LEADERSHIP
But it cannot altogether prevent tragic outcomes . The response is far more complicated where the subject of the call is violent and / or in possession of a weapon . In one of our cases , Oakes v . DeKalb County , ( 11th Circuit No . 11-10803 , Oct . 2012 ) ( D . C . Docket No . 1:08-cv-01778-MHS ), DeKalb County police officers responded to a 911 call where Oakes was in his automobile in a suburban shopping center parking lot and was refusing to get out . The officers were told by Oakes ’ girlfriend Maxwell that he had been drinking for three days and had threatened suicide . Maxwell showed the officer a gun case that she had removed from his car , but it was empty . Maxwell told the officers that Oakes likely had the gun in his car . The officers repeatedly offered to take Oakes to get help , and because of concerns over the weapon , he asked Oakes in a calm voice to leave the vehicle . They continued their requests to let them search the vehicle and he continued to refuse , becoming agitated . After 15 minutes of this dialog with Oakes , the officers called a supervisor to the scene .
Upon arrival , the supervisor then began to ask Oakes if he had a gun and requested that he sit up so that the officers could see if he was sitting on a gun . Oakes refused to respond or comply .
12 WINTER . 2021
Finally the officer said that if he refused the last request , they would have to take him out of the car . After more verbal requests to Oakes , Oakes reached between the seat and the console in the vehicle . The officers repeatedly shouted that Oakes needed to show his hands . Oakes told the officers that they had better “ unsnap ” because he “ ain ’ t going down this way .” Subsequently Oakes jerked his hand out and starting to move his arm across his body . Believing Oakes was about to fire , one of the officers fatally shot him . Oakes did not have a gun in his hand , but a loaded gun was found in the area where he had been reaching . In a subsequent lawsuit , the United States District Court found that the officers ’ actions were objectively reasonable , that there was no constitutional violation , and the officers were protected by qualified immunity . The Court concluded that it was reasonable for the officer to fire on Oakes in defense of himself , his fellow officers and the bystanders . On appeal , the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court . In the Oakes case , the officer did everything in accordance with crisis intervention techniques . The plaintiff in this case , as well as his expert witness , thought that the officers made numerous mistakes and should have left the scene , kept a greater distance , and never should have tried to remove Oakes from the car . The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals characterized these arguments and the expert ’ s opinions as based on hindsight . “ Our task is not to evaluate what the officers could or should have done in hindsight . The sole inquiry is whether the officers ’ actions , as taken , were objectively reasonable under all the circumstances .” Unfortunately , in the court of public opinion and media scrutiny of law enforcement in mental illness encounters , hindsight is too often the lens through which it is viewed .
Law enforcement agencies have also been proactive in seeking state legislation to assist them in their response to these situations for the benefit of both the mentally ill person and the police officer . In the fall of 2019 , well before the scrutiny and criticism of law enforcement practices in 2020 , then immediate GACP Past President Wesley Walker wrote to State Representative Sharon Cooper to recommend House Bill 760 , which would allow police officers to take a person who presents a substantial risk of doing harm to himself or herself or to others to a physician or emergency receiving facility and that such officer to be immune from civil or criminal liability when