Deputy shoots Air Force Cop

[zespectre]

Former LEO chiming in.
I have worked with plenty of fine, dedicated officers.
I have worked with others who should have been removed from duty long ago.
I have also worked with short timers who really just didn't give a damn.
Happily the majority fit in the first category.

Cops are people and as such are all different and anyone who says "all cops..." is wrong right from the start.

Now as to what happened in this video... we don't know.

I can remember a similar situation (with a car theft). Myself and another officer had three guys on the ground and were waiting for backup. We had already found two weapons so it was a tense situation. I was standing back covering the situation and I thought I heard the other officer say "do NOT get up", but then I saw that subject getting up to his knees.

Well folks, I damn near shot the suspect before I realized that the other officer had him kneel so he could cuff him.

A little miscommunication/minunderstanding can have terrible results in a situation like that.

So what am I saying? I am saying that this situation needs to be investigated six-ways-from-sunday, but until it is people should wait a bit before flying to judgement.

 

[bwaites]

Samuel,

You make some good points. I would agree that "point of attack" decisions have to be made and sometimes they may be incorrect, so long as the response is justified by the previous action.

What in that videotape justifies that response?

The LEO tells him to get up, twice, he tells the LEO he is going to get up, starts to rise, makes no rapid movement, and is shot. Minus someone else on the scene seeing something else, this seems pretty cut and dried.

However, you did not answer my last question.

Same situation, a homeowner shoots, what and how do you respond as an LEO?

As for your question about a DUI, lots of professions censor or otherwise restrict the priviledges of someone so charged, doctors, nurses, attorneys, etc. are all held to a different standard. In Washington State, for instance, you may not even receive a license as a nurse if your past includes a DUI. Note the MAY part there, it was that way when I was intially licensed as a nurse, it may have changed since.

The fact that LEO's are held to a higher standard than the public is appropriate. If those charged with enforcing the law won't obey it, we would have chaos at best. The truth is, many, if not all, LEO's frequently break the speed limit while driving as civilians. In fact, I watch them pass me on the highway on their way to Starbucks in their official cars all the time. While I don't see this as a major issue, my teenagers certainly do, and convincing them that THEY should obey the speed limit while LEO's don't is not an easy task for their dad.

How do I know they are going to Starbucks? Because I see their car there when I get off at the next exit!

Once again, I'm not a cop baiter, I have VERY good friends who are LEO's and feel the same way I do about that type of behavior.

But if this was a homeowner, wouldn't he be in jail? Why is the standard different if he is an LEO?

Bill

 

[turbodog]

The difference I see between LEO and some other examples is that a doctor is not hired by the government to enforce actions against me.

So is this why I have never seen a plainclothes LEO stop someone for speeding?

Also, back to my real issue. The force escalation "thing". If I am reading this correctly, this "policy" can take someone who simply is ignoring commands and end up with them getting shot.

And for the record, I recognize that courtrooms and hindsight are a long way removed from the street. However, I also ask that LEO recognize that in the public's eye they are _supposed_ to be the trained professionals. They are around to preserve life/liberty/laws. If we wanted some untrained goon shooting everyone that didn't immediately 100% comply, we'd just hire thugs off the street.

Turbodog, any progressive LE agency is always reviewing and critiquing incidents and learning and adapting. Often, why or how we do something IS in direct response to "something bad" occurring (e.g. someone gets injured/killed, someone/something gets sued, etc). As you may or may not know "simple" traffic stops are one of the most dangerous events for LEOs - partially due to not immediately knowing who/what you're dealing with. In this case, the suspects ran - basically making it easy for the deputy to categorize them. In a situation like that, it is not MY habit/procedure to allow suspects, unsecured and unsearched, to get back up on their feet under their own power - we do not train that way. In addition, we Are trained Not to meet force/danger with equal or less force/danger (e.g. stick vs stick, knife vs knife, etc). And, perceived danger is in the eye of the beholder - the person actually involved in the incident. Which segues into my next reply.

 

[bwaites]

Turbo,

As I understand it, LEO's are not hired to "enforce" actions AGAINST you, but to "enforce" the law.

If you don't break that law, no action will be taken against you.

The reason this case appears so heinous is that the individual appears to be trying to follow a legal command and is STILL shot.

Bill

 

[HarryN]

Not withstanding the particular event under discussion, I think part of the difference of opinion is that many civilians do not agree with the Supreme Court's interpretations noted above, that only a Police officer present can make a viable opinion. Frankly, most civilians interpret such statements as justice system corruption, even if there is none intended or occurred.

Further, many civilians do not agree with the typical police policy of "Shoot to Stop" which really means "shoot to kill". While convenient for LEO, it is not what the average citizen wants the police to do in practice.

The LEO's do not want to hear it, but they also are naturally going to take the brunt of (some) civilian's distrust of the recent, rather dramatic, changes in privacy laws, such as the so called "Patriot Act" and the current NSA mess. These events simply do not inspire trust.

Concurring with some comments above, there are few citizens that would take the risk of standing up to a "perceived wrongdoing" by a LEO, because the potential ramifications are so severe. My family has personal exerience in this area, and I can tell you, my wife is practically a Puritan. I honestly think she couldn't lie to save her soul. I have seen plenty of "inaccurate" police reports, so what is written vs what actually happened doesn't mean much to me.

I would encourage the many, many honest and hard working LEO's who read this thread, to seriously consider strengthening the external oversight of your departments and situations. Failure to do so, will only weaken the very important positive relationship between generally well meaning and mostly law abiding citizens, and similar LE / justice system groups. The current path in this country is not conducive to such a relationship. Long term, you do not want the "average person" to substantially mistrust the justice system.

 

[Samuel]

http://videos.europeanwerks.com/clip3.avi

Same KTLA clip (sound edited) but a little higher quality (15 megs - loads at ~180 kb/sec)

bwaites, sorry, I had thought your question to be rhetorical. IMO, you are comparing apples and oranges (different scenarios). Let me say this, however, if that video clip (above) had been showing a "homeowner" (i.e. non-LEO, "citizen") detaining someone at gunpoint (and you already knew that at least one crime had been committed) and the scenario unfolded just the same, I STILL would NOT be able to formulate an solid opinion on whether or not it was reasonable for the homeowner to shoot that guy (based solely upon the video!).

Things that would help me reach a conclusion - me being there, being able to see a clear/stable picture of what was happening, being able to hear everything that was being said, being able to tell who was saying what, knowing what had transpired before the video tape was rolling, being able to interview/ask the deputy/homeowner why he shot , ETC.

And this is actually going into kind of a reply to turbodog too. Use of force reasonableness is based on a whole slew of factors/conditions. Articulation/explanation of what you did and why you did it is KEY (and I can't stress that enough).

Sometimes you could compare it to prosecuting for murder - if you don't have a victim/body, you'd better have a good supply of circumstantial evidence. Likewise, without an "obvious" or "overt" act upon the part of a BG (e.g. shooting a gun, throwing a punch, etc), you'll be basing your explanation on the "totality of the circumstances" which often involves things that might not show up on a video (even a clean, excellent quality video) - things that happened prior to the camera being turned on, things that are happening out of line of sight of the cameral lens, smaller minute details that a distant camera can't focus/pick up on (that people even standing next to you might not see), etc.

Sometimes these are the things that would need to be brought to light and explained in order for "things to make sense". At the same time however, some of the things that BG's intentionally do in preparation for or during an assault on LEOs, are unintentionally repeated by your average person - sometimes resulting in tragedy.

One example (quite a few years ago), my "daddy" and I are patrolling in one of our crappier areas around 2300 hours or so. While driving along, we see a young black male riding a bicycle wrong way on the road (same direction as us) and with no lights/reflectors. He turns back, sees us (oh sh1t look), and then suddenly cuts across the street - appearing as though he is about to attempt to run. So we quickly pull ahead in front, quickly exit the car and order him to stop and to keep his hands on the handlebars (where we could see them). Instead of following orders, he starts reaching into his right front sweatshirt jacket pocket (right hand reaching into the pocket and tugging at something while his left hand is holding the jacket still). Our guns are in our hands, fingers on triggers, muzzles up and on target, and we're moving laterally and forward yelling at him to stop. He's still tugging and, in the poor street lighting, I see the glint of something silver from that pocket.

It was only by the "grace of God" that we didn't shoot that kid that night. As it turns out, he didn't have ID, claimed he was a juvi, and had a can (silver) of alcohol in his pocket. He told us later that he was nervous and scared and didn't follow our commands because he just wanted to show us that all he had was a beer in his pocket (which he had been tasked to fetch by an uncle). In that instance, shooting him would have been a reasonable response - even though we would have discovered his unarmed nature later.

From a bouncing video camera, in poor lighting, with poor sound quality, shot from across the street at a different angle from our viewpoint, would a video tape have shown that? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[bwaites]

Samuel,

I would agree with your assessment of the video currently available, I have seen a couple enhanced and cleaned up versions, which interestingly have been pulled from the net.

My question remains though, if you saw a homeowner who had caught a burglar, and law enforcement had been called, regardless of his explanation of why he shot, and you saw as much as you have seen on the videotape, would you NOT arrest him? COULD you not arrest him?

My question is not whether he is guilty of attempted murder, but IF you could avoid arresting him. I have seen examples where the evidence was much more convincing that the homeowner acted in self defense, and STILL was arrested.

This video shows more than the Zapruder video, and Lee Harvey Oswald, it is widely believed, would have gone to the electric chair based on that video!

BTW, NO LEO has ever paid full price for one of my mods, so I won't cut you off!!:nana:

I don't want him to be guilty, because everytime an LEO does something wrong it weakens the system. But I also think that everyone should be treated the same under the law, and I don't think that is happening here.

Bill

 

[magic79]

I agree that the idea that "judgement can't be made if you aren't in the person's shoes" is not a good philosophy. There certainly seems to be an obvious problem with the resolution of this incident.

However, attempting to judge with little or no facts, stereotyping an entire force due to one or two anecdotes are the very reasons LEOs end up saying that.

"I think that salaries should be doubled and a comfortable retirement with insurance should be guaranteed. I also believe that training should be increased, especially in the realms of ethics, morals, and self control under stress."

I'm willing to bet, Nomad, that you have no idea what LEOs are currently paid, what their retirement and insurance is, and I doubt you have any knowledge at all about police training.

Unfortunately, a lot of politicians think the same way. "Give 'em more training"...throw money at it instead of trying to understand the problem.

In fact, the "bad" cops you describe, and this deputy, along with all the heros get the same training in California: it's prescribed by law. It's not foolproof and never will be, despite money thrown at it without understanding it.

If you would like to see what training California officers are required by the CA Police Officers Standards and Training (POST), you can find it here, beginning with section PC 832:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=924015446+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

"More training" is not the answer. The "Right Training" is the answer.

 

[Wolfen]

Samuel,

I would agree with your assessment of the video currently available, I have seen a couple enhanced and cleaned up versions, which interestingly have been pulled from the net.

My question remains though, if you saw a homeowner who had caught a burglar, and law enforcement had been called, regardless of his explanation of why he shot, and you saw as much as you have seen on the videotape, would you NOT arrest him? COULD you not arrest him?

My question is not whether he is guilty of attempted murder, but IF you could avoid arresting him. I have seen examples where the evidence was much more convincing that the homeowner acted in self defense, and STILL was arrested.

This video shows more than the Zapruder video, and Lee Harvey Oswald, it is widely believed, would have gone to the electric chair based on that video!

BTW, NO LEO has ever paid full price for one of my mods, so I won't cut you off!!:nana:

I don't want him to be guilty, because everytime an LEO does something wrong it weakens the system. But I also think that everyone should be treated the same under the law, and I don't think that is happening here.

Bill

Bill, am I correct in my thinking that you want the Officer arrested and charged with a crime before the investigation is completed? Few prosecutors are willing to do that. Maybe if you give them a call and let them know how upset you are they will throw him in the slammer for you :nana:

 

[raggie33]

i dont like police no more they suck but some are alright but theyre treatment of the mentaly ill is digusting but some are good but some are bad

 

[bwaites]

Wolfen,

No, I want him treated the same as any citizen who did the same with police as witnesses.

What would that be? That's all I asked.

BTW, an ordinary citizen WOULD be arrested and put in jail BEFORE the investigation was completed, wouldn't he? At least that's the way I read it int he papers. "John Doe was arrested pending the results of the investigation, currently being performed by the ... Dept."

Bill

 

[bwaites]

Samuel,

BTW, I have enjoyed reading your responses.

They are rational, reasonable, and helpful.

They pertain to the incident, seem insightful, and put a different light on the issues.

I recognize and admire the exemplary job that the great majority of LEO's perform, and I'm happy to support them in everything I can, but just like doctors who erroneously jump to the defense of their colleagues, I see too many LEO's who do the same.

Sometimes they screw up, and waiting for the "I have to have all the evidence" brigade seems a little out of character for the same guys who don't seem to need much evidence when it suits their fancy.

The audio in your clip was the best I've heard, even if the cleaned up video on some of the others was better.

I see both hands, I see his face, I'm not sure what is happening with his legs, but I don't think he is about to pull a gun with them, and he certainly does not seem at all aggressive to me.

Bill

 

[Topper]

I watched it a few times. It looks bad to me. That does not meen I do not support LEO's after all the guy on the ground trying to do what he was told is also LEO for the United States Air Force who recently served in Iraq. He was not even the driver. Looks bad.
Topper

 

[Wolfen]

Wolfen,

BTW, an ordinary citizen WOULD be arrested and put in jail BEFORE the investigation was completed, wouldn't he? At least that's the way I read it int he papers. "John Doe was arrested pending the results of the investigation, currently being performed by the ... Dept."

Bill

Bill, if they arrest him then he can invoke his right to remain silent. If he is not arrested he has no such right and can be compelled to speak to the investigators.

If he is then charged his statement before he was mirandizied could not be used against him in a court of law but could be used for disciplinary action (firing, suspensions etc).

Investigating units in charge don't want to rush and screw up the investigation. Also the FBI is making noise. The FBI do not like to make mistakes and will take all the time that is necessary to insure a complete investigation.



Then there is the civil lawsuit...

 

[Samuel]

Hey Bill,

Use of Force is not a simple, cut and dried subject and even legitimate/reasonable uses of force often "look" bad on film so I can certainly understand why people (including other LEOs) might believe the worst case scenario in this incident.

In CA, the only time I really "must" arrest is in domestic violence related situations. If I came across a situation where let's say a homeowner shot at a BG and I believed that it was reasonable for the homeowner to shoot, then no, I wouldn't arrest him (even if he killed the BG). Now, I might detain the homeowner (even in cuffs) until I could figure out what had happened, but I wouldn't necessarily immediately arrest him... Not sure if that's what you were looking for...

Btw, if more LEOs started using your mods and/or the mods from this site, we'd probably have some "permanent impairment of vision" lawsuits going on (might have to create a whole new category in our force options chart for photonic emission "weapons"). I can just see the ACLU and Amnesty International now, claiming we use our modded lights as instruments of optical orb torture or to inflict 3rd degree burns on the exposed skin of their clients...

Magic, POST academy training is really a bare bare minimum. You have to accommodate for the lowest common denominator (the recruits who have little or no prior LE work experience, knowledge) and cover just the basics. Likewise in DT or weapons training, we have to accommodate the recruits who have never held a gun before, who have never even played a contact sport (much less been in one or more fights), who may have been taught to fight/play fair and honorably while growing up, etc and again bring them up to a basic level (really really basic). When you graduate the academy, you really are Not ready, you've just been given a foundation from which to build. IMO, the answer actually is both MORE and GOOD training (I take the "right" training to be a given).

 

[cratz2]

To be honest, I haven't seen it so I obviously cannot pass judgement. Furthermore, I wasn't there and I have enough clarity remaining to know that what seems to be going on often isn't what is actually going on.

Having said that, the reason folks are trained to keep their fingers off the trigger is because accidental discharges (or negligent discharges as many gun folks, myself included, prefer to call them as they are NOT 'accidents' at all) happen all the time... even with LEOs. I personally know of two officers here that have had unplanned or untimely discharges during hostile situations... No one was wounded, but the fact is, the gun went off because pressure was applied to the trigger when a firing wasn't the intent.

I assume since three shots were fired in this incident (I think) this wasn't accidental... Hell, if the guy shot three times without meaning to, he needs to be dismissed and banned from LEO positions FOREVER!

 

[raggie33]

i am sorry i made the cops suck post some are very good.i sholdnty let the actions of a few make up my mind

 

[Samuel]

Hi Bill,

I am actually discussing this topic on a couple of LE forums as well and many/most of the replies or general consensus mirrors what many have posted here.

I've read all the responses here and, while I may not agree with them all, I am also thankful for the relative civility of the discussion. I think the other LEOs who have posted have made some excellent points and I appreciate the opinions and comments by non-LEOs as well. Prior to me becoming sworn, I would probably have viewed the video and also quickly come to the conclusion that there was definite wrong doing by the deputy.

I also liked Harry's post. Communication/understanding is a two way street. It's easy to hate/distrust(insert your verb of choice here) something you don't know/understand. Sometimes people aren't willing to make an effort to understand. Sometimes people with answers don't make the effort to explain to those with questions. In my own experience, if/when I have time to do so, explaining Why has helped in my dealings with inmates/criminals, the public, as well as co-workers.

There are certainly times when I've caught myself "jumping ahead" - often forgetting that the source(s) (usually the media) upon which I'm basing my opinions may not be accurate enough for me to form a well-educated viewpoint. Sometimes I have even found myself thinking one way or another (losing impartiality more quickly) about someone/something due to personal biases or stereotypes or previous experiences.

Before I became sworn, I worked quite a few different jobs in quite a few different fields (some more white collar, some more blue, some kind of menial, mostly customer service related). Now, when I come into contact with people in those lines of work, I can better relate to them (usually) because I've BTDT. I consider LE to be a more atypical type of job so it's a little harder for most people to really identify/understand.

Like Dano (and everyone else), I am awaiting the final outcome/findings of this incident. I am hoping for the best but fearing the worst...

 

[CLHC]

The person who taped this incident was arrested today by Pomona police for "aggravated assault with a firearm," and is wanted by Miami-Dade County Florida. Interesting. . .

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20060203/43e434d0_3ca6_1552620060204-160141356

 

[Navck]

My mother was pulled over randomly and for no reason
Imagine this, you pull upto a trafic light at normal speed, a cop then tails you 5 seconds later, when the light turns green, you accelerate with everyone else, then he turns his siren on for the guy next to you (Right), he pulls over, then the cop motions for YOU (Yes, for no reason), and pulls you over.
Guy infront argues

My mother, in this situation, just accepted the ticket
400 dollar traffic school sentence

Welcome to California.