After a black Muslim man suspected of terrorism was fatally shot by the FBI and Boston police earlier this week, many in the Muslim community asked a question often raised in the wake of deadly police shootings: Could officers have done anything else to stop the suspect, short of shooting and killing him?
“These are professionals,” said Imam Abdullah Faaruuq of the Mosque for the Praising of Allah in Boston. “If they want to take him down without killing him, they know what to do.”
But several specialists in policing said less lethal options — such as a Taser or pepper spray — would not have been practical.
They pointed out that, unlike several recent and highly contested cases of police shootings of unarmed black men in Ferguson, Mo., and other cities around the country, the suspect in this case, Usaama Rahim, was holding a 7-inch knife and advancing on the officers, according to police. He ignored their commands to drop the knife and was about 15 to 20 feet away from the officers when he was shot twice in the torso, according to police.
The officers could have used a Taser, but “you’re putting yourself at a potential risk, as well as other bystanders,” said William Terrill, a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University.
“As soon as a suspect presents an imminent deadly force threat — and a knife within that range would constitute such a threat — the police are within their rights and within the bounds of the law, to use deadly force,” Terrill said.
Maria Haberfeld, a professor of police science at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said it would be dangerous to use a Taser against a suspect advancing with a knife at 15 to 20 feet.
“In a split second, the person will charge into your stomach with this knife, and there is not enough time to even shoot,” she said.
Dennis Root, who trains officers in the use of firearms, dismissed as “too much television” the notion that officers could have stopped Rahim by shooting his leg or shoulder.
He said police are trained to shoot at the center of a suspect’s body because that’s the easiest target to hit and the most likely to “end the threat.” If officers aim for an arm or leg, they could miss and hit a bystander, he said.
The Boston police rule book says officers may use deadly force only when “there is no less drastic means available to defend oneself or another from unlawful attack which an officer has reasonable cause to believe could result in death or great bodily injury.”
In a 1989 case, Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court ruled that police may use deadly force when it is “objectively reasonable.” To meet that standard, the officer’s actions “must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight,” the court said.
Legal specialists have said the ruling was designed to be broad to recognize that officers must make split-second decisions in dangerous situations.
Haberfeld said the officers in this case had reason to believe Rahim posed a serious threat because, according to police, he had been heard, in a phone call recorded by antiterrorism investigators, threatening to kill “boys in blue.”
“Not only was the behavior that evolved in front of the officers a clear threat to them, but there was prior intel about his intentions,” Haberfeld said. “So, between these two pieces, there is not much you can do.”
On Friday, Faaruuq, the imam who had questioned the police’s decision to shoot Rahim, said he apologized for his comments. “I do not want to blame the officials or incite any distrust or hatred,” he said.
But Seth Stoughton, a former police officer and assistant professor of law at the University of South Carolina, said he was not certain the officers had to shoot Rahim. When police encounter a knife-wielding suspect, “that’s potentially a good situation in which to use a Taser,” he said. One officer can use the Taser, he said, while another takes out a gun as backup.
“There may be other options,” Stoughton said. “But without seeing the video, I can’t say whether this is one of those options.”
Michael Levenson can be reached at mlevenson@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @mlevenson.