BY ANTHONY SEMONE, Ph.D
Because of the work of Artwohl, Christensen, Lewinski, Ayoob and many others, much is now known about the psychological effects experienced by a person in association with self-defensive use of deadly force. At the onset of the confrontation, for example, it is common for the person to experience tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, alterations in perceived time, and the loss of fine motor control, among others. In the time frame following the encounter, it is unsurprising to observe symptoms associated with the altered state of consciousness produced by the encounter with death, including memory impairment, dissociative symptoms, and disruption to basic biological functions such as eating, sleeping, and sexual behavior. At points further along the temporal dimension from the shooting, flashbacks, social withdrawal and isolation, avoidance, and hypervigilance may well occur. (This listing of symptoms is not exhaustive.) While these data are largely gathered from subjects in the law enforcement community, they have been extrapolated here to the private citizen who has employed deadly force.
The rate of a person’s recovery from the symptoms of complex stressful events will vary as a function of their pre-existing resilience with respect to the stressing stimulus complex and the efficacy of post-stimulus exposure to corrective interventions. Resilience is understood as “the capacity to recover quickly from difficulties; toughness,” and it can be brought about in any given individual by graded exposure to the stressing stimulus complex. That exposure can be via mental imagery, mindfulness techniques, and/or scenario based training. Interventions employed for post-exposure recovery typically involve initially Critical Incident Stress Debriefing. Extended debriefing and graded exposure to stimulus complexes that continue to provoke negative experiences can be employed to ameliorate persistent symptomatology. Social support, however, is the major source for developing both resilience and symptom reduction secondary to the intimate understanding of the complex psychological response to a deadly force event.
Generally speaking, private citizens do not share with law enforcement officers those factors central to developing resilience. For the most part, private citizens are not members of an insular group whose esprit de corps permeates its daily existence. Private citizens do not typically undergo the extensive psychologically-based selection process that looks for resilience, nor do they benefit from resilience-producing experiences of academy training. In fact, it is reasonable to hypothesize that a significant percentage of private citizens undergo minimal training, if any at all. Also, law enforcement officers, as part of their governmental appointment as “keepers of the peace,” have available to them the additional protections afforded by a network of professionals including psychologists, clergy, medical assistance programs, defense attorneys, and more. Indeed, any given use of deadly force by an officer has the potential of availing him of qualified immunity and summary judgment against potential legal consequences.
However, private citizens who use lethal means to counter an imminent attack that reasonably threatens him or her with grave bodily harm or death may well do so at their own peril. That seems on the face of it inarguably true. Absent training, absent a cohesive supportive community, absent embedded professionals who are proximately available to him or her, the private citizen is left mostly alone to deal with the aftermath of that use of deadly force, and with a greater likelihood of the occurrence of complex psychological consequences. More critical, however, in this author’s view, is this: private citizens do NOT have formal, visible governmental authority and sanction to engage in protecting and serving the public, even with deadly force. So there is an embedded social, cultural, and political prejudice against private citizen use of lethal means of self-defense. Private citizens who secure the means and take the responsibility for their own safety and that of their loved ones are seen as vigilantes or lone wolves. They are seen as inveighing against the collective and they frighten others because of their individualist ideology.
THERE IS AN EMBEDDED SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND POLITICAL PREJUDICE AGAINST PRIVATE CITIZEN USE OF LETHAL MEANS OF SELF-DEFENSE.
Hence, it is precisely in the presence of this deeply embedded societal bias that the use of lethal force will undergo scathing scrutiny from that citizen’s social, cultural, and political systems. And that scrutiny may well bring with it the full weight of governmental and media effort, especially when the use of force involves the death of a racial minority. As recent history has amply documented, neither private citizen (nor law enforcement officer for that matter) will escape that consequence (though arguably the LE will be more protected). This author would propose that, in the vulnerable citizen, the durability of the “poetic justice” inherent in the Mark of Cain will be the most enduring of symptom complexes with which the citizen will have to contend.
You have just been required to use deadly force to ensure your continued life. In doing so, you met all requisite legal conditions, just as your father and your prolific reading of self-defense literature taught you. Upon recognizing that the attacker was down and out, you replaced your weapon in your truck while dialing 911 to report a self-defense shooting. You have your hands in the air as the first arriving officer orders you to turn around and get on the ground. As you are doing that you have a knee in your back, propelling you forcefully to the pavement. You then become aware of another sharp pain in your neck as what seems to be another knee immobilizes you. You experience a very rapid heart rate, irregular in character and you fear a heart attack. You are transported by EMS to your local hospital where you are diagnosed with an anxiety attack and released to the custody of law enforcement officers. (You will subsequently be diagnosed with cervical vertebral fractures and under go surgical repair. You will also undergo medical treatment for rotator cuff injury.) “Ah, excuse me Officer Friendly, I’m not the bad guy here.”
The stress will continue with the interaction among you, law enforcement, and the prosecutorial side of the legal system: from initial arrest and incarceration, to probable cause hearing(s); preliminary hearing (s); response to continued jailing; securing bond (where possible given the charge); continuing threats against your family because you defended yourself successfully against a member of the community; threats against you while in jail; securing your own defense counsel; securing the funds (you may well go bankrupt) necessary to support a defense team, to include at least one investigator, one crime scene reconstructionist, one use-of-force expert, one prior firearms trainer as a fact witness (assuming you had any training), and of course one defense attorney where defending you will not be his or her first rodeo as an attorney who specializes in self-defense cases.
Now, let us assume that you get through the many pretrial motions, unfavorable rulings given by an anti-gun judge, and that you luck out and you meet your burden of production and are allowed to enter the defense of self-defense. However, your use of force expert is sharply curtailed in what he is allowed to introduce as expert testimony, the judge having ruled in a Frye hearing that such testimony requires the use of licensed psychologists or psychiatrists. Since your expert is not one of those professionals, he is precluded from testifying about those issues for just that reason, notwithstanding his credentials as an expert in the use of deadly force. Of course said judge was able to drag out some broadly construable case law as justification for his decision. In any case, that’s what you’re left with, but I digress.
And if it seems the gods are against you, consider further that you live in a jurisdiction that has gone progressively statist for the last three elections, electing politicians opposed to private citizen carry of lethal weapons. Those elected officials also represent the exact constituency reflected in the social, cultural, and political group of the individual whose life you admit to having taken. And it is precisely at jury selection that multiple additional stressors come into play deriving from the fact that the jury is not made up of your peers, but rather those of the decedent. And it is just here that the societal impact of your defensive use of deadly force will begin to have its say on the outcome of your legal case. Media outlets in the community will pounce immediately upon the shooting as the grist for their anti-gun mill and echo the dismay of the paper’s similarly-biased readership.
Now, consider this: when, for example, you first contacted your wife following your being detained by LE and taken to jail, with the one phone call you were allowed by the jailer, your wife, amidst sobs, reported to you that your 11-year-old daughter came home from school also in tears as she reported one of her classmates having announced for all to hear that, “Your Daddy is a BAAADDDDD MAAANNN. He killed a poor, innocent boy who my Mommy told me had just turned his life around. I don’t ever want to play again with you.”
You and your family begin to feel shunned and distanced by your neighbors. Your children are ignored by their peers and no longer have their usual play-friends to “hang with.” As a consequence of this social system response to your defensive shooting, your family becomes increasingly disenfranchised from its social system. Your and your family’s responses to the reaction of the milieu in which you live will amplify further the shame and humiliation. Why?
The media will report this: You have just taken the life of a poor, disenfranchised boy that, according to all reports was unarmed – “after all, it was just a ‘toy gun’.” The newscaster will report in somber tones on the nightly news report, that the teenage boy was from an impoverished neighborhood; that he never had the “privilege” you have enjoyed your entire life; and, besides that, quoting a family member: “how was he gonna get the money to pay for the new clothes for the coming school year? Stealing from you, while not the correct thing to do, didn’t deserve the death penalty.”
This encounter will not, however, have been your first experience with “The Mark of Cain.” And it will not be your last. The psychologist (whom your defense attorney retained pro bono), in his continuing debriefing process with you, advised you, as the old song goes: “(It’s) only just begun.” Indeed so, it has only just begun, because in these times the defender must now anticipate the second judicial attack, the civil suit.
What follows is taken in part from public records and in part from this author’s direct interview with the person (hereinafter “D”) who used deadly force in a confrontation with a neighbor in his community. After five hours of deliberation, the jury by unanimous decision found him Not Guilty of all charges. He had been charged with 1st degree Murder, 3rd degree Murder and Manslaughter. Be mindful that the shooting took place in 2012, but it was not until 2013 that the case even came to trial. Since the jurisdiction in which it took place did not provide for bail since the primary charge was 1st degree murder, D remained in prison for virtually one year before the trial even began. Because he was deemed by the classifying officer to be a vulnerable prisoner, for his protection he was placed in solitary confinement for that entire time.
In late Spring of 2012, in a small suburban community, a confrontation took place between D and his next-door neighbor. It was not the first such encounter between the two, the latter reportedly angry over property-line boundary violations committed by D’s dogs that were defecating on his property. There were as well arguments apparently having to do with a dilapidated, termite-infested shed in D’s backyard. Over time, there apparently had been escalations in the acrimony between the two neighbors, including an occasion on which D believed that his neighbor had poisoned his dogs. D also saw him as responsible for tipping over log piles as well as killing a rabbit that was being fed by D’s girlfriend. (At the end of the trial, the DA admitted that the decedent may well have been a bully, but that didn’t mean he deserved to be killed.)
D’s primary response to those incidents was to call his local township police and file a report. On interview, he reports to this author that he did in fact do that but that the police response either never took place or was ineffectual. He added that one officer advised him to send a registered letter to the attacker telling him to stay off his property. It is important to recognize that the attacker, a former Marine, was a person who was well liked by a number of people in that neighborhood. As well, the attacker had a sign posted in is yard that read: “Intruders will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.”
In any case on the day of the shooting, a confrontation took place between the two men as D was leaving his property in his truck. As he was backing out from his driveway, he saw his neighbor approaching at a brisk pace and reportedly hollering, “I’m going to go over and get those dogs.” D testified, “I thought he was going to kill my dogs (and) hurt B (his girlfriend). (So) I stopped my truck and got out. I put it in park, took off my seat belt and got out. He was right there; he said I’m going to fix you. I grabbed the pistol off the seat. The way he said “I’m going to fix you.” It was like a growl. He was raging, he was seething. …. I thought he was going to kill me. (I) could see (him) pulling something out of his pocket…. (I) thought it was a gun. I fired…. I stopped shooting when he was no longer a threat. (I) then called 911 to get help for (him).”
The interview between D and this author (a portion of which is reproduced below) took place four years after the shooting incident and three years from the verdict. In D’s own words (save for omitting names and locations and for enhancing grammatical structure), here are some of his comments about the long-term psychological effects of the deadly force encounter. Note specifically those comments he gives about the critical need he felt for being able to tell his whole story; for being able to feel understood, and understood by peers, by people who were connected to the self-defense community. As well, note his disdain for the legal system, despite the verdict. His report of his psychological experiences post-shooting are as compelling a narration of the effects of the Mark of Cain as this author has ever read or heard:
Most impactful (experience) from verdict to this date psychologically I would have to say (is) the public’s reaction and how people look and act towards me now.
It’s something (the shooting) that is brought up once a week from other people.
It’s always having to deal with the elephant in the room. Meeting new people… do they know? Do they not know? Sometimes people will ask about it; sometimes people will have gallows humor or make a joke about it.
Two weeks ago I was out with two people talking and one guy said he was having trouble with his neighbor. The other guy said: Well don’t ask (him) about that. He meant it as a joke but I didn’t take it that way. He was referring to me.
You have to let it roll off your back. Some people don’t realize how life altering this situation was. They see me walking around and looking okay and assume I’m okay, but I’m not. You have to learn to deal with it or you won’t be able to associate with anybody. It’s the new normal. (Emphasis added)
My internal experience (is) a combination of sadness and a bit of anger. I’m sad that this is what I’m known for now. That’s the big aspect of it. Everything I’ve accomplished up to now, all the accolades, they mean nothing now.
For my obituary I’m going to have to come up with the cure for cancer (to erase the stigma of the shooting).
And a little bit of anger that people aren’t more sensitive to the situation. A person died; (that’s) not to be joked about; the seriousness of the entire situation; there were no winners; making a joke is not very sensitive; I don’t see people making those comments to a woman who had been sexually assaulted.
(I felt) trepidation at your (referring to this author) contact but I hope that it can help me turn a bad situation into a positive. I could very easily have said after the acquittal I’m not going to speak about this again. This would not have been a benefit to anybody. But I still have my demons, but it helps to get it out. (I) still have some trepidation to bring it out because it brings up upsetting thoughts and feelings. But that’s what the new normal is.
(It) irks me when I see phony PTSD; if you really had it you wouldn’t be talking about it the way you are.
Lawyers are the winner. System is the winner. They (prosecution) lost (but) they still made their money.
Both the decedent and I were the smallest part of the whole thing. (The) prosecution (is) making a big deal about being out for justice. Baloney! There are two people’s lives and he and I were just two small parts to further individual agendas (and) careers. (This trial) was supposed to be about truth and justice. (It’s) Not.
Prosecution didn’t really have anything to convict me on. They had four shell casings. I admitted this. What’s the purpose? This wasn’t like OJ. One week to get it done. The judge said to jurors, expect a week, jurors getting antsy so we went long in the evenings. We shortened our defense case; but it was over.
Disappointed in the pace (of the trial). (I) always thought that high paid people in these positions should act accordingly. I didn’t have my day in court. Winning is the goal. We’re here not to hear you story. We’re here to get you home. Defense attorney didn’t want to carry it on.
I had my mother call Massad; see what he thinks about the case. Massad’s comment was “What’s he even being charged for.” I said finally somebody understands.
When I was in (the) class: I’m now in the company of other people who understand!! Ordinary folk do not understand. There are people who do know what I’m talking about. Part of the reason I did (the presentation at the class) is just that; when I was reading and learning nobody ever talked about the aftermath; it’s now coming to the fore. More prevalent. More questionable prosecutions.
I had hoped for the opportunity to sit down and talk to the Prosecution but that doesn’t happen anymore. It’s not like (TV).
So the more opportunity to give voice to what happened to a knowledgeable audience, the better. Still (it) sticks in my craw that I couldn’t say my piece. What was reported in the newspaper was a lie. Couldn’t explain. I did not get my whole story out.
(We used a) forensic psychologist to see what I was all about psychologically. (She was) a help to (my attorney) to understand. (Prosecution) was trying to paint me as a gun nut. (Psychological) testing made an impression on jury. That was a big help.
Trial covers the range of emotions from anger to sad to funny. Prosecutor looked ridiculous hammering on her (defense psychologist) credentials (but) she put him in his place.
Irks me even today the cursory investigation. They got blinders on immediately. Forensics team (was) told you are going to a murder scene. Rush to judgment as to murder. This is now four years since the shooting. You called on the day. Good karma.
(The prosecutor) was up for reelection – charge what you want. (There was all the) media attention for him (to help) in his reelection. Maybe only his 3rd or 4th case he tried himself. He thought (he had) a slam-dunk. Tried to block my self-defense defense. But I knew I had to be the first one to 911.
I’M THAT GUY. (Emphasis added) Just something you have to deal with. I meet a girl. When do you bring that up what I did? Do you wait till they are emotionally invested? I never read about that anywhere.
How do I explain the four-year gap? Another residual is that I need to get my record expunged. Especially because (on employment applications) it’s now (have you) ever (been) “charged with a crime.” Now I have to go get a lawyer to get my permit back.
Still follows me to this day. In January of this year, (I was) in a bar and a guy killed another guy, (who was) six feet behind me. Actor shoved an older guy and broke his neck. Blood all over. Put me back in another place. I showed arriving officer my driver’s license and the officer talked with me about 15 seconds. I asked the officer for any info about the guy and got ignored.
I’m not anti-cop. (although my) local department is under DOJ scrutiny. (I have had) three surgeries from excessive arresting force; ruptured two disks in (my) neck; rotator cuff injury and surgery.
(The shooting) will produce major changes in your life!
Even a cursory review of the Defendant’s statements provides eloquent testimony to the pervasive and enduring psychological effects secondary to his justifiable use of deadly force. These statements he made are occurring four years post shooting event. As he talks, it has all the vocal quality of what clinically is known as “talking in real time,” that is, as if in the time and space of the occurrence of the event.
When this author asked him how he got through it all, his immediate response was family and (real) friends. He was clear in pointing out that his use of deadly force separated his friends from his acquaintances, and within the latter group, even those whom he had known for many years had abandoned him. He lost all his financial resources and has to depend upon family to survive again. The injuries he sustained secondary to his arrest left him unable to work, forcing him into continued dependence upon his family as he awaits a favorable decision on his disability payment status. He is now in the process of moving to another state where he will be closer to his family of origin and where he believes he will be able to be regarded as a person in his own right, and not as “That Guy.”
As noted earlier, private citizens encounter the complex stress associated with their use of deadly force as the “lone survivor.” There are no fellow officers who arrive, lights on, sirens loud to provide a secure perimeter. There is no officer to whom he is especially close to provide a secondary weapon to replace the weapon he used in the engagement. Transport to secure environment does not happen. There is no police chaplain to notify the family of the shooting and to provide them with reassurance as to their loved one’s safety. There is no immediate response from a police psychologist/police surgeon to conduct a defusing with the relevant officers and who will provide formal incident debriefing for the officer following the IACP OIS protocol.
The bottom line, however, is that private citizens who chose to go armed in the service of the protection of our life and the lives of those we hold close to our heart, well, we do that at our own psychological peril.
Dr. Anthony Semone has amassed considerable education, experience, and training within a broad range of psychological disciplines. In doing so, he has afforded himself the ability to work within the fields of Forensic Psychology, Clinical Neuropsychology, Clinical Psychology, and Police Psychology.
Dr. Semone holds certifications from the NRA as an instructor in Home Firearms Safety, Personal Protection and Pistol, as well as in Law Enforcement/Security Firearms; from the Smith &Wesson Academy as a Reduced Light Training Instructor, Advanced Instructor in Police Use of Force and Risk Management, and as a Master Use of Force and Control Instructor; from the Lethal Force Institute as a Stressfire Instructor in Combat Pistol and Shotgun; and from the PA State Police as Lethal Weapons Instructor. He is also certified by the Lethal Force Institute as a Police Instructor in the Ayoob/Lindell Method of Weapon Retention and in the Kubotan/Persuader. He has taken advanced firearms training from such internationally recognized instructors as Ray Chapman, Marty Hayes, Chuck Taylor, Clive Shepherd, Bob Taubert, Bert DuVernay, Tom Aveni and Clint Smith.
Dr Semone has been qualified in both state and federal courts and has provided in those contexts expert testimony on Use of Force, Body Alarm Reactions and their Impact on Eyewitness Identification, Post-Shooting Trauma and PTSD. He has assisted the Massachusetts State Police and the Baltimore County (MD) Police Firearms Training Units in designing instructional programs so as to incorporate known psychological principles to enhance the efficacy of those programs. He is presently involved in gathering data on the relationship between heart rate variability and decision-making ability in officer use of force.