In my 30 years as an officer, I have never seen any minority spokespersons say that using deadly force against a minority was justified.

How can that be when the law and department policy spell out exactly when officers can shoot?

Basically, the rule is officers can use deadly force to preserve their own lives or the lives of others. Do officers always disregard these rules and just kill people? The position that activists take when it comes to one of their own is that police officers have never done the proper thing.

A recent case in Cincinnati illustrates my point. A 350-pound black man who the coroner, Carl Parrott, said had intoxicating levels of cocaine, PCP, and methanol in his blood, attacked officers and had to be subdued with batons.

Subduing anyone with batons is not a pretty sight. It looks excessive no matter what the reason is for the confrontation.

In addition to the level of illegal drugs, Mr. Nathaniel Jones was obese, had an enlarged heart, and disregarded all orders given by the officers.

In light of these facts, did everyone rally to the officer's cause and label their actions proper? Not a chance.

Black activists say Jones' death was another example of police brutality against blacks in a city that was rocked by race riots two years ago. Relatives stated, "Skipper was just a good old, fat, jolly fella. He wasn't violent."

Here are some of the things I as a police officer did or didn't think about when confronted with a 300+ pound suspect:

I did wonder if this individual was armed. I couldn't know because he wanted to fight before I could check.

I didn't consider race. Anyone trying to stomp on me is a threat.

I did understand that no matter what kind of physical condition this man was in, I could not let him get me down on the ground and get on top of me. The sheer weight of this attacker makes it irrelevant as to whether his bulk is muscle or fat.

I did realize that if this individual got me down, he might get my gun and injure not only me, but innocent bystanders.

I did decide not to fight fair, I would fight to win. The citizens of Denver don't pay me to lose fights. If I need a taser, a baton, a flashlight, six more officers, a chair, a brick, or finally a gun, I will honor my oath, preserve lives, and not run away.

I did realize if I got this individual on the ground, I must get him handcuffed before he can get back on his feet. So with that in mind, I would hit him while he is on the ground if he doesn't comply with my orders.

A Denver Police Academy exercise taught me just how hard it is to handcuff someone who will not hold his wrists still. I will use whatever force I need until he does comply and is no longer a threat.

I know a person is much more dangerous when he is balanced and on his feet.

I did remember that on every call I go on, someone has a gun, me. My gun will kill me or anyone else the same as if the assailant had brought his own weapon.

I did wonder if this attacker had friends nearby that would also attack me. I had no way of knowing who was waiting and watching.

I know that most people wouldn't help me if I was losing. From experience, I can tell you that the majority of people will not jump into a fight and help a police officer. They either believe that we are being paid to handle this kind of a job, or they are afraid.

I didn't think about the "why" of what was taking place. There was never time. I had to get control and the "whys" would come later.

What about these "activists?"

I don't believe that the preponderance of any minority population would look at a case like the one in Cincinnati and believe that the police did wrong. They, however, are not the ones that the media seeks out for a story.

They go to those who are willing to say outrageous things and make themselves the center of attention.

The types (you all know who they are) who will say anything to garner media attention without regard for the facts. Miscreants who need to keep a rift going between the races to ensure their place as a "savior" of their fellows.

Most of all I want to know why this "silent" majority lets them get away with it. No one, including the police, is always wrong and when an incident happens where the police really are wrong, fewer people listen because they believe that it is just another activist crying wolf.

Are the police ever wrong when someone dies? Of course. The same way that one group cannot always be wrong; the same group cannot always be right. We make mistakes and we have people who break the law intentionally.

It is then that everyone needs to stand up and be counted in an attempt to prove that the officer did wrong. Police have the same rights as anyone else to be judged according to the rule of law.

Officers are not opposed to civilian review.

They are opposed to unfair review – a civilian review board stacked with nothing but the "activist" types who never have a kind word to say about the police. A civilian review board should comprise the whole spectrum of political and social viewpoints. We need the left, middle and right hashing out the facts and arriving at a fair judgment.

James Ponzi is a lieutenant in the Denver Police Dept. E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .u

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites