Const. Ken Lam’s actions last Monday in Toronto have been described as heroic work. But really it was just professional police work, senior Toronto police officers say. Lam just showed us how it’s done.
Regardless of what the police say, the talk will continue about why things went down the way they did. And not only among civilians, but also among serving officers and ex-cops.
You can find some interesting commentary online. There’s an article from Glenn Hanna, an ex-police officer who now teaches at the University of Guelph-Humber in Ontario. Hanna writes:
“Canada’s Criminal Code provides the legal authority for the use of force, but it does not tell an officer what to do in each situation. Likewise, police use-of-force models provide a framework for training and assistance in decision-making. But like the Criminal Code, they don’t provide a legal basis or a rationale for the use of force in any particular situation.
“Police do not use deadly force because of the crime the suspect is alleged to have committed, but only due to the threat posed. This police officer made a heroic call. Const. Lam risked his own life to preserve another’s, even when that person was the suspect in a horrendous act that took so many innocent lives.”
You can find Hanna’s entire article online and read it for yourself.
But for now, I need to tell you something as a working member of the media who has covered many police shootings. Even if it’s a clean shoot — one in which it appears that the officer fired a weapon because there was a threat — the action still gets examined and re-examined.
In this particular case, while most members of the public would have saluted Const. Lam for using deadly force to bring the matter to an end, within hours after the fact, questions would be asked about whether the suspect really had posed a threat.
It would have been discovered that the suspect wasn’t armed. Even though the suspect claimed he was armed, and even though he pointed a cell phone at the police officer from far enough away that it could have been mistaken for a gun, the officer would have been subject to some Monday-morning quarter-backing over why Const. Lam decided to fire his weapon.
Many angles would have been looked at, no different than when a controversial goal or touchdown is scored and game officials decide to review the play. “Let’s look at it from this side, and from that side, and how about from a helicopter?” This would go on for days. Meanwhile, the officer in question would be told either to go on leave or take up a desk job. The officer would remain under suspicion.
Media is not monolithic. Radio stations would open up their phone lines and ask listeners the question: Is the officer a hero or a zero? Was this a professional cop or a cowboy cop?
The bottom line is that if Const. Lam had pulled that trigger, some members of society, and possibly some internal police investigators, would have made his life miserable.
I am happy things turned out the way they did for the country and the community, and most of all, for Const. Lam. He made the right decision for everyone, including himself.
To be sure, I’m not in any way saying that he put himself first. On the contrary, this was the work of a true professional, a police officer who selflessly put himself in harm’s way in the service of others.
But in not firing his weapon, he spared himself a fuselage of second-guessing.
Charles Adler hosts Charles Adler Tonight on Global News Radio 980 CKNW Vancouver, Global News Radio 770 CHQR Calgary, 630 CHED Edmonton, Global News Radio 680 CJOB Winnipeg, Global News Radio 640 Toronto, Global News Radio 980 CFPL London, and soon, CHNL Kamloops, from 7-10 p.m. PT. He is also a columnist for Global News.
Comments