Police use-of-force cases are too important for snap judgments

A few weeks ago, the City of Kent settled a federal civil suit with Nicomedes Tubar for $400,000. His attorney and The Seattle Times have given regular and unilateral coverage to the case. Now that the case is completed, I would like to discuss the larger issue of deadly force, and public trust in the police, the courts and the media.

In 2003 our officer found a parked, unoccupied stolen car. Later the driver got into the car, along with Tubar. When confronted by the officer, the driver accelerated toward him, forcing our officer to use his firearm to protect his life. The trial centered on the fact that three shots were fired — with the third shot injuring Tubar. It was undisputed that the entire incident took just a few seconds.

If you accept Tubar's testimony that he unknowingly got into a stolen car with a woman he just met, then his injury due to the criminal actions of the driver is truly unfortunate. An early offer of a settlement in this case included mitigation of his medical expenses. The offer was rejected and Tubar chose to go to a civil jury trial.

Two years and several hundred thousand dollars later, the jury rendered its decision, finding 12-0 that the actions of the officer were reasonable and justified.

Here is where public trust and the media come in. The incident itself was not the only issue raised at the trial. Tubar's attorney worked tirelessly to cast the officer as unpredictable and dangerous. This was done through testimony regarding every aspect of the officer's personal and professional life before and after the incident. The officer's name and every negative fact were duly recounted in the newspaper, helping lead readers to conclude the officer must be "out of control." Yet, the jury, presented with all the information, returned a 12-0 verdict in favor of the officer.

I understand and acknowledge that the attorney must zealously advocate for his client. I will not question his motives in a contingency case in which the attorney typically receives a large percentage of any award. I will not spend time countering every unfounded allegation, which included: jury tampering and intimidation, the driver's guilty plea that really wasn't, and more. Others questioning the motives and decisions of the jury and judge, automatically assuming the police are always right or always wrong — all of these things serve to cumulatively bring down the public trust in the courts, the police and the media. It doesn't help and it doesn't serve the truth.

At Kent Police Department, complaints, emotional issues and uses of force are closely tracked and evaluated. I do not pretend that all police officers are perfect. Far from it. We are human beings just like the people we protect and the people we arrest. Some officers commit bad-faith acts for which they should absolutely be held accountable. We need to continue to pay close attention to our unique duty to serve the public.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, citing longstanding Supreme Court precedent acknowledging the difficult decisions officers are forced to make under stressful and dangerous, circumstances, wrote in 2006, "We must judge the officer's actions from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force necessary."

We in law enforcement owe it to the public to hold ourselves accountable. And the public owes it to our officers to be mindful of those "split-second judgments," remembering that police officers also have families that count on them to come home at the end of their shifts. We take our mandate to protect the Constitution very seriously.

It is truly our honor to serve the public and our community.

Steven D. Strachan is chief of Police for the city of Kent.