AP caption: Murder suspect Brian Nichols is led to a waiting vehicle by an unidentified police officer at the FBI office in Atlanta, Saturday, March 12, 2005.

Reader Wayne L. comments:

The killer of an Atlanta judge is shown being taken into custody by a woman cop, after this same killer took a gun away from a woman court cop to go on his killing spree. Isn’t there something wrong with this photo?

He’s got a point. (Update: This photo shows at least one other agent to Nichols’ right, but Wayne’s observation is still salient.)

Reader Doug Mason echoes the sentiment and adds:

I also noted that the law enforcement officer was a woman, and that it was strange given the circumstances. The first thought that came to my mind, though, was that this was a deliberate action on the part of the arresting agency, as if it would be some type of “statement” to express via the press. Very misguided, indeed.

Reader Todd Roth offered similar thoughts on Nichols’ initial escape from the courthouse:

I wonder when or if anyone will have the guts to point out that it’s not in the public’s best interest to have a woman, escorting a penitentiary trained man-criminal, even with help! Criminals train in prison. They refine the
skill of taking away a police officer’s pistol. Ex. criminals typically are barred from having a gun and they know every cop has a very good one, that’s where they go. It’s a major hazard for male officers and many are killed this way each year. In our quest for “equality” the physical standards for police have been relaxed to the absurd. This shooting need not have happened. The killer
should have been escorted by three strong, crude and mean officers with
pistols carried in the type of holsters which make it almost impossible to steal from.

It’s bad enough for trained male police officers to deal with these predators. A woman alone has no chance, unless she shoots first and then cuffs the jerk. Which is highly illegal. You have got to use proportionate force. Good luck,
ladies.

Reader Rhona Nack writes:

People have warned for years that female law enforcement personnel could put people at risk because they may not be able to subdue a dangerous defendant. Because of the physical mismatch, a defendant could
overpower the female officer and take her gun. Well, this is exactly what happened. Another way in which the PC agenda kills people.

Sadly, yes.

Reader Tammy Clifton dissents:

What’s wrong with this picture? Absolutely nothing.

Really, Michelle. I’m very disappointed that you would actually entertain this argument.

Thousands of violent criminal suspects are brought through our court systems every day without incident. Then, when one of them is lucky enough to catch a
deputy off-guard, suddenly everyone goes ballistic. Context, people.

I find it highly amusing that, until they disclosed her sex, no one was second-guessing the deputy’s physical abilities.

Gender had nothing…NOTHING to do with this.

It could’ve happened to anyone so let’s all just please dispense with the hysterical hand-wringing. I’ve seen plenty of unfit, borderline-obese male
deput[ies] who probably wouldn’t have faired any better against a guy like Nichols.

Let’s wait until we get all the facts before pointing any fingers.

Reader/blogger Charles Reichley shares some info and expertise from Prince William County, Va.:

I agree with the sentiment regarding having a single armed female deputy on escort duty with a well-muscled male prisoner. BTW, why is a female deputy guarding a male prisoner who is CHANGING FOR COURT? I am imagining the conversation in that room:

“Excuse me ma’am, could you turn around while I change my pants, you know, I’m a little shy…”

In our county (Prince William County, Virginia) we are moving away from armed guards escorting prisoners. The escorts have tazers, and the armed guards are far enough away so they can react if something goes awry…We also have the latest in gun holster technology, which makes it difficult to remove a gun unless you have had specific training.

More info on PWC’s safety measures here.

Another dissenting perspective from reader Anthony:

I have worked in law enforcement for nearly 18 years. I must disagree with your blog article regarding female officers in law enforcement. In the Atlanta case, the problem is not the use of female officers to escort prisoners, but rather a situation where improper procedures were used. Even a large male officer in good physical condition would have been unlikely to handle a prisoner like Nichols in a one on one fight.

It’s for this reason that certain procedures need to be followed, including handcuffing protocols, working in pairs, video cameras for monitoring, etc. It appears from initial reports that a number of errors (or poor procedures) were made which contributed more towards Nichols escape than the use of a female deputy.

For example:

1) Nichols was previously caught with a sharpened object known as a shank. Additional security was apparently requested and not provided.

2) Nichols, a known violent offender, was escorted unhandcuffed.

3) Nichols was escorted by one officer when he should have been escorted by two or more officers. The fact that the one officer was significantly physically older and smaller should have been another reason to add a second or third officer to assist with the escort.

4) There does not appear to have been a “duress button” in place in the courtroom, which might have alerted armed officers to the situation earlier.

5) Atlanta courthouse procedures apparently limit the number of officers with firearms in the building. Thus, fewer armed officers were available to respond to any situation whereas if officers were allowed to have firearms, in the courthouse, there’s a greater likelihood of sufficient force being present to prevent an escape.

I’m sure there are other errors that will be discovered during the subsequent investigation, but these are the first ones that I immediately noticed.

Over the course of my career, I’ve known female officers who are smarter and more capable than larger male counterparts. There is much more to law enforcement than simple physical strength or size. Playing to the stereotype that physical size or massive strength is required does a disservice to female officers. The plain fact is that Nichols planning and the element of surprise, along with poor procedures and errors, are to blame for Nichols escape.

In another example, a few years ago, a rapist was terrorizing the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area. Despite being “cornered” several times by male officers, he was able to escape by outrunning officers and commit further rapes. As it turned out, the rapist was a running coach and a very good runner. Was it inappropriate to hire the officers who couldn’t run as fast? Of course not. Likewise, because Nichols was a large offender, it doesn’t mean that we should get rid of all officers (i.e. women) who are physically smaller than large offenders.

More reader feedback in the extended entry, with some good points made on both sides of the debate.

***
Others blogging this angle: La Shawn Barber, Lawrence Auster, The Political Teen, Stop the Bleating, and Stephanie Key, who has some excellent questions for law enforcement officials about courthouse security procedures and lapses leading to Nichols’ bloody escape.

Xrlq writes in an e-mail that there’s nothing wrong with the picture as he’s concerned, “[h]owever, I find *plenty* wrong with the Ass. Press caption identifying Nichols as a ‘murder suspect’ rather than a murderer.” More here.

David Bayly blogs his reaction.

Also got lots of e-mails like this one from reader Terry Reynolds: “In answer to your question regarding the Atlanta killer … what’s wrong is that he’s still standing!”

From reader Dale…

I agree with your stance on this issue but wanted to mention that the man behind Nichols in the picture you posted (you can only see his outline) was carrying an AR-15/M-16 pointed at Nichols back. I saw this on Fox, CNN,
etc., footage. I don’t think this invalidates what your overall stance but
it might do so for this example.

Reader Chuck B. adds…

I do not agree that the photo of the woman officer to the left of Brian Nichols indicates a security problem that is remotely comparible to the riduculous lack of security in the Atlanta court house and others, I presume.

1. Nichols is handcuffed behind the back.
2. You mention the woman to the right and one reader mentions the man to the left. Um…how about the goliath of an officer behind him? He is in both photos, but is shadowed. I live 5 miles from where this happened, and the print photos in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Gwinnet News are much clearer. This officer (who is bigger than Nichols) has his hands on the cuffed hands of Nichols, he is “right behind” him and could push him to the ground in a spilt second. I think if you had a physicl copy of the paper, you would agree with me.
3. I’m not even sure that woman has a weapon, I’m speculating, but she looks like she might be a hostage negotiator or something like that.
4. The Gwinnett News shows an overall picture of the scene. I can count about 26 military/SWAT team types, each with an assault weapon. Nichols was toast at the point of this photo.

Although I agree that there are situations where woman officers are inappropriate. I think we can agree that the problem is not so much gender and it is that Nichols had zero business be unrestrained in the court house. Zero! I would think that any properly trained police woman could handle a shackled prisoner (leg and arms) at least to the point to where it would be impossible for the prisoner to get her weapon.

I really do not understand the law that allows prisoners to be unrestrained in an area where guns are present. That’s the point! That’s the insanity.

How about this:

1. Escort prisoners in shackles into the court room under arms. Prisoners are always shackled from cell to court room.
2. The Sheriff under arms leaves the court room and turns the prisoner over to an unarmed Sherrif.
3. The court room is a weapon free zone now, the Sherrif in the court room has no weapon to steal.
4. Before the jury arrives, the unarmed Sheriff removes any arm shackles, but the prisoner remains shackled at the legs.
5. The jury need not even see this because the table could be skirted, whatever…

I’m sure there are other options…including just revoking the silly law…but I must say that the reader who claims more guns in the court house would have helped is off base. This neglects the heart of the problem (restraint) and ignores the facts that the dead officer was armed and killed while trying to stop Nichols. Also, the customs agent was armed. The problem is unrestrained prisoners with relatively easy access to guns.

comments (0)   trackbacks (29)