One second is all that an officer has. There is only one sacred moment to make a life-altering determination in the face of great harm.
When asked whether I believe officers should be afforded the opportunity to testify at grand jury proceedings, I answer undoubtedly that they should and do so without hesitation. It would be great if all dilemmas officers face in their daily routine were so simply determined.
It should be stressed that officers make one-second calls where, in a moment’s time, a decision to pull a trigger and a decision not to pull a trigger are required with synchronicity. We ask officers to do this as if it is easy to actualize and accomplish with precision.
I say this because I have stood before a bullet blazing towards me. I’ve also experienced the necessity of having to pull the trigger myself. These instances are not dissimilar. Each experience is suspended in time by the beating of one’s heart, energized by the shock and fear of what is transpiring and are further burdened by the weight of one’s sworn duty to protect and serve.
As an attorney, I’ve represented countless officers who have also been placed in those untimely positions, most notably, in the coldness found at the receiving end of the trigger but also on the other end of things too. It’s an impossible dilemma and one that is perhaps even more impossible to understand after the fact. Monday morning quarterbacking is not a fair treatment to the sheer gravity of these eternal questions befalling our officers.
Indeed, the line existing between the correct decision and the incorrect decision is quite thin. However, it is our duty to protect officers and the law as well. There is a distinct contrast between egregious misconduct involving malicious intent or even a willful disregard and the sheer and honest prospect of negligence.
If we hold officers to a standard of negligence while on duty, we might as well remove their guns and vests and send them out on the streets defenseless. By threatening to further restrict officers’ rights, society itself teeters on the brink of destroying the very lives of those who are trying to keep us safe.
An officer’s grand jury testimony is one of the precious lines of defense that officers hold dear as it is crucial to the pursuit of justice. An officer can stand under oath before a civilian review panel and answer any questions asked if he is so inclined. A court reporter takes down each word and every admission or explanation.
The explanations provided can be as healing as much as they are illuminating. In my experience, having defended officers and also sheriffs as they face a grand jury panel, the testimony provides answers that often highlight the difference between an officer called to a problem who is forced to respond in a moment’s time versus a rogue officer with an agenda, perhaps fueled by criminal behavior, that intentionally creates problems that are indeed illegal. Additionally, we do not want our officers to be treated as pawns to a political agenda without any protection to testify under oath and honestly.
It is of the utmost importance that we allow light to be shed on these occasions, before a grand jury, so that we may see for ourselves the difference between abuse of power and an officer doing the best job possible when faced with life-threatening harm.
About the Author
