Tags
Arlington Texas Police Department, Chief Will Johnson, collapsible baton, lawful use of deadly force, Maggie Brooks, minimum force necessary, pepper spray, reasonable force, safe backdrop, Taser
Bullets don’t “stop.” Something–or someone–stops them.
One of the nightmares of every professional police officer is making a mistake, particularly a deadly mistake. Just such a mistake happened in Arlington, Texas on August 1, as the Star Telegram reports:
Margarita Brooks was homeless and with her dog Thursday when a man spotted her lying outdoors and called police to check on her.
After searching for a bit without success, body camera video shows, a rookie Arlington police officer walks along a sidewalk with a fence on one side and grass and thick trees on the other. From about 100 feet away, he calls out to her.
‘Hello? Are you OK?’ the officer asks. ‘Is that your dog? Can you –‘
The dog runs toward him. ‘Get back!’ he shouts as he himself retreats.
The officer fires his gun at the dog and halts its advance.
But at least one of the three bullets hurtled past the mixed-breed, part Labrador retriever and pierced Brooks’ chest. Suddenly the encounter became a grave blunder. The officer killed a person he had been dispatched to check on.
‘Oh my God!’ Brooks screams on the video. ‘The police shot me!

Police body cam footage as the officer fires. The dog is in the upper center of the image, under the officer’s hands.
This case appears to be no more complex than that. The officer–his name has not been released as this is written–saw the dog running toward him and fired three shots,only one of which seems to have grazed the 40-pound dog. Unfortunately, at least one of those rounds struck and killed Brooks. Arlington Police Chief Will Johnson categorized Brooks’ death as ‘unintended,” which appears, given what is currently known, to be as self-evident as it is accurate.
Everything about this call is an absolute tragedy,’ he said. ‘Our hearts are broken for the Brooks family and the police officer involved.
Also tragic is the inexperience of the officer involved. Experience does matter:
The 25-year-old officer graduated from the police academy in February and finished his field training on July 1, Johnson said.
Johnson declined to offer an assessment of whether the officer’s decision to fire on the dog was appropriate. Sharing such an opinion would be presumptuous, he said. [skip]
‘Clearly this is not the outcome that the officer wanted, nor is it the outcome that the department wanted,’ Johnson said.
Unlike in many such cases, Chief Johnson is doing precisely what he should, and saying no more than he should. The officer has been administratively suspended, and the APD will conduct criminal and internal affairs investigations, again, precisely what should be done. No police official should have anything to say until both are concluded. Additional details:
The officer was sent to check on Brooks, who was known as Maggie, because a man called 911 and reported about 5:15 p.m. Thursday that a woman was unresponsive in the grass, police said. The city’s fire department and paramedics were also dispatched.
The officer arrived around 5:20 p.m. and he and the other personnel could not initially find Brooks, police said. The caller later directed the officer and the others to the location where she was last seen.
When the officer found Brooks near Cantor Drive and North Collins Street, an unrestrained dog was near her, police said. The location is behind a shopping center.
Brooks was apparently homeless and was often seen with her dog and her boyfriend near a shopping center, according to people who knew the couple.
Acquaintances of Brooks said she was a regular in the area of the Seville Commons shopping center, near where she was shot.
City officials told WFAA-TV, the Star-Telegram’s media partner, that Brooks was the daughter of an Arlington Fire Department captain. The fire department did not give the captain’s name.
Various people who knew Brooks and who observed her dog said it was not aggressive and was friendly to everyone. This does not, of course, mean it could not have been aggressive toward the officer, but there is, at the moment, no conclusive evidence it was–more on this shortly–which will be a significant factor in this case.
I can never say this enough: we are strictly responsible for each and every bullet we fire. Even police officers, who might theoretically be afforded some degree of a benefit of a doubt, are bound by the same rules governing the use of deadly force as everyone else, as Mohamed Noor and the Minneapolis Police Department recently discovered. Let us examine the general issues involved that determine whether any use of deadly force is justified.
Generally speaking, one may not use deadly force unless they–any reasonable person–reasonably believes they are facing the imminent threat or serious bodily injury or death. There are four primary considerations:
Innocence: the defender must not be the initial or unlawful aggressor. People engaging in mutual combat can’t claim innocence. Because they’re actively trying to harm each other with no way to tell how far the conflict will go, they’re not engaging in self-defense.
Police officers generally have the presumption of innocence. It’s their job to go into harm’s way, and they act under “color of law.” They can’t avoid conflict like most citizens can.
In this case, the officer seems to have been acting under color of law, merely doing his job. There appears to be have been no malice on his part, and there was no issue of mutual combat. Innocence is therefore not really a factor.
Imminence: One can’t use deadly force again a possible attack, or against an attack that might happen at some time in the future. The danger must be real, clearly about to occur–within mere seconds of occurring–or already occurring.
The approach of the dog obviously fulfilled the element of imminence. It was running toward the officer.
Proportionality: the threat can’t be of humiliation or minor injury. If the only thing in jeopardy is hurt feelings, even a slap to the face might not be proportional. A reasonable person–in this case, a reasonable police officer–must believe they’re facing a threat of serious bodily harm.
NOTE: Andrew Branca is the current authority in the use of force. Go to this article for information about his indispensable book. Anyone carrying a concealed weapon should have, and regularly refer to, it.
Here’s where the officer appears to be in trouble. Was he really facing a threat of serious bodily harm or death? That a dog might be running toward one does not, by itself, represent an imminent threat.
Reasonableness: A reasonable person–in this case, a reasonable police officer–-of the same knowledge, abilities and in the same circumstances would be compelled to use deadly force.
Generally, the standards applying to the use of deadly force against an animal may be more relaxed than the standards applying to human beings, but the realities of shooting apply regardless. In this case, the question is whether the officer’s actions, given all of the circumstances he or any reasonable police officer knew or should have known at the time, rendered shooting the dog–actually, at the dog in this case– reasonable.
ANALYSIS: Maggie Brooks was shot and killed–unintentionally–by the officer. He fired three shots (at least). The mere fact he shot and killed her does not mean he violated the law, though it could be a violation of APD regulations. Obviously, if his acts constitute crimes, that would be a prima facie violation of police regulations.
It is not enough for a police officer to meet the elements necessary for the lawful use of deadly force. He must also use the minimum force necessary. He must also be aware of his backdrop: if he fires, are people nearby in danger? He must consider the likelihood of over penetration of his ammunition even if every round strikes his intended target. This is a primary reason police forces uniformly use hollow point ammunition: it tends to provide the greatest probability of quickly stopping an attack, and also tends not to over penetrate.
Any officer must also be certain of his shooting abilities, particularly under stress. As I’ve often pointed out, most police officers are not good shots. They tend not to be gun guys and girls, and there are innumerable examples of officers getting into gun fights at arms length, emptying their handguns, and hitting nothing but the surrounding scenery. Go here for an article that explains this unfortunate reality in detail. Police officers tend to be particularly bad at hitting moving targets, virtually all of their usually inadequate training taking place at known ranges while squarely facing stationary targets of never-varying size and shape.
In this case, I have only a brief body camera excerpt released by the APD, and media accounts, upon which to base analysis. The excerpt to which I’ve linked is the most complete I’ve been able to find, more so than The Star Telegram’s video. I therefore may be wrong in ways I cannot easily anticipate, and as always, I’ll make any necessary corrections in the future.
While the video is unclear–bodycams have real limitations–the officer, before firing, says: “Are you OK? Is that your dog?” and an unintelligible female voice answers. He says: “Can you…get back…?”
The video show him rapidly backpedaling while three quick shots are heard. He stops and begins moving forward again.
Brooks can be heard screaming, but it’s not intelligible until “Oh my God–the police shot me.” What sounds like a sob can be heard, and Brooks isn’t heard again.
The officer calls “shots fired,” and continues to walk forward, his handgun at low ready, and says: “Ma’am; get ahold of your dog.” The dog has already retreated and is out of sight by this point.
The video ends as he begins running toward her. She is never visible during the run of the video.
It is not clear if the dog was aggressive, or was merely trying to greet the officer. He appears to have fired when the animal was some 25 yards away. It stopped and retreated at about 15 yards (it’s hard to judge distance on bodycam video). This could be significant for several reasons:
(1) If may not have been possible for the officer to actually determine the dog’s intentions from that distance. He may have simply panicked when he saw it come toward him.
(2) The greater the distance, the worse police accuracy. Even at the range at which most shootings take place–seven feet and less–police officers have an abysmal hit average (again, take the aforementioned link). Few officers, at the range apparent in the video, could have any hope of hitting a small, moving target, particularly one coming directly toward them. Few could reliably hit an erect, stationary, human silhouette target at that range. In this case, the officer’s poor accuracy was in line with what one could reasonable expect.
The potentially biggest problem for the officer is backdrop. While there does not appear to be anyone visible in the video behind the animal, the officer knew someone was unresponsive “in the grass,” which should have told him they were down, nearby, prone or nearly so. Because he had not found her, he could not assume that shooting in that area, in any direction, was safe. The thick vegetation to his right is also a serious problem. He had no way to know whether the woman was in that vegetation, or what lay behind and beyond it.
What the video suggests strongly is he knew where she was. Again, the limitations of body cameras make this difficult to determine with certainty. He surely was speaking directly to her, so at the least, he knew her direction and relative distance, so he knew the dog was between them. After he fired and she screamed she’d been shot, he seemed to know exactly where she was, and when she didn’t respond, he began to run to her. I suspect that portion of the video has been withheld because what he found would be horrifying to the public. Was she gasping her last breaths, conscious or unconscious? Surely, she was bleeding profusely. If this is correct, he has no defense for firing in her direction.
We don’t know the precise trajectory of the bullet that struck Brooks in the chest, nor do we know her position relative to the the officer, but from the video, he was clearly intending to shoot downward toward the dog. This doesn’t mean he could not have shot higher or lower. Such wildly inaccurate shooting is common among the police, but for the moment, it seems most likely Brooks was indeed close to the ground, and close enough for the body camera microphone to record what may have been her final words. She appears to have been aware the police were in the area.
But what if the dog actually was aggressive? We don’t know if the officer had a Taser, but that’s more likely than not these days. It’s also a virtual certainty he was armed with pepper spray. It’s also likely he was carrying a collapsible metal baton. All of those weapons, particularly pepper spray and a Taser, would have been sufficient to discourage an aggressive animal, particularly one of that moderate size. In other words, if what appears to be the case is the case, he had multiple other effective options short of the use of gunfire. The horror of it is the dog may have been coming to the officer merely to greet him, or seeking help for Brooks. Dogs often do that.
But the dog could have hurt the officer! Yes it could. But police officers–unless they’re far too dangerous to ever be allowed on the street–all understand they face the real possibility of injury or death. They understand they may do everything right, and still get hurt. They understand they may have to take injury to protect the innocent. We don’t pay them nearly enough for that, but those are the realities of the job. Were they not, police officers could simply turn around and walk away whenever presented with so much as potential danger. Any reasonable office should have known the dog might injure him, but if he fired in Brooks’ direction, she could be killed, and she was.
He fired three times; isn’t that excessive? In this case, the bullet that killed Brooks was excessive. If the elements for the lawful use of deadly force are met, one may fire as many rounds as required to stop the threat. If they’re not, even one round is too many.
Final Thoughts: This officer is in real trouble. It’s highly likely his career, at the least, is over before it really began, and it’s possible he could be facing criminal charges. This, as well as the death of Brooks, is a genuine tragedy. The APD should also be closely examining its firearms and related training, as well as its hiring policies and procedures. Should this officer, or anyone like him, have been hired and retained? If not, much must be done.
The enduring lesson of this incident is the importance of using deadly force only as a last resort, of knowing precisely when it may lawfully be used, and of being absolutely sure of one’s backdrop and abilities before loosing bullets that can never be called back. With firearms, there are no do overs.
Even if this young officer is not jailed, even if he is not sued, his life will forever be defined by those few seconds, ending with: “Oh my God–the police shot me,” forever haunting his thoughts and dreams.
One possibility-and, of course, this is just speculation-is that the dog and the cop each mistook the other’s intentions. The dog may have seen a stranger (the officer) approaching, and barked and growled at him, not out of aggression, but to protect its owner. And the officer may have mistakenly thought that the animal was attacking him.
I’m tempted to say that I would have first tried a baton or pepper spray, but I can’t say that for a fact. It’s too easy to sit safe at home and play Monday morning quarterback.
I will say that dogs can and do seriously injure people. When I was a kennel attendant and veterinary assistant, I got mauled by a Chow. I was in a cast with a broken wrist for six weeks, and have a permanent 4% loss of mobility in my right hand.
The police chief is, of course, right in trying to avoid making judgmental public statements until the investigation is concluded.
If I had to predict, I would say that the cop will likely be acquitted of criminal charges, as there is room for reasonable doubt. And that he will be fired (or will have to resign) for violating the department’s use-of-force policy. Presumably, the PD’s regulations require officers to hold their fire when shooting would/could endanger innocent bystanders.
So far, the only thing 100% certain about the case is that it is a horrible tragedy.
Dear Tom:
If this is considered rightly, one might conclude that it was reasonable to shoot the dog, but negligent–criminally culpable–under the law to shoot recklessly. One has to know their backstop before loosing rounds in a general direction.
I have a feeling in this case, the words “Qualified immunity” will feature prominently.
Mike, I would like for you to provide more clarity on the consideration of ‘Imminence’, possibly go into more depth on this primary factor. The fact that a dog is approaching should not alone be the determinant. Not mentioned here is the behavior of the dog.
Since much of this hinges upon ‘reasonableness’, a reasonable person can spot the differences between a dog ambling towards them and a dog baring it’s teeth and growling. Apparently Officer Friendly is not only not a gun guy but not a dog guy. Apparently he was unable to determine the intent of the dog. There are many visible clues – ear position, tail wagging, ambulating style, vocalizations, etc – which distinguish a threatening dog from the friendly dog.
Dear Rick:
“Imminence” speaks to danger of serious bodily injury or death that a reasonable police officer–in this case–would believe is happening right now, or is fractions of a second, or mere seconds, from happening. If the danger is possible, or might conceivably happen at some time in the future, it’s not imminent.
Dear Mike, my intention was to determine if there is a special application of the term where it comes to a sworn officer.
If ‘Imminence’ does not carry some specialized definition inclusive of peace officers only, but includes any ‘reasonable adult’, I can factually say that I, a reasonable adult, would not perceive a dog as a threat to my person simply because it was approaching me. I would look for more criteria to make the assessment.
It is difficult to believe that regulation or policy would allow for shooting a dog merely because it was approaching an officer.
I do hope you will be following this case. I will be looking for testimony, and supporting evidence, with respect to the disposition of the dog at the time just prior to the officer firing his weapon.
Dear Rick:
No. The term means the same for the police. However, the courts do consider the circumstances in the light of a “reasonable police officer,” rather than a reasonable non-police officer due to their theoretically greater training, experience and ability to deal with stressful situations.
Also, although it is perhaps too early for this, I wonder the the chances of a civil action against the officer and Arlington PD. I say ‘civil’ under the presumption the officer is cleared by qualified immunity.
Dear Rick:
Hard to say. Much will depend upon many facets of Texas la that have yet to be applicable.
I believe that the size and the breed of the dog are pertinent.
A German Shepherd, Mastiff or Pitpull might consitute a threat of bodily harm suffecient to justify the use of deadly force. A Pomeriania or a Dashund that might bite your ankles would not.
My sense is that the officer is not puppy-people and overreacted to the dog.
Dear James W Crawford:
You’re quite right.