EDITORIAL: Teen's death demands public illumination

from The Oregonian

Last month, The Oregonian's Dana Tims reported that the fatal police shooting of a Tigard-area teenager had unfolded in accordance with standard operating procedure ("Experts say shooting death of teen went 'by the book,' " Sept. 20). Understandably, a collective shudder rippled through the region. It was as if people muttered in unison: Well, if that's so, then it's time to throw away the book.
Of course, that's an over-reaction. Of course, hindsight is 20-20. And of course, law enforcement officers have to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and other people from harm.

On Sept. 16, when officers arrived at the home of Lukus Glenn, they'd been advised that the distraught 18-year-old had made some threats against his family. At least one officer feared Glenn might rush inside and take a hostage.

Few of us would question what happened next if Glenn had been armed with a gun. If he'd refused to put that weapon down, you could understand why officers felt they had to shoot him. His death would be a sad, but straightforward, example of "suicide by cop."

But the former high school football and soccer star was armed with a pocketknife. Surely, there was a better way to approach Glenn that night. Surely, there was a better way --or at least a way --for the three officers at the scene to resolve the situation without gunfire.

This week, the Washington County district attorney's office ruled that the shooting death was legally justifiable. There is no need, the DA's office concluded, even for a grand jury to review the evidence. This ruling does not begin to put questions about Glenn's death to rest. If anything, the ruling confirms the inadequacy of the legal apparatus invoked after a police-involved death. That apparatus is set up to ask and answer a narrow question: Did the officers involved commit a crime?

Almost always, the answer is no. True, the Washington County Sheriff's Office has embarked on an administrative review of what happened, which could be very valuable. But like a ruling from a district attorney's office, no internal review can substitute for a public and independent airing of the facts.

What law enforcement colleagues decide about each other's actions is inherently suspect. It's too easy for them to sympathize with each other, defend and justify whatever happened. Only a public inquest can assure the public that the most painful questions about a death haven't been sidestepped.

What the public wants to know is: How could this death have been avoided? What could, and should, the law enforcement officers involved have done differently? If Glenn's death went by the book, then the book jeopardizes public safety.

We may not be able to throw it out, but we certainly need to change it.