Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-03-06

Reckless shooting by policemen may be
expected as long as coroner's juries render
such verdicts as that which was delivered
In Anacostia yesterday IN the case of the
policeman who shot and killed a fleeing
Iegro whom he had attempted to arrest.
The public safety demands that policemen
should. above all things, guard the privi-
lcge which the law gives them of carrying
deadly weapons with the greatest possible
care. and to that end no good can be ac-
complished by such verdicts Is that CT yes
terday. The unquestioned facts of the casa
in point overturn the jurys finding that the
shooting which caused the death of the
policeman's victim was accidental. The
killing may have been an accident In the
sense that there was no actual intent to
kill; but the officer evidently intended to
shoot his revolver. and Is held by the law
responsible for the natural consequences
Of that act. The undisputed evidence
showed that the negro, who was fleeing
from arrest for an offense not felony,
was SO well known to the police and the
community that he could have been ar
rested later without difficulty. The police
man had gone in his chase far enough to
learn that the man was escaping; he fired
u loaded pistol with the alleged intent to
frighten the man into surrender. Under
the circumstances and the law he should
not have discharged his pistol at all for
that purpose, and If he ventured on his
personal responsibility to do so. he should
have guarded his dangerous act with the
greatest care. He should have deliberately
flied into the air or into the ground. The
fact that in this case he fired toward the
man and struck vital spot Is the best
evidence of gross, probably criminal care
lessnesS, for which he should be punished.
All other considerations as to the good
character of the policeman, the bad char
acter of the victim, what the policeman
said and did. and how and when he drew
his pistol may be thrown to the winds; the
sole fact of death is sufficient proof that
wrong against the public safety has
been committed. On the question of the
responsibility of policemen for deaths in
hicted in the discharge of their duty, much
has been written. The most recent de-
livery on this subject in a case of i'm
portance was that Of Judge McComas last
May when he charged the jury in the case
of Policeman Terry. who killed Willis
Washington. The court said:
"These officers of the peace must be sup
ported by the courts In the discharge Of
duty, but officers Of the peace should I'M
derstand that 1t Is not their duty to shoot
person they seek to arrest IL he only
fails to halt when commanded. 1t is their
duty to use such means to secure a pris-
oner as will enable officers to take a pris-
oher into custody without resorting to the
use of firearms. and officers will not be
excused for using dangerous weapons i'll
any case where with diligence, discretion
and caution the prisoner could be other
wise taken. The officer has the right to
arrest without warrant anyone he suspects
to be guilty of felony; If, however, he uses
mere force than necessary, he is guilty of
an assault An arrest not unlawful in it.
self may be performed in a manner so
criminal and improper as to make the off,
Ger, who, In the prosecution of his purpose
causes the death of another person. guilty
of murder, or. IL without malice, of man
slaughter only"
These words fit the present case as pre-
cisely as though the latter were on trial.
They make it impossible that this homicide
should be permitted to rest with the find
iEg of the coroner's jury.