Denver police officer Ranjan Ford has received a three-month suspension for the 2004 shooting death of Frank Lobato, and once again community groups are outraged.
On one side are people who are alarmed by the frequency with which police officers kill suspects and/or civilians, and they believe this ruling is just another in a long line slaps on the wrist.
On the other side are people who believe police officers perform very difficult jobs requiring split-second, life-and-death decisions. They argue that it’s unfair to judge Ford with the benefit of hindsight and assume that he should have known everything we now know.
There’s logic on both sides, but we should look beyond the question of who’s right and who’s wrong and focus on the process through which Ford’s sentence was determined.
After previous police shootings, the district attorney’s office investigated and, invariably, announced that no charges would be filed against the officers involved. Since the public wasn’t privy to all the details of each case, the conclusions were often greeted with suspicion, and many people believed that cops could kill with impunity.
Thankfully, Denver officials recognized that the police department couldn’t function properly without public trust, so a new system was implemented to create more transparency in the investigation of police shootings and more understanding about the verdicts.
The Lobato case used this new process, and I believe it’s an unqualified success.
Denver Manager of Safety Alvin LaCabe Jr. released a 24-page report that included all the evidence and statements collected at the scene, Ford’s training and experience, the “shoot/don’t shoot” criteria that officers are required to follow, a rationale for LaCabe’s conclusion that Ford had acted unreasonably, and justification for the 90-day suspension.
The level of explanation and degree of candor in this document is impressive and refreshing. Reasonable people can disagree with the conclusion that LaCabe reached, but at least everyone can argue with the same facts in hand.
Among my concerns after the shooting was the tactical decision to enter the home. There are few things more dangerous for a citizen than having the police enter your home with their guns drawn. They are well-trained marksmen who are in a stressful situation because their own lives are at risk. As they storm into the room, you are the subject of their “shoot/don’t shoot” analysis.
Because of this inherently risky situation, I questioned whether the cops should have entered Cathy Sandoval’s home. She had already escaped, and Vincent Martinez, the suspect in a domestic-violence complaint, wasn’t posing an immediate threat to anyone. Entering the apartment would only escalate the situation and turn it into a potentially deadly encounter.
However, after reading LaCabe’s explanation of the need to capture the suspect so that Sandoval and her children could safely return to their home, I understand the officers’ decision to enter.
And I agree with Ford’s three-month suspension. It seems clear that Ford was genuinely scared (as any rational person would be), had his finger on the trigger prior to opening Lobato’s bedroom door (a violation of his training), assumed that the person in the room was probably waiting in ambush (not an unreasonable assumption, but still a violation of his training), and fired his weapon in a “startled response” when he saw movement.
In LaCabe’s judgement, Ford’s “actions were a mistake, but they were neither reckless nor deliberate.”
This document and the process that the city of Denver has established to publicly reveal investigative details in police shootings are a tremendous step forward. This public accounting will go a long way toward restoring trust in the Denver Police Department.
Former Bronco Reggie Rivers is the host of “Drawing the Line” Wednesdays at 8 p.m. on KBDI-Channel 12. He writes Fridays on the op-ed page.
