Why The (Non-Lethal) Shooting of Lavar Jones Is More Terrifying Than Michael Brown or Eric Garner

Many people have not heard about Lavar Jones, a black man who was shot by a white police officer in South Carolina last September. There are probably reasons why it didn’t grab national attention. Jones survived (thankfully). The officer was charged (case still pending). And it was on video tape, so there wasn't ambiguity, which means it could not easily be used to divide the races and give a platform to those who make a living of racial discord. But despite the lack of media attention and the much better outcome than the other cases, this is a situation that I think is far more alarming than the killings of Michael Brown or Eric Garner.

Here is the video of the encounter: http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/26621563/dash-cam-video-released-in-trooper-involved-shooting

As you see, Lance Cpl. Sean Groubert  told Lavar Jones to produce his license. When Jones reached into the car, Officer Groubert ordered him to get out of the car. When Jones did so, Lance Cpl. Groubert opened fire multiple times, even after Jones had his hands up.

As was later discovered after, Jones was simply reaching into the car to get his license - the license that the officer had explicitly told him to get. 

Why This is So Terrifying

In short, Lavar Jones was shot multiple times despite being a law-abiding citizen who was confronted by a police officer who had no apparent desire to go out and murder a black man that afternoon. And that is why it is so terrifying. 

You see, Michael Brown either was attacking a cop, or was just outright murdered with his hands up, not under any guise of real police activity. If the former, we can have some control by being law-abiding citizens and not attacking a cops for no good reason. If the latter, it is scary, but it's scary the way that it is scary that a cop who pulls you over could be a serial killer. It's happened before, but it's exceedingly rare, and even in our modern police culture where anything goes, such actions are not tolerated if the perpetrator is caught. Darren Wilson, for all intents and purposes, wasn't caught (since the evidence was conflicting and nothing was on tape or seen by any reliable witnesses). Most cops are good cops insofar as they don't go out and want to murder innocent people.

And at least Eric Garner was (technically) resisting arrest (albeit non-violently). While it's a major problem that so many just cavalierly say what happened to him is really his fault for resisting (i.e. moving his hands out of the way when they tried to grab him), at least we have some control over our own fate in that we can choose to obey the law  and not resist arrest. Also, while there did appear to be some excessive force, his death was kind of a fluke. NYPD officers, for better or for worse, probably react that aggressively on a daily basis and yet don't kill anyone on the process.

Lavar Jones, on the other hand, didn't resist arrest. Lavar Jones didn't attack anyone. And Lavar Jones wasn't the victim of a serial killer or a lynching. Lavar Jones was the victim of a cop who, despite the criminal charges, was more or less following standard police protocol. He was just a little too quick to pull the trigger (and some police and pro-police commentators don’t even agree that he was too quick to shoot). And that is what is so terrifying.

You might say "but Groubert is a criminal and an outlier." But is he? True, he has been charged with aggravated assault, but aside from the fact that I think there is a good chance he will be acquitted (and I'm debating whether that would even be the wrong verdict), what did he really do that was all that outside the bounds of standard police practice? His fear that Jones would be reaching for a gun didn't come out of nowhere. He was probably taught to be on the lookout for that just like he would have been taught to watch for people putting their hands in their pockets. And it's understandable that he would be - someone reaching into their car during a traffic stop definitely could be reaching for a weapon. The fact that anyone in a traffic stop could at any time pull out a gun and shoot him was probably drilled into Lance Cpl. Groubert's head, and not for no reason - police officers do get killed at traffic stops because someone pulls a gun out of nowhere and shoots them. The way he reacted makes perfect sense in light of the dangers that police officers face and are trained to face. That's why this is so terrifying.

Any one of us could be Lavar Jones. We could be in a traffic stop. We could do exactly what the cop says (as Jones did), but because of how cops are trained and how aggressive they have become, they could still kill us because we make one unintentional misstep in our cop/motorist tango. After all, Lavar Jones wasn't reaching for a weapon; he was reaching for his license because the officer asked him for his license! True, we should all be aware that certain actions, like reaching into a car, could be seen as a sign of aggression. But it's come to the point now where we are required to remember this long list of do's and don'ts when we are stopped, against our will, and if we fail to remember one single step, it could be a capital offense. And that is not acceptable in a civilized society. Far worse than the fear of a serial killer or renegade who feels like killing is the fear of well-meaning cops who are just a little too aggressive, because there are a lot of well-meaning cops, and any one of them could become just a little too aggressive.

The Challenge

The thing is, Groubert's actions were not irrational, but made sense in light of what police are taught. This makes this a difficult dilemma to solve. Officer Groubert opened fire because he had been trained that someone reaching into a car could be someone reaching for a weapon. He likely wasn't trained to shoot such a person on sight, but when you combine that teaching with the overall mentality that is taught, that any split second someone could kill you so you need to use as much force as is necessary to survive, such an outcome was totally foreseeable. And that kind of mentality isn't widespread because police officers hate civilians (although there does seem to be some growing antagonism). It is taught because being a police officer is a dangerous job, and being so aggressive and willing to use force, even lethal force, is really great for preventing the murder of police officers. It really is. Isn't that what every cop and pro-police commentator always reminds us in cases where people get killed who shouldn't have been? The police need to act aggressively because any move could be a move for a weapon or a move that could cost them their lives. And that is true. Any sign of aggression could in a split second lead to someone murdering a police officer.

But we see too what happens when cops are trained to react with extreme force at any sign of aggression. We get this the video above. Or worse, we get the video above with a cop who can aim. Someone whose first reaction to a lawful order by a police officer is to obey (as was the case for Lavar Jones) just does what he is told and in doing so, forgets rule #137 about dealing with a police officer and looks like he is grabbing a weapon. There was no resistance, no breaking the law, just simple compliance with the officer's explicit order. And yet it looks like it could possibly be a threat (despite the action making perfect sense given what the officer asked him to do), so the officer opens fire. After all, he has been trained that any threat must be neutralized, so he does that.

What we basically have here is an impasse. It seems inevitable that if people are going to be able to get pulled over by police and not fear that they have a reasonable chance of being killed, police will have to be trained to act less aggressively and thereby take on more risk of being harmed themselves. Thus the dilemma. Policy makers and those in positions of authority have a responsibility to try to increase the well-being and peace of mind of citizens while reducing, as much as possible, and increase in the risk to officers. But there does seem to be a necessary trade off here, and that's what makes it so difficult.

After all, as the pro-police commentators remind us, any move, any split second, someone could pull a gun and kill an officer. Their aggression is necessary to protect themselves. A person in Lavar Jones's shoes might be reaching for a gun - even though they were told to get their license which they would obviously have to reach for - and so the cop draws his gun. When the person steps away from the car - even though the officer screamed at him to do so - he could have a weapon in his hand. And so the officer opens fire. Now, I do believe the police department when they say such a shooting is against the rules. There is a reason this doesn’t happen every time someone reaches into their glove compartment for their registration. But how against the rules can you really say it is in light of all the potential moments that Jones could have been pulling a gun? After all, had Groubert not opened fire when he did, and Lavar Jones had been reaching for a gun, Groubert would have been shot and quite possibly killed.

And so something has to give, at least until policy makers come up with good ideas to improve things for both sides. Because it has come to a point where law-abiding citizens now have to fear that being pulled over by a well-intentioned cop could result in their death, we have to say that police need to be willing to take on a little more risk. Police sign up to put their lives at risk when they took the job. You and I and Lavar Jones did not sign up to risk out lives with every minor traffic violation.