investigating the crime scene and circumstances at the Benedict Canyon mansion where the killing took place. While the community’s still shocked and Lee’s relatives outraged, Parks showed little contrition, justifying his officer’s use of lethal force. According to official police accounts, "Mr. Lee raised the gun to chest level and took a step toward the window and the officer," said Parks, giving a sound rationale for why Hopper opened fire. Though Parks cites an eyewitness, Lee’s sister Tina Lee-Vogt reports other eyewitnesses who don’t concur with the LAPD’s official story.

       Taking the offensive and dictating explanations, Parks opens himself and the department up to more liability. Should his statements prove suspect, his official words are forever etched into the public record. Faced with an avalanche of lawsuits in the Rampart scandal, the LAPD faces yet another embarrassing situation requiring too many fancy explanations. "Movement was occurring at the time . . .It’s common sense. The officer might be moving, but the suspect is also moving," said Parks going to great lengths to explain how the coroner’s report could mislead individuals unfamiliar with criminal investigation. But by belaboring his point, it now appears that Parks is trying to spin his way out of an acutely incriminating situation. Asking people to defy common sense and offering too much detail adds to suspicions that the LAPD is stretching the truth. When officers justified their relentless beating of Rodney King, they also tried to excuse their behavior citing self-defense. While the explanation lacked plausible deniability, it seemed to work in Simi Valley. Trying to sell people on how Lee caused his own death clearly turns public sentiment against the LAPD.

       Calling news conferences to refute common sense explanations invites more doubt about the LAPD’s credibility. Openly admitting policies that officers are at liberty to open fire should they merely perceive a situation as dangerous promotes little sympathy—or confidence—from a public already jaded by LAPD mistakes. With the verdict out on Hopper’s culpability, you’d think that the chief of police would not want to inadvertently hurt his department by sharing too much information about questionable LAPD policies. Like mayor Riordan proposing the City use tobacco settlement funds to pay astronomical damage awards in the Rampart scandal, making those concessions only adds to the perception of guilt. Awarding unwarranted concessions before judges and juries get the case seems unwise and counterproductive. Only judges and juries can determine eventual damage awards. In Lee’s case, offering elaborate explanations before settlement conferences or opening arguments also seems ill-advised.

       Coroners’ reports and exit wounds don’t tell the whole story behind complex homicide and crime scenes. One thing’s for sure—police officers shouldn’t open fire unless it’s absolutely a last ditch option in self-defense. Stretching implausible explanations to the breaking point also doesn’t reassure skeptics already swamped with the adverse publicity from existing police scandals and legal actions. Apart from analyzing exit wounds, Hopper’s got a lot of explaining to do about how his life was in imminent danger snooping around in dark corridors. With only his flashlight illuminating the area, how could Lee have possibly threatened his life? Whatever the rules of using deadly force, officers shouldn’t distort their own perceptions to fit department policy. There's no substitute for rigorous training and specific guidelines to lower liability and reduce the chances of regrettable episodes. No matter what, deadly force must always be a last resort.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com. He’s also the director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.