Resisting Arrest Should Not Be a Death Sentence
A call for better policing
Every now and then, a video surfaces of a US police officer or officers killing a man who was resisting arrest. The latest victim, Keenan Anderson, a schoolteacher who was involved in a road traffic accident on the 3rd of January 2023 was tased mercilessly and continuously while resisting being taken into custody. He later died of cardiac arrest, possibly from the effects of the excessive tasing. Now, I have no idea why Americans feel the need to resist arrest and one can argue that these suspects brought the tragedy on themselves for not being compliant. I won’t debate that point; people should comply with police directives always.
However, resisting arrest should not be a death sentence. Deploying weapons with varying levels of lethality, whether it be a taser or a gun should not be an option in detaining a non-compliant suspect who is not a credible threat to the safety of the police or anyone else under the prevailing circumstance. Police officers should be better trained to be able to handle these situations without it leading to the death of the suspect.
In this particular incident, the man was involved in a road traffic accident, he appeared disoriented and agitated. The first officer on the scene noted that he may be high on drugs—toxicology reports have now shown he had cocaine and marijuana in his system. Given that context, placing the man in handcuffs seems like a really dumb idea in my opinion. The man clearly needed medical attention; a handcuff is not a medical intervention. This tactic of responding first with force by detention is counterproductive. Traffic incidents should not require the level of police intervention it is usually met with. Tasing him repeatedly seemed like another very dumb idea given that the first officer surmised that the man may be under the influence of hard drugs. Even without that information, what if he had a heart condition or other medical issues that could be exacerbated by the tasing?
What is more worrying though is that I have noticed that whenever incidents like this occur, there are people especially conservatives who would always jump to the defence of the police while making statements like, “but he was resisting arrest.” They never for once ask what the police could have done better. They act as though the police are out of options when a suspect resists arrest. As though the only viable course of action for the police is to use brute force or deploy their weapons.
Never is it said, what could the police have done better? Could the police have handled the situation better to avoid such deadly outcomes? No one seems to ask that question on the right. The default is to say, he was resisting and by implication that he deserves to die. I would say again, it is never a good idea to resist an armed person, whether they are police or not, but when it does happen that people for some inexplicable reason resist arrest, lethal force should scarcely be an option on the table.
Some people may ask, well what do you want the police to do, just let him go? I ask, what’s the alternative, kill him? The justice system already allows presumably guilty people to walk free when there is no sufficient evidence to convict them of a crime. It is a common saying that it is better to let a criminal escape justice than to let an innocent man rot in jail. By the extension of this logic, if one were to choose between letting these suspects go in such heated situations—which I admit is not ideal—and killing them, common sense should dictate being in favour of letting them go at least for the moment.
Just in case anyone tries to twist my words and straw man me by saying I’m advocating for letting criminals go, no I’m not. I’m talking about situations like a traffic incident, or a civil disturbance, one in which the lives of the officers or other people are not in imminent danger.
A lot of these incidents could have been avoided if the police employed better tactics. There should be a rigorous demand for the police to constantly improve their methods of policing. The responsibility for good policing should not lie squarely on the public. It is often said that two wrongs do not make a right, the police should not complicate an already bad situation—one wrong—of resisting arrest by a suspect with—another wrong—high-handed, thuggish, militaristic behaviour.
In my country, police are not the first responders to a traffic incident, there are other agencies such as the Federal Road Safety Corp, who are not armed, and even when the police are involved, they never put anyone in handcuffs to detain them in such situations. They let the suspect know that they would be coming with them to the police station to make a statement or for possible detention. There is never the threat of subjugation before being taken into custody. Only violent crimes such as armed robberies or violent criminals are ever an occasion for the police to point their guns at a suspect and or take them into custody in handcuffs.
The point I’m driving at is that the police can do better and that conversation should be had. In a way, I’m beginning to understand the claims by liberals that conservatives don’t really care about human life. That they rage on about human life being sacred when the issue is about abortion but seem to be so unempathetic about people that are living. As a conservative myself, the only life that I don’t care about is that of a convicted murderer, rapist, or child molester—emphasis on convicted. Every other life must be cherished and optimised for sustenance. There should be more empathy from conservatives because people are complex and do make dumb mistakes such as resting arrest, but such mistakes should not amount to a death sentence.
Charles Ekokotu (Pharm. D.) is a bibliophile, prose fiction writer, poet, and playwright. His first self-published novel, Hotel Shendam—a crime fiction novel featuring a debate on race and colonialism—is available on Amazon. A very fun read! Grab a copy now!
Follow Charles Ekokotu on
Agreed with your premise at its core. In implementation it is a very complex issue. For every tragic video like this, there are many that don't get amplified where a routine traffic stop etc. results in an officer quickly and unexpectedly being shot. I live in a high crime area (a few blocks from "the hood") and the relationship to policing is fraught for me. Doing a ride along with police did change my views - one cannot discern the intent or status of who is pulled over. There was an understandable groundswell of support for "softer" policing methods after the summer of 2020, and many safe control positions used routinely in wrestling and jiu jitsu (eg chest mount) were outlawed. An emphasis placed on tasers etc. I am saddened but I cannot say surprised. Many wanted social workers to intervene also but an unstable or aggressive person will not be reliably kind because the uniform is different. An honest approach to policy (ending eg qualified immunity), and the pros and cons of what force protocols are is needed. All too often unwell people wear uniforms as well and the cultural incentives prevent them from being disciplined.
The gray area of what an imminent danger to the police or others is where I would push back on your article.
A disoriented person that is on cocaine and marijuana driving a vehicle seems to be a relatively imminent threat to himself and anyone around him and extremely dangerous to society. Just look at death statistics: in first world societies, cars are incredibly dangerous and a leading cause of accidental death.
Just as a thought exercise, if the police pull over a person and discover he or she is acting abnormal/disoriented/intoxicated.
They attempt to arrest the person, but he or she resists to the point of violence, so the officers desist. They allow the person to reenter their vehicle (as physical restraint would be the only way to stop this person which could lead to violence and harm, an unacceptable outcome in your article’s worldview)
The intoxicated person gets in the car and speeds off (despite the officers not immediately pursuing) and two blocks away kills several children playing baseball in the street. The person later tests positive for multiple substances.
What moral obligation did the police have and what legal recourse will the state use against them for allowing a clearly intoxicated person to Drive away? Should they be arrested? Should they be placed on leave with or without pay. Will the news media publicize all the details of this case fairly?
I’m an anesthesiologist and I have practiced in level one trauma centers for all of my career, in my experience these accidents happen all the time. This is not some far fetched impossible scenario. Traffic deaths with impaired drivers happen almost daily.
I have sympathy for your argument, I just don’t know what a police person is supposed to do without physical restraint in these types of encounters.
It seems to me to be an incredibly difficult, high stakes job, with mediocre pay that now is highly politicized and publicized. No wonder officers are quitting in droves or moving to the suburbs where they can avoid these Sophie’s choice type situations (see the recent The Free Press article on substack for a description).
The referenced article argues that this loss of police is bad for low income communities. That topic out of my expertise, but it seems losing good police would not be good for any community.