OUR VIEW: Speculating on what could've been different
We don't know which investigative details weighed heaviest on the Kern County Sheriff's Department incident review board, which this week ruled the January shooting of a mentally ill man justified, but we know which detail weighed most heavily on us.
The two deputies who answered the Jan. 23 call about a suicidal man in Buttonwillow were most likely armed with less-lethal gear such as batons and Tasers.
But when Christian Chavez, 18, produced a common kitchen knife that he had taken from his aunt's house -- and, according to witnesses, pointed it at himself -- the deputies shot and fatally wounded him.
Why didn't at least one of the deputies, knowing they were dealing with a mentally ill man, have a Taser at the ready? The Sheriff's Department doesn't want to answer that question.
"We're not going to speculate as to what could have been done differently," spokesman Ray Pruitt told The Californian.
And why not? That's precisely the sort of question the Sheriff's Department, and the public at large, should be asking. But if Kern County citizens have an interest in who their deputies (and police officers, for that matter) are shooting at, and under what circumstances, they're informed it's none of their business.
Law enforcement officers have tough jobs. People who have never been in a position in which they believe their lives are at risk should be cautious criticizing those who have. But the self-investigative protocols of local police agencies leave something to be desired.
What can be done about it? For starters, local agencies can borrow shooting policy manuals from cities that manage to keep officer-involved shootings low -- and officers safe.
