The Eau Claire Leader-Telegram newspaper headline proclaims “Cop fatally shoots knife wielding man” But, it is always the victor who writes the history. It is the victory who feeds the media. In this case it is the Eau Claire police department, located in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The Eau Claire police department, like most departments, has a history of skewing information fed to the media.
We continually mention how media is primarily fed by two sources, the cops and the local prosecutor’s office, both of whom like to dictate public perception involving misconduct, and bad judgment by the police department. We will dissect the newspaper article in the Sunday, April 9, 2017 edition of the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram as an example.
First, the story will be paraphrased as follows:
A 25-year-old man was killed Saturday morning on the west side of Eau Claire. A 20 year Eau Claire Police Department veteran shot the man after the police responded to a 911 call reporting a man banging on doors and acting suspiciously in the hallway of a rental complex on Eau Claire’s West side. The police located a man in the parking lot carrying a knife, the man confronted officers, verbal communication and less lethal options proved ineffective and there were numerous attempts to disarm the subject including the use of a TASER and shooting the individual with the beanbag rounds. The subject advanced on the officers and an officer then shot the subject to end the deadly threat. Officers immediately began performing life-saving efforts on the suspect but were unsuccessful. The suspect was pronounced dead at the scene and an autopsy will be performed. The officers’ names will be released after the officers who responded to the scene are interviewed. Lacrosse Wisconsin Police Department is conducting the investigation into the shooting. State law requires officer involved shootings to be investigated by an outside law enforcement agency. Eau Claire police indicated no further information would be released until interviews of the involved officers have been completed. Eau Claire police chief Jerry Staniszewski said it’s difficult to talk about trends in officer involved shootings because they all involve unique circumstances.
Let’s look at the statements a little closer. In this case the article states that a 911 call revealed a man banging on doors and acting suspiciously. While this may be true, articles of this nature will generally start with some sort of negative information about the suspect, leading you to believe the victim was a bad person. This sets the stage for your belief that whatever happens to the person, the cops did a good job of taking another “bad guy” off the streets.
The article goes on to say that the police located a man in the parking lot carrying a knife. The man confronted officers, verbal communication and less lethal options proved ineffective, and there were numerous attempts to disarm the subject. The subject advanced on the officers and an officer shot the subject to end the deadly threat.
Just because the cops tell you that man was carrying a knife, that is absolutely no reason to believe that it is true. In an unrelated case in a different city, one department we know said that the officers were confronted by a man carrying a knife. Only later was the “knife” revealed to actually be a set of brake pads. The man who “confronted” them was on the other side of a parking lot as he was shot.
Eau Claire County’s own illustrious Sheriff Ron Kramer has recently been quoted by the media as saying that a man his deputy shot was wielding a TASER-like device. This device was also referred to as an electronic type device. This turned out to be a blatant lie. Media eventually reported the truth—that this so-called electronic device was nothing more than a canister of pepper spray.
When the current article states that the man “confronted” officers and that verbal communication and less lethal options proved ineffective, it makes it sound as if the man was in close proximity to the officers in a threatening manner and that the officers used trained verbal communication in an effort to gain compliance of the subject. What your department won’t tell you is that any statement made by the subject can qualify as a “confrontation.” And an officer yelling the classic line, “Get the f*ck on the ground!” will also qualify as a “verbal communication.”
When the article states that the man “advanced” on the officers it hints of a man charging, moving towards the officers in a deliberate and aggressive manner or some similar mental picture. The truth of the matter is that an “advance” could be as simple as taking one small and slow step towards the officers or just leaning in an officer’s direction, neither of which qualify for killing a human. If the man was surrounded by officers and he took a step in any direction at all, or even moved just slightly in any direction, it could technically be reported as an “advance.”
Don’t forget that the police chief or other departmental spokesperson is getting the information from the responding officers. It is not uncommon for a cop to completely lie to his superior to cover his own hide. That superior relays that lie to the media as if it is fact, often bolstered by the statement that the chief “stands by his officers.” Later it is sometimes revealed, when an unknown video comes forward, that the responding officer blatantly lied about the confrontation to his superior.
The climax of this news story is that the officer then shot the individual to end the “deadly threat.” Up to this point you have been led in the best possible manner to believe that there actually was a deadly threat. The truth is that when someone has a knife in an outside environment, surrounded by multiple highly-trained officers, there is rarely a deadly threat to any of the officers unless the officers choose to put themselves in too close proximity for their own safety. When an officer makes a conscious decision to quickly place him or herself in close proximity to someone who could cause them harm, it is often done because they know that they have the ability to end the person’s life and get away with it even though the officer is the one who escalated the situation by getting too close, too fast.
As a civilian, if you escalate the situation to the point where you are required to defend yourself with the use of force, you will be found guilty in a court of law for that use of force. This does not apply to police officers who could have otherwise chosen to de-escalate a situation at a safer distance, yet chose not to. Situations such as this have become the norm. There once was a time when officers were instructed to patiently negotiate with the subject. Today’s tactics often include the drawing of a firearm first and covering their actions later.
The article states that the officers performed life-saving efforts on the victim after the shooting. This is standard statement material. What they won’t tell you is the way this normally plays out. After a shooting, the victim typically lays on the ground unattended for quite some time even though officers know that time is critical in saving a life. The victim is then generally placed in handcuffs or other restraints even after they pose no threat to the officer. It is only then, if at all, that life-saving efforts are made on a person who at this point has very little chance for survival. Another common practice is to simply call an ambulance and administer no immediate help. This too, can qualify to tell you that they performed a “life-saving effort”, even though it was nothing more than a call for an ambulance.
The article states that the names of the officers will be released after they are interviewed. This should always be translated to mean that after the officers corroborate their stories with their superiors to make sure that they have derived the best narrative possible for the public, only then will you find out who they are. Ironically, if you are ever questioned by the police, they know it is critical to get information as soon as possible. Police, however, are often given days, if not weeks, to carefully prepare and compare their statements, often with the help of skilled superiors.
When Eau Claire police chief Jerry Staniszewski said it’s difficult to talk about trends in officer involved shootings because they all involve unique circumstances, this is a classic method to make you second-guess your ability to judge right from wrong. It builds a wall between your common sense, and thinking that certain principles don’t apply to the case in question. In other words, police chiefs like to indicate that you are only a layperson who couldn’t possibly know enough to figure out if this particular use of force or any future use of force is justifiable. After all, you weren’t there, so how could you be smart enough to know? Chief Staneszewski is entirely correct in saying each case is unique, but that doesn’t mean certain principles should not apply. It doesn’t take a doctorate in policing to know right from wrong. In this case, at this point, the truth is that we don’t have enough information to make a judgment. But police departments routinely see to it that even when the citizens do have enough information, they still want you to feel as if you are unqualified to make the correct judgment.
As time moves forward on this case, as is the same with most cases, if anyone has the tenacity to continue asking for information, the Police Department will invariably say that we need to be patient until the investigation is complete. If taken to heart, this naturally works to the benefit of the Police Department, and to the detriment of fact-finding. Departments hope you keep your mouth shut and go home and forget about it. They want to create the narrative for every situation—ideally one that gives them the time to make all of their actions appear “justified.” The sad reality is that the term “justified” has become so blurred that even the most horrendous incidents are now being categorized as such. After all, it is the victor who has luxury of writing history.
Wisconsin state law requires, according to the article, that police-involved shootings are to be reviewed by an outside agency. In this case it appears that the investigation will be conducted by the LaCrosse Wisconsin Police Department. Make no mistake, it doesn’t matter which policing agency reviews another police department, they should all be assumed to be pals. Police policing the police will never result in a fair investigation for any victim! This is why we encourage you to be skeptical of all information fed to the media by departmental spokespersons, police chiefs, and anyone associated with the District Attorney’s office. The information provided by such agencies is done solely in the interest of self. It is also why it is up to you to take policing problems into your own hands by joining our community. Being informed is the first step. The solution to the problem, and how you can be a part of that, can be found in the last chapter in the book “Law and Disorder: Abuse, Corruption and Misconduct in the American Criminal Justice System.”
Good luck, and stay safe.
#ECPD #EauClairePolice #EauClairePoliceDepartment #PoliceBrutality #PoliceShooting #RogueCop #LaCrossePD #LaCrossePoliceDepartment #LaCrosseWisconsin #JerryStaniszewski