“Ok, now, let’s talk about this: what other options do we have to stop this mad-dog driver, other than shooting her? Ma;’am, will you pleas take 5 in your murderous rampage while we meet? Ma’am?”
Hindsight bias isn’t the worst or most pernicious reasoning fallacy, but it may be the most annoying, and is certainly the most common. After an event in which one or more instant decisions had to be made in seconds or minutes, critics with time a-plenty solemnly explain how they would have done things differently, and how the original decision-maker was stupid, cowardly, misguided, incompetent, unethical, or even criminal. The most striking example of a hind-sight bias victim in recent years is Penn State’s Mike McQueary, but at least in his situation there is room for argument, though I argued here that few of his critics can know how they would have responded under similar circumstances. In the case of this week’s shooting of a crazed Capitol Hill kamikaze motorist, later determined to be a troubled dental hygienist who may have been suffering from post-partum depression, I don’t think the criticism is rational, fair or justified, and shows hindsight bias at its worst.
Of course the Secret Service had to shoot her. It would have been reckless and negligent had they not. She had tried to crash through the White House barricades in an automobile. She had run down one officer, for all anyone knew at the time, fatally. She was refusing to stop, and was near D.C.’s Union Station, where there are people everywhere, and a car can easily run up on the sidewalks, which are wide. She had to be stopped immediately, or innocent people, maybe many people, were likely to die.
After she expired from the shots fired at her (but not before peeling away at a high speed), it was determined that the driver, later identified as Miriam Carey, was unarmed. The shooting agents didn’t know that, so it’s irrelevant. Besides, she was armed, with a deadly vehicle, and her motives were unclear. For all the officers knew, she was trying to kill as many pedestrians as she could. This wasn’t a typical situation or traffic stop. This was occurring at the center of our government, and security officers have to take enhanced precautions. The welfare of the individual causing the threat is not, and should not be, the primary concern.
Two factors in the incident seem do drive the unethical amateur second-guessing. One was that the woman’s toddler was in the car, and might have been harmed. This was not the Secret Service’s problem. Carey put her daughter in harm’s way, and if her conduct resulted in the child’s injury or death, she would have been totally responsible, not the agents who shot into the car. (They apparently were not aware of the child’s presence, so again, this in not a fair factor to consider after the fact.) The other factor: guns were involved. Thanks to programmed paranoia and gun-phobia irresponsibly planted in the culture by anti-gun zealots, many, too many, Americans arrive at a reflex position that any gun-related death is unnecessary, because guns, after all, are evil and should be banned. Such opinions should be treated as the products of deranged minds, or excessive Piers Morgan viewing.
A Facebook friend (and regular friend too), a distinguished and intelligent former journalist who I’m sure won’t mind my quoting him, asked his social network, “WAS THERE NO OTHER WAY?” That question is the epitome of hindsight bias. Sure there were other ways. Maybe an agent could have dived in the car window and dislodged her. Maybe a well-aimed shot at her hands could have made it impossible to drive. Perhaps they could have shot out the tires, hoping that the driver didn’t realize that you can still make a car with flat tires move at a pretty good clip, at least for a while. An electro-magnetic pulse might have stopped all the engines in the vicinity, neutralizing the car. Maybe Batman was nearby, or Corey Booker. None of that matters, because the security officials involved were in a unique and unprecedented situation, and had to accomplish their prime objective, stopping a dangerous individual in a highly populated area, under pressure, while in peril themselves, as quickly as possible. The proper question is not whether they could have done better, upon calm analysis and reflection. The question should only be, “Was the response reasonable under the circumstances?”
It was.
________________________________
Sources: Washington Post 1, 2
Ethics Alarms 
In Miami, many years ago, a man highjacked a school bus with with special needs students aboard claiming to have a bomb and threatening to detonate it. After a chase with the police, he was shot and killed by the S.W.A.T team with the students still aboard. He was found to be completely unarmed and had been suffering from mental illness for some time. The second guessing began; mostly by the media but also by friends, neighbors, my mother, etc.. As my husband, a retired police sergeant will tell you, if you hijack a school bus and tell the police you have a bomb, they will believe you. End of story. This incident in DC is no different.
Since the Navy Yard shooting was 2 weeks ago and Capitol Police were accused of being less than perfect in their response time, this woman picked absolutely the wrong town and time in which to harm and evade police. The details may play out differently but they are probably justified shooting, under Tenn. vs Gardner.
A larger question, and this always the larger question: Do Police respond more harshly to Black perpetrators? Or are Black Perpetrators more likely to disobey Police commands and attempt escape or even attack them?
In this case? She could have been plaid. It looks like most of the shooters were also black.
I suspect the only black anyone was thinking about was the car…
I heard that she had exited the car, and was unarmed. Does that change the calculus any? I had wondered how the police managed to avoid shooting the kid if they had shot up the car. But if she truly was out of the vehicle, without any weapons, would you still say the shooting was justified? I guess we will know the truth sooner or later, unless some money changes hands.
She had NOT exited the car. The video is easily accessed.
Ah. I had only seen the video from the beginning of the chase, not the end. I think if she was still a threat in the vehicle, they had a right to shoot her, even if I wished that they hadn’t. But that’s the beauty of hindsight.
Exactly. Yes, once she was out of the car, if she had done that, everything would have changed.
This situation is a textbook-perfect example of the military adage about situations that require a quick, if imperfect, decision rather than a considered, thoughtful one that is delayed.
The longer you let her go driving around like a maniac, the more peoples lives and safety are at risk.
If she’d killed anyone else, the hindsight bias would have morphed into shouts of “Why didn’t the police do something SOONER? Those people could have been SAVED!”
They were. I’m glad for that.
–Dwayne
After she failed (whatever her reasoning’s were) via crashing through the barricade (according to the news videos) her vehicle was swarmed by armed security showing more than one who pointed his gun at the driver’s window. Now that you get that picture in your mind, think of this. They knew instantly that it was a lone female driver. And that is when they saw the child inside. Knowing the weapons used and the ammo chambered (you know gov’mint employees have the best ammo) it would have taken 4 rounds to down the tires and maybe 3 rounds to down the engine at that stage of attack. Easily these highly trained armed security could have at that very moment diverted her attention by the shots to the vehicle, busted her window, opened the door and pulled her out.
When chasing a vehicle and the suspect is not returning fire does not necessarily mean the subject should be killed. Disable the vehicle at the prime time and not in traffic if at all possible.
The discharging of a firearm in a car chase puts the public more at risk than the vehicle.
Compare this to the armed Army officer on post who just killed many yet you halt before killing him (yeah he was wounded but a strategically placed bullet would have saved us millions on a trial).
Anyone who uses a vehicle to try to plow through barricades should be considered mentally unstable. Especially if they are not exchanging gunfire with a child inside the vehicle.
I consider this action excessive force. But then again there will be no expensive trial…
I agree with most of your points.
For a while I was thinking, well, the police there needed to act swiftly and forcefully on any threat to the area, otherwise we will have lunatics from all over the world trying their luck on the White House.
But now, after considering it, even that doesn’t apply here.
Maybe Batman was nearby, or Corey Booker.
ROFL.
I’m usually 100% pro law enforcement, pro use of force and pro punishment of criminals.
However, this case bothers me and I’m still working out the reasons why.
It might be because I have some work experience with the mentally ill.
I know how fast a person can go from completely normal to completely nuts, I’ve seen it with my own eyes.
I’d hate to think that lethal force is the only way of dealing with these people when they act out.
Agree. The sad thing about mental illness is the lack of proper training within law enforcement. All crimes that are committed against the innocents are probably committed by a person with mental illness and mainly referring to mass killings and/or using an expensive vehicle to ram the most highly guarded spot of dirt in this nation.. With the exception of robberies which are most often planned in advance or drive by shootings, or stalking…oh gosh losing my point of this blog.
I too have seen normal to nuts in a split second and in most cases lethal force should not be used. Didn’t SCOTUS rule that a state cannot (condemn) a mental inmate the death penalty?
It may depend on which version of the story turns out to be most accurate. One of the versions you link to says her car was stuck (and therefore incapable of being used as a weapon) when the fatal shots were fired. If that’s the case, then it was a fairly easily contained hostage/barricade situation which could have been dealt with by SWAT and a hostage negotiation team.
Mark, the car could have easily had a bomb in it as well–usually cars that try to run barricades do. As long as that was even a faint possibility, with her in the car and spinning the wheels (she wasn’t stuck for long—look at the video, the only option was to shoot.
It was a tragedy indeed! But the mental disabilities patients advocates are at least partially to blame for this mess. The standard of “is dangerous to himself or herself or others or gravely disabled” Is hard to prove unless a patient has previously shot up the neighborhood or is writing repeated threatening letters to somebody *and* they go to the police about it.