Police officers are members of the executive branch of government. They help enforce the laws. Because it is their duty to enforce the law, we give police officers special privileges that most private citizens don’t have: The power to detain and arrest people, to charge people with crimes, and, at times, use deadly force. Whether an officer is allowed to use deadly force while carrying out their official duties is a hotly-debated issue across the United States and here in Columbus.
A Franklin County jury just found a police officer not guilty in the fatal shooting of a woman at a local grocery store. Here are the facts:
- Officer Connor Grubb is employed by the Blendon Township Police Department in Franklin County, Ohio. He encountered a woman, Ta’Kiya Young, at a Kroger grocery store. Kroger employees told Officer Grubb that Ms. Young stole merchandise from the store, and asked Officer Grubb for his assistance.
- By the time Officer Grubb encountered Ms. Young, she was in her car attempting to leave the Kroger store.
- Officer Grubb, while standing in front of Ms. Young’s car, ordered her to stop and exit her car. Ms. Young began moving her car towards Officer Grubb.
- Officer Grubb responded by unholstering his firearm and shooting multiple shots at Ms. Young. Ms. Young died as a result of Officer Grubb’s gun shots.
- Ms. Young was pregnant at the time when she was shot. Her unborn child also died.
A Franklin County grand jury charged Officer Grubb with murder. His attorneys did not contest the fact that he was the one who shot and killed Ms. Young and her unborn child. The issue at trial was whether Officer Grubb’s use of force was reasonable.
- If deemed reasonable, Officer Grubb must be found not guilty.
- If deemed not reasonable, then Officer Grubb could be convicted of murder.
After a two week trial, the jury found Officer Grubb not guilty of all charges.
So when is it “reasonable” for police officers to use force (even deadly force)? It’s all about objectivity. The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Graham v. Connor:
- “The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”
That means there’s no Monday morning quarterbacking when it comes to reviewing a police officer’s conduct, or what the officer “could have” or “should have” done. What matters is whether a “reasonable officer” considering all of the same facts and circumstances, would have believed that the use of force was reasonable.
This case represents one of many recently filed officer-involved shooting prosecutions in Franklin County, including the prosecutions of Columbus Police Officer Andrew Mitchell (found not guilty of murder), Columbus Police Officer Adam Coy (found guilty of murder and serving a life sentence, currently under appeal, and Franklin County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Jason Meade (awaiting a second trial after the first trial resulted in a mistrial because the jury was not able to reach a unanimous verdict). Just as the Supreme Court said in Graham, these cases will depend on whether the jury believes that the officer’s use of force was reasonable.
