For more than twenty-five years, I have served as a police officer and detective, responding to thousands of calls for service ranging from routine complaints to violent crimes, officer-involved shootings, and homicide investigations. During that time, I have witnessed firsthand how quickly encounters can escalate and how difficult it can be for the public to understand the split-second decisions officers must make in dangerous situations. I have also seen how use-of-force incidents are often discussed through the lens of emotion, politics, or hindsight rather than through the legal standards that govern police conduct.
The purpose of this article is not to persuade readers to automatically agree with every police action, nor is it intended to diminish the seriousness of any loss of life. Rather, my goal is to explain the principles of police use of force in plain language that the average citizen can understand. Too often, legal concepts such as "objective reasonableness," "imminent threat," and "proportionality" are discussed using technical legal terminology that can be confusing to those without a law enforcement or legal background.
When evaluating a use-of-force incident, the most important question is not whether the outcome was tragic. Most serious use-of-force incidents are tragic. The real question is whether the officer's actions were lawful and reasonable based on the facts known to the officer at that moment. In other words, what did the officer see, what threat did the officer face, and what options were reasonably available under the circumstances?
Using the Sherman Butler incident as an example, this article will examine the roles of the bailiff and the police, Michigan's use-of-force laws, the concept of imminent threat, and why these incidents must be analyzed based on facts and law rather than emotion or hindsight. My objective is to provide readers with a straightforward understanding of how use-of-force decisions are evaluated and why those evaluations must remain grounded in evidence, legal standards, and the realities officers face in the field.
The death of Sherman Lee Butler during the execution of an eviction order in Detroit generated significant public attention and emotional debate. Many commentators focused on the tragic outcome, Butler's reported mental health struggles, and broader concerns regarding evictions. However, the proper legal analysis of any use-of-force incident must be grounded in established law and objective facts rather than emotion or hindsight. The question is not whether the outcome was unfortunate; rather, whether the actions of the bailiff and responding officers were lawful and reasonable under Michigan law.
The background of this incident is important. Butler was the subject of a court-ordered eviction. A writ of restitution had been issued through the judicial process authorizing the removal of the occupant and restoration of possession to the property owner. A 36th District Court bailiff was present to execute the court's order, and Detroit police officers were present to maintain peace and provide security. Neither the bailiff nor the officers created the eviction; they were carrying out the lawful directives of a court.
The role of the bailiff is frequently misunderstood. Under Michigan law, a court bailiff acts as an officer of the court and is authorized to execute court process, including writs of restitution. The bailiff's authority originates from the court order itself. The bailiff does not determine who will be evicted, nor does the bailiff independently create legal obligations. Rather, the bailiff serves as the enforcement arm of the judiciary, ensuring that lawful court orders are carried out.
Similarly, the role of the police officer in an eviction is limited but essential. Officers are not present to enforce a civil judgment. Their primary responsibility is to preserve public safety, prevent violence, and protect all individuals present during the execution of the court order. When officers accompany a bailiff, they do so to ensure that no person is injured and that the process remains orderly and lawful.
Many discussions of this incident have centered on Butler's mental health. Mental illness is a serious issue deserving compassion and treatment. However, neither Michigan law nor established use-of-force jurisprudence provides that a person's mental health condition excuses an assaultive act or prevents officers from defending themselves or others. An officer's obligation to assess threats does not disappear because the person creating the threat may be suffering from a mental health crisis. The law evaluates conduct and danger, not diagnoses.
Under Michigan law, use-of-force incidents are generally analyzed through the principles of lawful presence, imminent threat, proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness. The first question is whether the officer or bailiff was lawfully present. In this case, the answer is straightforward. The bailiff was executing a valid court order, and the officers were lawfully present to maintain peace and provide security. Their presence was authorized by law and by the court's writ.
The second element is whether an imminent threat existed. The concept of imminent threat focuses on what the officer or bailiff reasonably perceived at the moment force was used. The analysis does not occur in slow motion, nor is it based upon information learned afterward. The law asks whether a reasonable officer or court officer facing the same circumstances would have believed that death or serious bodily injury was about to occur.
Reports surrounding this incident indicate that Butler possessed edged weapons, including a knife or box cutter. A knife is universally recognized as a deadly weapon capable of causing death or serious bodily injury in a matter of seconds. Law enforcement officers are routinely trained regarding the dangers posed by edged weapons because such weapons can be rapidly deployed and can inflict catastrophic injuries before an officer has time to react. The existence of an edged weapon significantly impacts the threat assessment.
The next question is whether the response was proportional to the threat. Deadly force is authorized only when confronting a threat capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. If a reasonable officer or bailiff believes that an armed individual presents such a threat, the use of deadly force is considered proportionate under Michigan law. The law does not require officers to match force with force. Rather, it permits officers to use the level of force reasonably necessary to stop the threat.
Michigan law likewise imposes no duty upon police officers to retreat while performing their official duties. Officers and court officers are not required to abandon their lawful responsibilities or place themselves at increased risk in hopes that a dangerous situation may resolve itself. The law recognizes that officers must often confront dangerous individuals and make immediate decisions under rapidly evolving circumstances.
Any analysis of this incident must also carefully distinguish between policy violations and violations of the law. Police policies are internal administrative guidelines designed to assist officers in performing their duties. A policy violation does not automatically create criminal liability, nor does compliance with policy automatically determine legality. The ultimate legal question remains whether the force used was objectively reasonable under the Constitution and Michigan law. Internal policy may be relevant to employment matters, but it is not the standard by which criminal guilt or innocence is determined.
Finally, investigations into police use of force must be conducted based on facts, evidence, witness testimony, body-worn camera footage, forensic findings, and applicable law. Public opinion, political pressure, emotional reactions, and hindsight cannot replace objective legal analysis. The death of Sherman Butler was undeniably tragic. However, tragedy alone does not establish misconduct. When the facts are examined through the framework of lawful presence, imminent threat, proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness, the focus must remain on what the officers and bailiff knew and faced at the moment force was used. In a nation governed by the rule of law, use-of-force determinations must be based on evidence and legal standards, not emotion. The law requires nothing less.
Frazier, K. (2025, July 4). Facts about the shooting death of Sherman Lee Butler | Victoria Camille of CPTA speaks. Detroit Is Different. https://detroitisdifferent.com/facts-about-the-shooting-death-of-sherman-lee-butler-victoria-camille-of-cpta-speaks/
Comments