Editor’s Note: This is the second installment of a series of columns where Kate reflects on and documents her time in the Citizen’s Police Academy. However, she is not participating in the academy in her capacity as a reporter, but as a citizen of Covington.

My second evening participating in the Covington Police Department’s (CPD) six-week Citizen’s Police Academy was on Sept. 30, and we jumped right in.

This week’s topic was Use of Force. The class learned the CPD’s policies on using force, specifically lethal force. When does an officer make the split-second decision to risk ending a perpetrator’s life? How does one weigh the costs of acting versus not?

It’s easy to sit behind your desk and say that police should never shoot to kill. But if you’re the one in a situation where a deadly weapon has been pulled on you and you’re defenseless, you may hope that an officer pulls his or her trigger before an aggressor pulls theirs.

The CPD’s use of force policies – which are publicly available online as the CPD’s standard operating procedure for response to aggression/resistance – help officers to know when to act. After all, hesitating can be bad, but overeating can be too.

Some key points from the policy include:

• "The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at the moment force was used, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."

This policy is actually based on case law. Graham v. Connor was a 1989 case that went before the Supreme Court. You can Google the details, but essentially, it established the "objective reasonableness" standard under the Fourth Amendment.

• "Deadly force may be used only when an employee reasonably believes that a suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious physical injury; when the employee reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the employee or others; or to effect the arrest of a suspect whom the employee has probable cause to believe has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury if the employee reasonably believes that the suspect’s escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical injury to any person."

So if an officer’s failure to act with potentially deadly force could result in serious harm befalling themselves or civilians, the officer has a responsibility to act. 

One example that was given during the academy was if someone is driving down the wrong side of the interstate going very fast – we're talking like 120 mph – and it's also nighttime. If the car is fleeing from attempts to initiate a lawful stop and the officers have the opportunity to wreck the vehicle, it’s possible that it's the best avenue. 

Though each specific case is situational, there is a significant risk that other drivers would be seriously injured or even killed if they hit this renegade driver head-on, or even hit one another trying to avoid the wrong-way driver.

Now, keep in mind this is a gross oversimplification of the CPD’s use of force policies. 

I just tried to summarize a seven-page policy into a handful of paragraphs. I had to pick and choose what to include and what to exclude, so I do encourage anyone with their own skepticism to go review the policy themselves. It references case law and state law and outlines everything from EMS response to officer relief from duty.

But circling back to this past Tuesday’s academy meeting, following our crash course on the CPD’s policies, we went into a simulation room at the Georgia Piedmont Law Enforcement Academy on Alcovy Road. 

Each participant went through three interactive simulations, kind of like virtual reality simulations but manually controlled by the officers and no headset. I was among a trio who volunteered to go first (allowing me to avoid the simulation being ‘spoiled’ by any discussion).

And boy do I have takeaways.

We were each given a fake firearm that was connected to the simulation, so the individuals in the video display would react if you ‘shot’ them. 

My number one realization was that these situations happen much quicker in real life than you might think. 

I responded correctly in two of the three simulations. I correctly ‘shot’ someone who brandished a firearm at another civilian, and also correctly raised the firearm but did not shoot a guy brandishing a hammer and had him get on the ground.

The place I went wrong was a simulated argument between two women where one pulled a knife on the other. I hesitated, not certain if pulling a knife warranted being shot, and in the time I paused, she ‘stabbed’ the other woman. 

All of these were just video simulations, so there were no real-life consequences for my hesitation. However, as an officer, you have to make these decisions – and be right – in a matter of seconds. It all happens more quickly than you might think.

So I’m not stating that police should be able to shoot offenders left and right or not be held accountable for deadly force. I’m not really advocating anything here, just stating that it was incredibly informative to learn just how much goes into a split-second decision. I don’t envy the officers carrying that responsibility with such high stakes.

Kate Verity is the news editor of The Covington News. She can be reached at kverity@covnews.com.