Mimesis Law
8 March 2021

How A Cop Gets Fired in West Virginia

September 16, 2016 (Fault Lines) — Officers often say that we don’t respect their heat of the moment decisions enough. Just last week in Cross, Nick Selby pointed out that, according to officer reports, roughly nine out of ten shootings are justifiable responses to a show of force. Should we be more conciliatory? Weirton Police Chief Rob Alexander doesn’t think so. He just fired an officer for not killing someone.

It was not a decision to be taken lightly. West Virginia Officer Stephen Mader came to Ronald D. Williams’ house on a domestic violence call. As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette describes it, Williams had told his girlfriend that he was “going to kill myself in front of you and the child, and you’re going to live with this the rest of your life, and our son is going to know you caused my death.”

At almost 4 in the morning, Williams’ girlfriend called the police on him.  Williams decided that it would be easier to let himself get shot than to do the deed himself, unloading his weapon and telling his girlfriend “You know what? I’m going to make the cops do it.”

Then Williams strode out to the front lawn, where he “flicked” his gun several times in Mader’s direction, saying “shoot me. Shoot me.” Mader, a former Marine, suspected that Williams was simply attempting suicide by cop. So he chose not to shoot him, instead trying to deescalate the situation by telling him in his “calm voice” to put the gun down.

Mader was confronted with exactly the sort of “split-second,” “life-or-death” decision breathlessly discussed in countless legal opinions. Confronted with a man holding a silver handgun, Mader had to decide whether to risk his own safety to make sure that the gunman would some day be able to go home to his family.

Two other officers arrived on the scene, and Williams waved his gun in their direction as well. Shortly afterwards, he was shot in the back of the head and killed. The officers were placed on a short administrative leave, and the shooting declared justified not long afterward.

Now it’s hard to quibble with the officers who arrived on the scene, saw a man waving the gun, and fired quickly. The officers had no way of knowing that that the gun was unloaded and Williams was deliberately trying to provoke them into shooting him. Even under the strictest standards, this was likely a good shoot, though it’s tough to agree with the prosecutor’s assessment that “[n]one of these officers signed on to have guns pointed at them that night.” We probably wouldn’t be draping flags and firing off salutes for a group of people that didn’t voluntarily take on a dangerous job because they wanted to help people, after all.

Still, the termination of an officer for his restraint in the face of grave personal danger signals that, to this department, the lives of officers are simply more important than those of civilians. That terminating a risk to officer safety with extreme prejudice isn’t just justifiable, it’s mandatory.

Caution and restraint make perfect sense when you are encountering another human being, someone whose life has value. But to many, it has no place in a war zone, where every enemy killed might mean saving the lives of your countrymen. A soldier might be embarrassed to report that he never fired his weapon, but it used to be a mark of pride for an officer that he went his whole career without ever shooting his service weapon. Here, the Chief learned that Mader decided not to shoot and, as he placed him on administrative leave, told him that he had “put two other officers in danger.”

The chief’s reaction suggests that of a military officer learning that one of his soldiers is a pacifist. The Los Angeles Times recounts the story of Desmond Doss, a man who refused to carry a weapon as he fought in the Pacific, preferring instead to ensure the preservation of life. Doss was willing to serve, but he was not willing to kill. And for that restraint, he was cursed at in boot camp, and called a “coward.” That is, until the day he braved enemy fire to save seventy five of his fellow soldiers, lowering them down a fifty-foot cliff face while clenched in the teeth of a barrage of Japanese fire, earning the Medal of Honor.

Policing can be a dangerous job. And of course there are situations where a lethal response is called for. But policing needs room for men like Desmond Doss, and for Officer Mader. For conscientious people willing to undergo significant risk to make sure even the potentially dangerous get a chance to keep living. Restraint is no bar to heroism.

In his post on the subject, Radley Balko mentioned his hope that men like Officer Mader be given a medal. But the irony of all this is that such an award itself might offend the sensibilities of those who think honoring restraint means punishing force. Given the opportunity, Mader would likely save other lives. But to the police in Weirton, West Virginia, that will never be as valuable as killing when the opportunity arises.

6 Comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

*

*

Comments for Fault Lines posts are closed here. You can leave comments for this post at the new site, faultlines.us

  • Greg Prickett
    16 September 2016 at 3:00 pm - Reply

    There’s more to the story. One of the officer’s at PoliceOne stated that Mader had already been put on remedial training in the FTO program, before the shooting event, and that his sources said that Mader didn’t take a different approach, but instead froze.

    If, and that’s a big if, that was the case, then the Chief was correct to fire Mader because he would get himself or another officer hurt or killed. Some people just are not cut out to be police officers.

    On the other hand, if Mader did not freeze, then I agree that the firing would not be called for in this situation. It’s hard to say without having been there.

    • Lies & Hatred
      17 September 2016 at 9:18 pm - Reply

      Sounds as if you are bias over the events.

      If’s will get you no where.

  • Andrew Fleischman
    16 September 2016 at 3:11 pm - Reply

    I hope that’s true. It would speak a lot better of the Weirton department if that was their major concern. Whenever I get a response like this, I always try to think back to C.S. Lewis’ great quote:

    Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, ‘Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,’ or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything — God and our friends and ourselves included — as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred