news-record.com

OPINION

Allen Johnson: Rush to judgment in shooting reckless and premature on both sides

Article
Comments (14)

Sunday, February 21, 2010

(Updated Monday, February 22 - 12:37 pm)

By Allen Johnson
Staff Columnist

There's more than enough tragedy to go around in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Christian Rook by a sheriff's deputy.

A young man's life snuffed short before he was old enough to vote or legally drink a beer.

A grieving family.

An officer who must live with the outcome of one split-second decision for the rest of his life.

The deputy in this case, Barry Glosson, a nine-year veteran of the Guilford County Sheriff's Office, was himself treated for what were described as "stress-related" chest pains following the Feb. 2 incident.

Officers will tell you that domestic calls, as this one was, are among the most unpredictable and most dangerous. In 2001, a man slashed a Guilford deputy's face with a box cutter during such a call in Greensboro.

Given the luxury of time and hindsight, from the safety of our homes and offices, it's easy to second-guess the deputy's actions. In our minds, as in the movies, everything happens in slow motion, giving the hero plenty of time to analyze the situation and to aim squarely for the leg or shoulder -- unless you're Neo in "The Matrix," who can stop bullets in midair with a wave of the hand, and thus has little to fear from the threat of a mere knife.

In real life, it all happens in a heartbeat.

Meanwhile, those not faulting the deputy just as readily blame the young man. They point out that his grandmother had said in a 911 call that Rook was threatening to attack her, as well as his mother and brother, with the knife.

They note Sheriff's Office accounts that Glosson arrived to find Rook in front of the home and repeatedly told him to drop the knife.

They remind us that Rook had had trouble with the law before, having served 12 days in the High Point jail for assault and battery after previously attacking family members.

But the young man also reportedly was suffering from bipolar disorder, a behavioral condition that involves dramatic mood swings.

And Guilford County has had a sad history of fatal shootings by law officers of people with mental or behavioral disorders: Daryl Howerton (1994), Gilbert Barber (2001), William Roy Lewis (2001), Ratmir Gasanov (2003), Dylan Hartsfeld (2008).

Howerton was shot as he waved a knife while naked. Gasanov spoke little English and had threatened to commit suicide, as did Lewis. Hartsfeld was a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan whose family said he was suffering from post-traumatic-stress disorder.

Mental health advocates, while not outright questioning Glosson's action, have gently fretted that the Sheriff's Office continues to balk at providing Crisis Intervention Training, or CIT, for its officers.

"Our concern mounts as we note that the lack of understanding regarding Chris' alleged bipolar condition may have contributed to his sad shooting by law enforcement," Jack Glenn of NAMI Guilford, a local affiliate of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, wrote in a Feb. 12 News & Record column.

"It intensifies when we contemplate the plausibility that a Crisis Intervention Team-trained officer might have recognized the situation and might have reacted differently with a more positive outcome."

Glenn asks a fair question.

The High Point, Greensboro and Winston-Salem police departments all offer CIT training. Why not the Sheriff's Office?

Among other hard questions:

Could preventive treatment have headed off the violent confrontations?

Will the state's failed mental health reforms mean even more such incidents?

When is a Taser a more appropriate option?

But some of us aren't waiting to hear the answers even as a months-long SBI investigation only begins.

One letter to the newspaper called Rook "a punk." Another flatly said he "got what he deserved."

From the other side, "I was shocked to hear of the 17-year-old kid who was gunned down in his own yard by the people paid to protect us," wrote yet another. "I cannot believe the officer had no way to stop a kid other than to shoot him in the chest."

The fact is, there is much we still don't know about this case.

The SBI will take several months to investigate the shooting. It took many of us only several minutes to pronounce guilt.

In our rush to judge both the officer and the victim, the itchiest trigger fingers of all in this case may belong to the public.

Clarification: St. James Homes II, once managed by County Commissioner Melvin "Skip" Alston, was demolished by the city three years after Alston's company had relinquished the management contract.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Unaffiliated

February 21, 2010 - 9:50 am EST

"St. James Homes II, once managed by County Commissioner Melvin "Skip" Alston, was demolished by the city three years after Alston's company had relinquished the management contract." Regarding this statement I have a couple of questions: Who paid for the demolition of St. James HomesII and what was the cost ? Why did "Skip" relinquish the management contract and who was the contract with?

Get A Clue

February 21, 2010 - 10:01 am EST

All the debates and well-meaning intentions and even news articles, LTTEs and editorials won't ever change the fact that there will always be situations where people (often with weapons) present a clear and present threat to themselves and/or others and must be stopped. Thank goodness we have the police in these situations.
No one disputes that better mental health care is a good thing. And no one disputes that ongoing training for law enforcement is a good thing. But shy of locking away everyone who has even shown a temper...no, even then we'll get folks who go off the deep end.
Look, none of us has permission to harm anyone else, save for self-defense. No excuses. Period. And the world doesn't owe you or your kid a lifetime of care simply because a few genetic wires got crossed. Sometimes people are going to do things that endanger others and sometimes deadly force is the only way to stop that from happening.
Sad. True. Deal.

Interested

February 21, 2010 - 11:31 am EST

I don't recall reading that the family felt that society owed their child care. Reading the article in today's issue led me to believe they came to Greensboro seeking access to care that was unavailable in their prior location. (I don't see how a military base isn't able to provide such care, but with the various stories concerning mental health treatment and the military in the news in the last few years . . . )

One point that wasn't made by Mr. Johnson is that this incident does not necessarily point to potential problems with just the state mental health system but rather with how the nation as a whole ignores the needs of the mentally ill. This mother moved to the area in November. Even if North Carolina had a top-notch, fully-funded mental health system, could it have adequately addressed this young man's issues in just two short months? (And of course we know that the state system has been raided multiple times in the recent past. One can only assume it is operating at a less-than-optimal level.) How many stories depicting the lives of adults who have exhibited signs of mental illness for some time have been in the news recently? The professor in Alabama, the military officer in Fort Hood, the gentleman who flew his plane into the IRS offices in Austin. We as a society pay for mental illness, either on the front end by ensuring services are available or the back end when these people erupt.

Voice of Reason

February 21, 2010 - 12:23 pm EST

Completely agree. And the word of the day is "unpredictable." That's what you can expect when dealing with mental patients who do erupt. Perhaps, given time, the young man could have been talked down, but all the special needs training in the world can't help you in half a minute, which is how long Deputy Glosson had to react to the situation. And as any mental health professional can tell you, you never know how someone suffering from mental issues will react. If they could predict that, wouldn't they have ensured Rook was in a hospital at the time of the incident?

"Let's see if I can make the news!" What an ominous phrase. As usual, the N&R casts doubt on the actions of the officer involved, even while condemning those who comment and cast doubt. Its not surprising at all that Rook's family give a different story of events than police- in every police shooting lately and every death where police have been involved, the victim's family has blamed police and swore their loved ones were little angels. Every time their records have proved otherwise, so why should we expect any different now? The family knew he was dangerous, so much in fact they locked him out of the house to protect themselves- if they were afraid their loved one might harm them with a knife, why wouldn't they expect Rook would harm a deputy he didn't even know, especially after he's already made threats to harm police in the past? Everything about this shooting points to the fact Christian Rook made a bad decision- that he was mentally ill changes nothing because the first responder encountered an armed, aggressive, and advancing subject. This is a deadly force situation in ANY law enforcement agency, and Deputy Glosson acted appropriately. Period.

Interested

February 21, 2010 - 12:51 pm EST

In all fairness to the N&R, I felt like they were merely presenting the two different viewpoints of what transpired that fateful day. Much of today's article is quoting either the family or the sheriff's department. That is not to say that the paper felt the family's view was correct, just giving them a voice.

Panacea

February 21, 2010 - 5:56 pm EST

So what do you propose we do with the mentally ill, Clue? Toss them onto the streets? Jail?

The mentally ill are part of our society. A stick your head in the sand approach is not helpful.

Get A Clue

February 22, 2010 - 1:36 pm EST

What 'we' do with 'them' should be no different than how we handle most other caregiving situations.
1. Parents are responsibile for the health and welfare of their children. Society kicks in with various levels of education, healthcare and other necessities as it is able to afford.
2. PL 94-142 and a host of other legislation affords families several options while a child is school-aged and in need of special services.
3. There exists a level of state-supported services for those who have proven themselves to be beyond the ability to be safely cared for by their families. It is not adequate, but that does not mean the only alternative is to allow those in danger of harming others to be set free until something better comes along. The streets or jail are not the only two choices. However, when incarceration is the only option, at least law-abiding citizens are safe from that person's inability to control themselves.
4. Misguided pity and the inability to fully grasp the consequences of the situation are what keeps these unfortunate situations recurring. I understand the financial and mental stresses placed upon family members who must care for someone incapacitated. But that's not an excuse for allowing the mentally disabled who have proven themselves to be a clear and present danger to wander free. Put aside the tearjerker movies and Sunday School pablum and face the fact that some people are defective. You can wish for a happy ending while you hope you're not in the wrong place at the wrong time. Good luck.

Get A Clue

February 21, 2010 - 3:55 pm EST

I've already made my point regarding the balance between the costs and effectiveness of mental health services. Of course I'm all for it...up to a point. We cannot afford to take care of every person's health issues from cradle to grave and guarantee everyone's health and safety should that person's health issues lean towards this young man's inevitable confrontational issues.
However, as much as I respect Allen Johnson I call BS on this editorial. The newspaper company is in business because it chooses to print news articles (several on this topic, including today's paper), editorials and numerous letters to the editor regarding this topic.
If an editor thinks people should not "jump to conclusions before all the facts are in" then I urge this paper's staff to stop publishing any news until "all the facts are in."
See how silly this editorial's premise sounds now?

Interested

February 21, 2010 - 4:43 pm EST

Don't publish ANY news until "all the facts are in?" Who would determine when all the facts are in? There is a difference between the newspaper presenting the facts it has and observers assigning fault, if any. The point of this editorial is to say that too many people rushed to judgment from day one with few facts.

Get A Clue

February 21, 2010 - 5:08 pm EST

I'll type slower so you can keep up. ;-)
If N&R doesn't want anyone to "rush to judgment" then they need to stop printing LTTEs and these comments.
Seriously, what do they expect people to do when offered the chance to comment? Do they think everyone will simply type over and over, "Thanks for the excellent coverage so far, but I'll withhold opinion until all the facts are in."?!?!
Every time someone clicks on this site it generates income for N&R. That's why they encourage all this meaningless chitterchatter. No profit, no paper. So it's silly for them to already print secondhand news, afford citizens the opportunity to comment, and then take them to task for "rushing to judgment." That's all I'm saying.

By the way, if someone was actually able to have "all the facts" anything he or she stated would still just be their opinion.

Yvonne

February 22, 2010 - 1:09 pm EST

Leonard Pitts wrote a good article on "facts". When "facts" do not support one's agenda, facts are often ignored.

scribonz

February 21, 2010 - 10:24 pm EST

I am not taking sides with the young mans family or with the deputy but I think the history of fatal incidents involving the Guilford County Sherriff's Department and mentally unstable youth indicates a need for training on how to defuse a situation without blowing the suspect away.

Get A Clue

February 22, 2010 - 4:48 am EST

Put those who have proven themselves a danger to the public where they are no longer a threat to the general public. Or keep reading about stories with this kind of unhappy ending.

oh good grief

February 22, 2010 - 3:33 pm EST

Shame on you, Allen Johnson, for the way in which this editorial was written (see quoted material from your story below). Don't try that "slick" media approach on your readership, because there will ALWAYS be at least one person who recognizes what you are attempting to accomplish with your choice of wording, in this case slurring the Guilford Sheriffi's Office by counting on reader ignorance.

Allen Johnson said:

"And GUILFORD COUNTY [emphasis added] has had a sad history of fatal shootings by law officers of people with mental or behavioral disorders: Daryl Howerton (1994), Gilbert Barber (2001), William Roy Lewis (2001), Ratmir Gasanov (2003), Dylan Hartsfeld (2008).
. . . .

Glenn asks a fair question.

The High Point, Greensboro and Winston-Salem police departments all offer CIT training. Why not the Sheriff's Office?"

You, sir, by using the words "GUILFORD COUNTY [emphasis added] has a sad history" sought to disparage the Guilford County Sheriff's Office with that broad brush.

And THEN, in a following paragraph, you added Glenn's question re why doesn't the Sheriff's Office offer CIT training like local/triad police departments.

Here is the way four out of the five incidents you cited occurred. I cannot speak to the William Roy Lewis incident because I have no knowledge of it.

Daryl Howerton -- GREENSBORO POLICE DEPT. -- a member of the general public called 9-1-1

Gilbert Barker -- GUILFORD COUNTY SHERIFF -- a member of the general public called 9-1-1

Ratmir Gasanov -- GREENSBORO POLICE DEPT. -- a family member called 9-1-1

Dylan Hartsfield -- GUILFORD COUNTY SHERIFF -- a family member called 9-1-1

I am, to say the least, disappointed in your editorial. I started to say "Don't open a can of worms if you don't want us to look at them" -- but in this case perhaps it is a "can of red herrings."

If you would care to enlighten me (and other readers, perhaps) on the William Roy Lewis case, it would be appreciated. Just be sure to tell us WHICH law enforcement agency was involved in the incident and how the "problem" initially came to the attention of law enforcement.