Elise Bowden needlessly escalated a simple mistake into a confrontation between three police officers and a randomly chosen group of black people. In the course of the incident, one of the civilians was killed by another officer and Bowden was seriously injured. Her department chose to use her injuries to justify the shooting. Unusually, though, the court deciding whether the dead man’s family could sue chose to acknowledge her attempt to de-escalate the situation as it began to turn violent. Because of the unique quirks of the case, this makes Bowden a rare example of the “more reasonable officer” who is unlikely to ever face retaliation for her actions.
In February of 2017, Bowden mistook a piece of a plastic candy cane for a crack pipe when it was thrown out the window of a car. She called for backup, then pulled over Tavis Crane and his family. On seeing the other part of the candy cane, Bowden realized her mistake, but chose to hold the family while she conducted a warrant check. She discovered a small number of misdemeanor tickets and a possible felony probation violation, which Crane does not seem to have been aware of. Once the other officers arrived, all three returned to Crane’s car. An argument ensued; Crane wished to know what the tickets were about, was also concerned about bringing his daughter home to her mother, and generally did not wish to leave the relative safety of his car. As the argument progressed, one of the backup officers, Craig Roper, opened one of the back seat doors, drew his pistol, climbed over Crane’s pregnant girlfriend, pointed the gun at Crane, and grabbed Crane around or near his neck. As she, Roper and the other officer ordered Crane to turn his car off, Bowden moved around the back of the car, reached for Roper, and told him to “get out” of the car. During the ensuing struggle, the car began to move, striking Bowden twice, and Roper shot Crane four times. After stopping the car and exiting, Roper continued to shout at Crane’s unresponsive body as he died.
Because of her injuries, the Arlington police department chose to use Bowden as a prop to spin Crane as a dangerous criminal, rather than firing her in retaliation for her attempts to de-escalate. They may also have expected Crane’s family to name her as a defendant in the obviously imminent lawsuit, since she had created the overall situation by holding Crane after determining that she had been mistaken in pulling him over in the first place. The family, however, named only Roper and the city, and 5th Circuit expressly cited Bowden’s efforts to get Roper to leave the car in determining that Roper’s actions constituted an excessive use of force. It is unlikely at this point that Bowden will face retaliation for trying to save Crane’s life, unless she finds herself giving testimony favorable to Crane’s estate. Even if that occurs, it’s not clear how much scope for retaliation the department would have, since her injuries prevented her from remaining on the force. If she stays quiet or parrots the department analysis of Crane’s death, she will likely be free of the kind of continued harassment faced by, for example, Cariol Horne.