Author: Benny Greenspan | Wild About Trial
Around 1 am on November 21 at St. Louis Lambert International Airport, airport police officers fatally shot a man due to him refusing to drop the knife that he was wielding.
In a press release, the St. Louis County Police Department said that the man began advancing towards police officers. Even after getting tased by one, the man continued to wield his knife and approach the officers, leading to him getting shot by the other.
Both officers involved had been with the St. Louis Airport Police Force for one year and six months, in addition to prior law enforcement experience, prior to this incident. They have now become the center of an active investigation by the St. Louis County Police Department. The distinction between the St. Louis Airport Police Force, affiliated with the airport and the St. Louis County Police Department, linked to the county, is a critical one in this case, as they exist as two distinct entities.
Another important element is that the crime occurred inside of an airport, which is considered to be federal property. This is interesting since the investigation as it stands is being done by local law enforcement, as opposed to federal law enforcement.
According to the Revised Statutes of Missouri section 563.031 1., a person can “use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself.”
However, law enforcement officers, including airport police, are held to a higher standard in the law, according to section 563.046: “The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful, and the amount of physical force used was objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the particular facts and circumstances confronting the officer on the scene, without regard to the officer’s underlying intent or motivation.”
In federal law, the landmark 1973 case United States v. Peterson, 483 F.2d 1222, qualifies when self-defense is an applicable defense. According to the court in Peterson, one cannot apply self-defense if: 1. They are the aggressor in the conflict and 2. They do not retreat when they are safely able to do so.
In the upcoming case, investigators from the SLCPD will have to look at the video footage in order to determine whether the officer firing his gun was a necessary act and “objectively reasonable” in light of the knife-wielding man that he was confronted with. Video footage will also determine whether the officer escalated conflict with the man, or if there was any way he can fulfill his duty as a law enforcement officer without firing the weapon.
