The Anderson Police Department’s Shooting of Nikolai Landry, a Person Living with a Developmental Disability

Latest News
Oct 13, 2021

The Anderson Police Department’s Shooting of Nikolai Landry, a Person Living with a Developmental Disability

Introduction

In the United States there is no database for tracking how many people with mental or developmental disabilities are killed or hurt by police each year. Studies show that the numbers are substantial – likely between one-third and one-half of total police killings1. Often, the disability is a form of mental illness that law enforcement is not understanding or responding to appropriately. The current model for policing is that law enforcement will respond to calls without identifying whether the subject’s behavior may be due to a mental illness or disability. Usually, it is not clear at the time of the initial call for service if the subject has a disability, but typically upon law enforcement’s contact with the person it can be determined if the person has a disability or is in a mental health crisis. Under current practice we have seen that people with disabilities are losing their lives to law enforcement at an alarmingly high rate. Contributing factors are a lack of understanding, a lack of training and failure to adapt the response when realizing that the subject of the call is a person with a disability. A report produced by the Ruderman Family Foundation explains that police are now the default responders to a person in a mental health crisis, and a person who is living with a psychiatric disability is presumed to be dangerous to themselves and others2. Law enforcement being the first, and often times only responding entity to a call for service for a person with a disability is proving to be dangerous. This was illustrated yet again when a disabled person in Anderson, California lost their life to law enforcement due to a fundamentally broken and negligent response.

Incident Summary

In 2019, Nikolai Landry was 27 years old and living with a developmental disability. He lived in a group home in Anderson. His group home was in a neighborhood with other single-family homes. He lived with other people with developmental disabilities, and the home had staff to help Nikolai and his roommates with their daily activities.

On June 1st, 2019, police officers with the Anderson Police Department (APD) in Northern California received a call for service3. This call was made by a person who saw a man (later determined to be Nikolai Landry) that appeared to be wearing handcuffs. While on the call, the reporting party sees the man walk into the backyard of a group home and tells the dispatcher this. Three APD officers respond to the call, and when they arrive to the home they locate Mr. Landry in the backyard of the group home. The APD officers are able to see that Mr. Landry has what looks like a handgun. The officers then take cover and draw their weapons.

One officer contacts the people inside of the residence and speaks to a staff member of the group home. The staff member explained that this is a home for persons with developmental disabilities and that Mr. Landry was a resident of the home and had a developmental disability. The staff member explained that she knew that Mr. Landry had the gun in the backyard and believed it was not a real gun based on the noise she heard it make. APD officers continued their commands to Landry and called for assistance from numerous other agencies in the area including California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the Shasta County Sheriff’s Department (SCSD). APD called SCSD for a less lethal shotgun as well as looked into opportunities to deploy a taser or K-9. While quickly calling in these other options, they still stayed positioned in the front yard of Mr. Landry’s home with a rifle pointed at his head, as he sat alone in his backyard. After about 20 minutes, Mr. Landry changed his position with the gun into what could be considered a more aggressive shooting position towards the officers. APD then fatally shot Mr. Landry in the head with his department issued AR-15. After the fatal shooting, APD recovered Mr. Landry’s gun, which was a non-lethal BB gun resembling a handgun

There are multiple opportunities in which APD failed to learn more about the situation upon arrival, change course of action, and call in additional resources, all while putting Mr. Landry in a situation where he surrounded by police officers with guns pointed at him and no mental health professionals there to help him in this moment of chaos. As a result of the current practice in which law enforcement is the primary responding entity to calls for service even when the subject has a disability, and the police department’s failure to change their strategy after learning that Mr. Landry had a disability, a young man was killed by police in his own backyard while holding a non-lethal BB gun. In 2015, the Washington Post reported that “nationwide, police have shot and killed 124 people this year … who were in the throes of mental or emotional crisis. The dead account for a quarter of the 462 people shot to death by police in the first six months of 2015.”4

APD Failure to Determine Type of Group Home

The reporting party told dispatch that they saw Mr. Landry walk into the backyard of a group home. There was no follow up by APD dispatch to the reporting party to get more information about what type of group home this was. The job of the police department is to keep their community safe, and by not exercising due diligence and investigating what type of group home they were responding to they put Mr. Landry in serious danger.

Per one APD officer’s statement, he was at the APD station when the call came in;

“I remember hearing the dispatcher say it was that he was acting strange and that he seen walking into a group home. I don’t know what kind of group home it was… I didn’t know if it as a juvenile group home, a recovering alcoholics group home, mental health group home.”

APD has the resources to learn more about the group home they are responding to. APD can pull details of previous calls for service to this address and learn that they are going into a home for persons with developmental disabilities. As stated above, the officers had no idea what type of group home this was as they were responding to the call. As a result, the officers saw Mr. Landry with what appeared to be a gun in the backyard prior to speaking with staff of the group home and finding out more information. When the call came out as a “suspicious” person walking in a neighborhood with handcuffs and then going into a group home, officers should learn as much as possible about the situation before arrival. Learning that Mr. Landry had a disability prior to APD’s arrival could have changed this outcome, but APD dispatch and officers failed to learn as much as they could prior to arrival.

APD Failure to Bring in Mental Health Professionals

Once APD had Mr. Landry at gunpoint in his own backyard, they did eventually learn that Mr. Landry had a developmental disability. Upon learning this, the only change by APD was to alter their commands to include phrasing relating to “not being there to hurt [Mr. Landry]”. This is not a justifiable effort at APD attempting to deescalate the situation. If APD either was able to effectively deescalate the situation, or bring in someone who is trained to do so, Mr. Landry could have walked away from this incident.  De-escalation training dramatically lowers the number of officer-involved-shootings. “A survey of 47 of the largest US law-enforcement agencies between 2015 and 2017 found that 39% changed their use-of-force policies in 2015–16 and revised their training to incorporate tactics such as de-escalation. Among the agencies surveyed, officer-involved shootings dropped by 21% during the study period.”5 APD had both CHP and SCSD to assist with the response. Between these three agencies, mental health resources such as a psychiatric emergency response team (PERT) or a crisis negotiator should have been made available as soon as APD learned that Mr. Landry had a disability and may have been experiencing a mental health crisis.

During the incident the staff member told APD that Mr. Landry was a resident of the home due to developmental disability. Once APD confirmed that Mr. Landry had a developmental disability and was living in the group home for that reason, APD failed to appropriately adapt to the situation and immediately call in mental health professionals. APD officers understood that Mr. Landry was in crisis and potentially suicidal. This is an example of the ongoing disconnect between law enforcement’s response and the needs of people with disabilities. From Mr. Landry’s perspective, he has multiple guns pointed at him, police yelling at him as well as giving commands over a PA system, and a helicopter above. This can be overwhelming and confusing for a person with a developmental disability, which is why bringing in a mental health professional could have prevented the death of Mr. Landry as they are better trained in communication.

Mr. Landry Was Never Given the Necessary Resources and Help by APD

When APD arrived at the home, the three officers were going to the front door to contact whoever was in the home. One officer saw Mr. Landry through an open gate in the backyard and could see what appeared to be a gun in his hand. The officer called out the gun, and prior to contacting who was in the home, the officers took cover and pulled out their weapons on Mr. Landry. As the incident moved on, Mr. Landry did not communicate with officers. APD had opportunities to back off of Mr. Landry, while still keeping the community safe.

Mr. Landry was isolated in his own backyard. APD learned that Mr. Landry had a developmental disability, as well as the fact that he lived in the group home and learned that nobody in the home was harmed or felt in danger by Mr. Landry whatsoever. APD was aware of self-injurious behaviors that Mr. Landry displayed earlier in the day and had reason to believe that Mr. Landry may have been suicidal, and not looking to harm others. By having Mr. Landry isolated in the backyard, a helicopter above with a visual on the situation, APD should have shifted focus on getting the neighboring residences evacuated if they were concerned about their safety, and given Mr. Landry space and waited for additional resources to respond (if they would have asked for them). By taking the tactical position APD did and having Mr. Landry at gunpoint, there were very limited outcomes of this incident with Mr. Landry being shot by APD being the highest probability. This supports findings from 2015 that “at least 25% of people who [were] shot and killed by police officers [had an] acute mental illness at the time of their death.”6 Local law enforcement is failing people with mental disabilities not only by disregarding the unique situation that is being presented, but failing to adapt and change the course of action to ensure that a person with a disability has the same opportunity for a safe outcome as a person without a disability when interacting with law enforcement.

Why This Shooting Was Previously Considered Justified Under California Law but Might Not Be So Today

After an investigation into Mr. Landry’s death, the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute any of the officers involved in the shooting. The statutory law in California today, as it pertains to police killings, is not the same as it was at the time of Mr. Landry’s death. Two sections of the California Penal Code deal with when homicide by peace officers is justifiable: section 196 and section 835a. When police shot and killed Mr. Landry, section 196 stated:

Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either

  1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,
  2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or,
  3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest.7

Additionally, section 835a consisted of just two brief paragraphs:

Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.

A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.8

Under California law at the time of Mr. Landry’s death, it is understood why this shooting was deemed lawful. A person pointed what appeared to be a gun at a police officer and he was shot and killed as a result. If we want this shooting to be considered unlawful we must look at the law itself.

In 2019, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 392, amending Penal Code sections 196 and 835a to redefine when homicides by peace officers are deemed justifiable. It removed parts 2 and 3 of section 196, instead referring to a broadly expanded section 835a that relies on a “totality of the circumstances” standard in determining when police killings can be justified. In the amended section, the Legislature stated, “As set forth below, it is the intent of the Legislature that peace officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case, and shall use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible to an objectively reasonable officer.” The section continues on to state “[t]hat individuals with physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities are significantly more likely to experience greater levels of physical force during police interactions, as their disability may affect their ability to understand or comply with commands from peace officers. It is estimated that individuals with disabilities are involved in between one-third and one-half of all fatal encounters with law enforcement.”9

Under this section as amended, a District Attorney could arguably decline to prosecute the officers responsible for Mr. Landry’s death. At the time of the shooting, APD claimed that they believed that Mr. Landry was pointing a real firearm at them. Although staff had told them it was not a real gun, since the APD officers in that moment could not prove it was a non-lethal firearm they asserted it was a real gun and by Mr. Landry pointing it at the officers it reached the threshold of using deadly force when it is in the defense of human life.

However, it is also possible that the Attorney General or District Attorney could prosecute the offices were this shooting to occur today. Given the circumstances of this incident, APD put themselves in a situation to have a person with a developmental disability point a non-lethal BB gun at them and in return they ended his life. APD had every opportunity to back away from Mr. Landry, and create a more strategic plan in which ending his life would be a last resort. He was not in a crowded park, he was not in a crowded mall, or in a confined space. Moreover, Mr. Landry was in the backyard of his own home, with what was reported by the staff members to be a toy gun, and he was experiencing a mental health crisis as stated by a staff member who was with him all day. APD’s failure to back off of Mr. Landry and reevaluate the situation led to the unnecessary and unjustified killing of a person with a disability in his own backyard. The threshold for human life must be held higher.

Opportunities for Change

Studies indicate that individuals with a mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed by police.10 The current practice of having law enforcement be the primary responding entity to a person with a disability is proving to be unsafe and often deadly. This is due in part to a lack of proper training and experience in working with persons with disabilities, a lack of understanding of what the person with a disability is going through in these moments, and the inability to identify and adapt policing tactics when working with persons with disabilities. Police academies spend over 100 hours conducting firearms training, but just eight hours on conflict management and mediation.  11However, more training for law enforcement will not fully solve these problems. Some of these functions must shift away from law enforcement. As a result of the high rates of death or injury to disabled people when police are called to assist, there must be a better response system in place for calls where the subject has a disability. Trained professionals who work with persons with disabilities will be better suited to communicate, understand, and be willing to work with a person with a disability in crisis than the current training and polices that law enforcement abide by. There must be a 24/7 on call service for in person field work to work with people who are in crisis and have a disability. Change is needed to keep people with disabilities safe. Current policing practices are often deadly to people with disabilities. It is already too late to protect Mr. Landry, but it is not too late to enact change to keep the millions of other Californians with disabilities safe from deadly police encounters.