There was a controversial Officer-Involved-Shooting (OIS) on September 29, 2023 in Decatur, Alabama. The involved individual was a 39 year-old man named Stephen Perkins. Civil rights attorney, activist, and Ben Crump impressionist Lee Merritt has been retained to represent the family of Mr. Perkins and has been vocal about condemning the actions of police in this case.
The media onslaught from anti-police activists has been focused on using this incident to move the goalpost to an unreasonable and unsafe place for police officers who are faced with an immediate deadly threat.
What Happened
On September 29, 2023 a man with who works for a “repo” company claimed that he had an order to repossess a truck that was owned by Mr. Perkins. The man claimed while in the process of completing the task of repossessing the vehicle - that he was confronted by Mr. Perkins, who “flashed” a gun.
The man then left the scene and reported the incident to police officers.
Police officers then responded to Mr. Perkins residence and started the process of setting up a “perimeter”.
It was at that point that Mr. Perkins exited the residence armed with a handgun that was outfitted with a flashlight.
(It should be noted that as of the writing of this article that the body camera footage has not been released.)
Immediate Deadly Threat
The police department claimed that as Mr. Perkins exited the residence and made contact with police officers that he pointed a gun at a police officer.
Police officers then fired at Mr. Perkins in a direct response to the immediate deadly threat that had been posed.
Mr. Perkins sustained fatal injuries.
Lee Merritt
The civil rights attorney retained by the Perkins family is Lee Merritt. Mr. Merritt has been making appearances on local and national news shows in reference to this case. Even though police body camera footage has not yet been released - Mr. Merritt seems to agree (at least factually) with the version of events that police officials have laid out.
Mr. Merritt does not dispute that Mr. Perkins was armed with a gun.
Mr. Merritt does not dispute that Mr. Perkins pointed a gun at a police officer.
Mr. Merritt’s issue in this case is that, in his opinion, police officers should have given Mr. Perkins more time to drop the gun, before they responded.
In an interview with, Mr. Merritt stated, “It doesn’t matter if he had a weapon or not. He never was given an opportunity to comply.”
It is the opinion of PoliceLawNews that when a gun is pointed at you - the time for de-escalation and discussion has long passed - as your life may have only moments left to it.
“Burn something down”
Lee Merritt is a far more dangerous activist than Ben Crump. However, he is also far more honest. Lee Merritt says the quiet part out loud and relies on the mainstream media to provide him cover.
Mr. Merritt attended a rally a week after the OIS and made the following comment on what the residents of Decatur should do in response, “If you don’t get into these streets, that means you consent. If you don’t burn something down, that must mean that you consent,” “The people of Decatur must demonstrate that we do not consent to the murder of Stephen Perkins!”(video).
An attorney encouraging people to “burn something down” is a big fucking deal! Yet, I am guessing that the majority of people reading this article never heard this comment. Imagine if an attorney representing the police officer made a similar comment? It would be national news and all 800k cops would be blamed for a “culture of violence” and a “pattern and practice of problematic behavior”.
It should be noted that Lee Merritt does not live in Alabama, so it would not be the businesses or homes in his community that would be affected by violence and property damage. It is an act of extreme cowardice to encourage the destruction of other people’s communities - while you sit back in safety and wait for the phone to ring from city leaders that are on the other end of this grift.
To his credit the mayor of Decatur (Tab Bowling) was quick to condemn the comments made by Mr. Merritt and accused him of engaging in a scam by encouraging the citizens of Decatur to riot and then while the town lay in shambles going, “to the next place where there’s money” (video).
#TabBowlingFTW
Analysis
The applicable legal standard is “objective reasonableness” (Graham v. Connor).
Police officers are legally allowed to protect themselves and others from deadly threats in order to preserve life.
So, we are asking - is pointing a gun at someone considered a “deadly threat”?
The answer, of course, is yes. A gun pointed at another human should be viewed by all as an immediate deadly threat.
There is no law, policy, or training that would require a police officer to show restraint when a gun is pointed at them.
Police officers will (and should) respond to immediate deadly threats with deadly force.
Tactics, Policy, Procedure
Even if we agree that this OIS was within the law and objectively reasonable - it is the job of responsible police leaders (and content creators in this space) to look at police tactics, training, and policy from a 360 degree view and make adjustments with the goal of avoiding similar incidents.
Even though this OIS was within the law and police policy - that does not mean that we are happy with the final result. We shouldn’t be. Proactive efforts to learn from these cases with the mindset to avoid future OIS incidents should be the goal.
Tactics & Policy
After the alleged threat from Mr. Perkins to the “repo guy” officers were likely responding to a felony level armed aggravated assault.
What was the plan?
What is the department policy when responding to an armed suspect accused of a felony?
Was this a tactical activation?
Had police tried to contact Mr. Perkins?
If police were setting up a perimeter - why was there an officer near the front door?
That would be the “kill zone” and no officer should have been near that area.
These questions must be answered. If police leaders establish sound policies and supplement that with solid training - that combination can lower the incidents where police officers are forced into dangerous situations.
Police leaders and the politicians who run police departments should invest heavily in training and policy development/implementation on the front end - in an effort to circumvent as many violent encounters as possible.
Final Thoughts
According to the logic deployed by Lee Merritt - it does not matter if someone is pointing a gun at a police officer. The unreasonable expectation of police officers is that they should not defend their own lives and instead - put their lives in the hands of those who would point guns at them.
This is moving the goalpost. This is a paradigm shift. This is anti-police activists demanding that police officers utilize a saintly level of restraint and allow themselves to be sacrificed at the altar of “social justice”.
When an OIS is within the law, policy, and objectively reasonable - we should not be meek about explaining why. The future of the institution of policing rests on the shoulders of those who take the risk of speaking honestly and freely.
Not only is the Graham case applicable here, Tennessee V Garner is as well. In that case the court stated that police officers should give a warning prior to using Force if it was possible to do so. I know the policy of my agency was worded nearly the same and looking up dozens of other agencies policies they are all worded in accordance with the Garner decision. "If feasible" .
Powell v. Snook, 2022 WL 363887 (11th Cir. 2022)
"In 1985, the United States Supreme Court said that an officer should give a warning where feasible before using deadly force (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)). In this case, Mrs. Powell argued a warning was constitutionally required prior to shooting. In other words, does it amount to excessive force for an officer to shoot someone who was pointing a gun at him, without warning the person first?
The court of appeals cited existing court ruling that the “law does not require officers in a tense and dangerous situation to wait until the moment a suspect uses a deadly weapon to act to stop the suspect.” The court’s prior decisions hold that an officer may use deadly force when he “has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others or that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm; reasonably believes that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent escape; and has given some warning about the possible use of deadly force, if feasible.” An officer is “not required to wait and hope for the best.”
Here's a novel idea: how about these pundits and zealots wait until ALL the facts and circumstances are in before forming a judgment? We all know why they won't. These attorneys the likes of Crump and Merritt have created an industrial complex by feeding off the animus. No hatred = no payday. It's disgusting. We can only hope that sanity will prevail in the legal proceedings.