May 2025. BLUES Vo. 41 No. 5

GUEST COMENTARYpolice

GUEST COMENTARYpolice law newsDaniel CarrOFFICER INVOLVED - Victor PerezWhat the cops knew - a case of relevance.A seventeen-year-old was fatallyshot by police in Pocatello,Idaho.The teenager (Victor Perez)had autism, cerebral palsy, wasnonverbal, and had the mentalacuity of a five-year-old.However, none of that factualmedical information is relevantwhen evaluating the reasonablenessof this Officer—Involved-Shooting(OIS).WHAT HAPPENEDThe 911 callOn April 5th, 2025 police officersin Pocatello, ID were dispatchedto a call in reference toa disturbance.The caller was a man whoworked at a shop in the areaand he reported the incident to911 dispatch.Here is what the police weretold:• A man and a woman werebeing attacked in the backyardof a residence.• The attacker was anotherman.• The attacker was “brandishinga knife”.• The attacker was “trying tostab someone”.• The attacker appeared to be“under the influence.”• The attacker was “chasing”the victims.• One of the victims hit the at-Victor Pereztacker on the head with a “log”.• The attacker was “trying tostab everybody.”The arrivalPolice officers arrived on sceneand observed that Victor Perezwas on the ground - holding theknife. Perez was inside the fenceand two women were within afew feet of him. Officers gavehim multiple commands to “dropthe knife.” Perez stood up andbegan to advance towards policeofficers - who were outside ofthe fenced-in yard.The use of forceThree officers discharged theirduty weapons and one officerdeployed a round from a lesslethal bean bag shotgun. Perezthen fell to the ground - stillclutching the knife. Perez died onApril 12th after undergoing severalsurgeries - including a legamputation.WHAT THE COPS KNEWSince this OIS, the medicalhistory of Perez has been at thecenter of the discussion. Commentators,influencer's, and themedia have been excoriatingthe police for not dispatching a“crisis intervention team”/mentalhealth counselor to help de-escalatethe situation as well as for“executing” a disabled teenagerin his own yard.Those questions and concernsmay be valid but have a verysimple answer.The police had no idea thatthey were responding to a disabledteenager in the throes of amental health crisis.The police are not psychic.If police are dispatched to a16 The BLUES - MAY ‘25

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw5tOUpST4Mcall where it is reported thata man with a knife is trying tostab multiple people - they willrespond as you would expect.If police are dispatched to acall where a teenager is in crisisand no one is in immediate danger- the public should expect afar different response.When the only call for policeassistance is from a concernedneighbor - the police will respondwith the intent to ensurethat no innocent person isstabbed to death.If the public wants police officersto treat incidents like thisas a mental health crisis - thensomeone has to call and informdispatch of this information. Nohonest broker can hold the policeofficers accountable for informationthat they were not privy to.This why the factual medicalinformation is not relevant whenevaluating this case.FIRSTWhen I first viewed the videoof this incident I quickly formedthe opinion that the use of deadlyforce in this case was “not objectivelyreasonable.” I made severalsocial media posts to that effect.My main sticking point - thefence between Perez and police.That fence is still the most difficultpart of the analysis of thiscase.ANALYSISNow that we all agree that thisOIS must be evaluated based onthe information that the officerspossessed at the time of the useof deadly force - lets move forwardwith the analysis.There are several differentstandards to keep in mind whenevaluating a use of force incident:1. The civil standard of “objectivereasonableness” as establishedby the SCOTUS in Grahamv. Connor.2. State and federal law.3. Department policy.THE GRAHAM STANDARDAny analysis of an excessiveforce claim should considerwhether the search or seizurewas objectively reasonable,based on how a reasonable policeofficer would have handledthe same situation.Factors include: the severity ofthe crime, the threat posed by theindividual to the safety of officersor other people, and whetherthe individual is trying to fleeor resist arrest.• Perez was trying to stab otherindividuals and advanced towardspolice with a knife.• There is almost no more seriouscrime.• Perez was not an immediatethreat to police as he advancedtowards officers - with a fence inbetween them.• Perez’s actions at the time ofthe OIS would be classified as an“imminent threat” as the deadlythreat was about to unfold butnot yet actively occurring.CLICK TO WATCH• Perez was actively resistinglawful arrest while armed with adeadly weapon.The preponderance of the evidencewould lead a reasonableperson to believe that the useof deadly force was objectivelyreasonable under the “Grahamstandard”.IDAHO STATE LAWUnder the Idaho law (18-4011)that governs police use of deadlyforce - deadly force is permittedif the officer, “has probable causeto believe that the resistanceposes a threat of death or seriousphysical injury to the officer or toother persons.”Advancing aggressively towardspolice officers, while armed witha knife, after attempting to stabother individuals, does pose athreat of serious physical injuryor death.Therefore, this use of deadlyforce should be classified as a“justifiable homicide”.DEPARTMENT POLICYThe use of force policy(300.4(a)) of the Pocatello PoliceDepartment states, “An officermay use deadly force to protectthemselves or others from whatthe officer reasonably believes isThe BLUES - MAY ‘25 17