“Suicide by Cop”: How Police Present Killings as Unavoidable

Inside the charged language of law enforcement.

Steven Wilson

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

American police speak in a peculiar lexicon. When an officer guns somebody down, it is an “officer-involved shooting.” When a department spokesperson speaks of “the use of force,” police violence is reduced to basic physics. “Fatality” dulls a plainer reality: that somebody has been killed.

A less-discussed clause carries with it the same obfuscation of meaning: “suicide by cop.” The phrase refers to a person who provokes the police’s violence to kill themselves. But too often it has been loosely applied to excuse police killings as unavoidable.

The history is murky but “suicide by cop” is thought to have been coined by a cop-turned-psychologist named Karl Harris in the early 1980s. When he left policing, Harris supposedly took up work at a suicide hotline in Los Angeles. “I saw all the different ways people attempted suicide,” he told the New York Times more than a decade later, “and it occurred to me that maybe some people were actually forcing cops to shoot them because they wanted to die.” Harris, who would go on to earn a PhD, conducted an informal study on suicides by cop; it was never published, but the concept caught on among scholars. At the time, new theories of criminality and social deviance were changing the foundations of policing. One theory soon to become orthodox saw derelict neighborhoods—signified by “broken windows”—as sites of criminality demanding control. Simultaneously, mental illness was increasingly being treated by jails and prisons, rather than by other institutions. “Suicide by cop” joined a bundle of new concepts that recast the perceived social crises of the day as manifest in a group of violent people who would only understand violence in return; the rise of a militant police force could be explained, in this logic, as self-protection.

By the end of the ’90s, the phrase secured its place in the minds of police as absolution. “These people want to die,” a SWAT veteran said at the time. “How are you about to change their minds?” Academics followed along. In their studies, they often took for granted that people were trying to be killed. They focused on locating the measurable traces of this new suicidality, rather than on probing the sureness or explanatory power of the concept.

Their findings were generally questionable. In one 1998 paper, published by the FBI, a police killing was deemed a suicide by cop because the victim was holding up an unloaded rifle and, just before he was shot, had “a strange look” on his face. (The paper remains well cited today.) Another influential study that year, led by a Harvard Medical School professor, relied on assuming police violence victims as suicidal if, when confronted by officers, they exhibited suicidal characteristics like raising a gun or, in one case, holding an undisclosed “blunt object.”

For all the cases of suicide by cop that rely on surmise, there are some that don’t. Buried in a couple of journal articles are mentions of victims’ notes, in which people announce their intention to die. But such admissions are rare.

According to a 2016 review of the literature, “tentative evidence” suggests that somewhere between one-tenth and one-half of all police shootings are suicides by cop. But why would 100 to 500 people choose to die at the hand of the police each year? Some law enforcement experts say that victims have a death wish they cannot fulfill alone. Others think victims could possess ulterior motives. A Yale pathologist, who doubled as deputy chief medical examiner of the Bronx, co-authored a study that proposed that some victims could be angling for their families to receive a life-insurance payout.

The speed to proclaim deaths as suicides has consequences. A 2021 study found that more than half of police killings in the United States are mislabeled by medical officials. Suicide by cop adds to this problem. It falsely “implies that a huge number of killings are justified,” says Alex Vitale, a sociologist at Brooklyn College.

In the police’s common language, suicide by cop satisfies some basic element of police self-understanding. If a person is armed, cops shoot. If a person acts strange, cops shoot. These are the bulk of deaths researchers describe as “suicides by cop,” as if police killings were no more avoidable than natural law. The police, in their strange tongue, tend to say more about themselves than about anything else.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate