Earlier this week, we ran a story about the lawsuit that Attorney Stewart Katz filed on behalf of John Hesselbein.
The lawsuit was filed a few weeks after Sacramento District Attorney Jan Scully sent an 11-page letter to the Elk Grove Police Department that exonerated police officers – at least criminally – for shooting a suspect who was handcuffed and seated in the back of a patrol car.
Mr. Katz disputed the finding by the Sacramento DA, calling the officer’s action “unreasonable,” given the situation, and also likened it to an execution attempt.
“You couldn’t have Tasered him – instead of lining up your shot with his head?” he told the Bee.
“If you have time to have this discussion with him, you obviously had time to take affirmative steps … short of trying to kill him,” Mr. Katz added. “This isn’t like ‘I saw the motion and reacted instantly.’ They’re literally talking about it.”
Our story generated a number of questions about the incident. The Vanguard was provided by Mr. Katz with a full record to evaluate.
Of particular interest are the statements of Officer Paul Beckham of the Elk Grove Police Department who met with Detective Darlington who was conducting the investigation.
Present during the interview was Detective James Kang and Officer Beckham’s attorney, Christopher Miller.
It is interesting to note, “As per Elk Grove Police Department Policy No. 310. Officer Beckham was advised that he was not in custody” and that he was free to leave the interview. He was advised that he was not obligated to answer incriminating questions. He was further advised that any voluntary statement provided by him would be made available for inclusion in the Administrative or other related investigations.”
They were dispatched to the address. They were told “that the male had recently been released from prison for homicide, and that he was a former gang member.”
Furthermore, they learned that he was inside the residence and possibly had a gun.
None of this would prove to be accurate, but it is important to understand the mindset for which the police approached this incident.
One of the questions is why did the officer have a rifle. It appears that he grabbed the rifle as they approached the residence.
“There was a silver Dodge pickup parked in a driveway and it appeared to be in a good position to see the front part of the residence, without exposing ourselves,” the report says. “Sergeant Iannone asked me to deploy my LER (law enforcement rifle), or long-range rifle, which I store in my trunk in a rifle case. I grabbed the weapon, inserted a magazine, charged the weapon, and put it on safe.”
Officer Jimenez reported to Officer Beckham that he saw the guy come out of the house with a gun and made threats. He said, “Jimenez seemed concerned about it. That’s why we were taking such a long approach to get to the pickup and making a tactical approach. Jimenez was pretty certain that the guy had a gun.”
When they entered the home, “We only found a small child in one of the bedrooms, We did not find a gun, but I still think there was a gun In the house, we just couldn’t find it.”
There are also questions that arise about the search. The statement from Officer Andrew Bornhoeft, who conducted the search, is important to put into context.
He described the arrest, “Sergeant Iannone then said that I was to handcuff the suspect. Sergeant Iannone and Officer Diaz walked up to the suspect with me. The subject kept fidgeting around, he kept moving his hands and I told him to stop moving his hands.”
“Officer Diaz also told the suspect to keep his hands still. I had to say this repeatedly, so did Officer Diaz and Sergeant Iannone, Sergeant Iannone said that he was switching from his handgun to his Taser. Officer Diaz had his gun out. All three of us were In full police uniform. We approached the suspect from behind him. Finally, I was able to successfully handcuff the suspect.”
He notes, “I didn’t double-lock his handcuffs though because of the need for speed to get him out of the area. It was because we were in a vulnerable [sic] from the position because we were right in front of the suspect’s house. We did not clear the house yet. We didn’t know who was inside. It there was someone in there with a gun, then we were highly vulnerable at this point.”
This becomes the genesis of his concern about the lack of proper search. He said, “Therefore, I searched the suspect and got him out of there as soon as possible. I searched him thoroughly but as quickly as possible.”
He continued, “I asked him if he had any guns or knives. He said no. I asked him if he was Johnny Hesselbein and he said he was. As I searched I felt that there was a cell phone in his right, rear pants pocket. In his left, rear pants pocket, I felt something that felt like a small stack of business cards. I didn’t know what was but I was sure that neither the cell phone nor the business cards were weapons. I didn’t take these items out at the time because of the necessity to get away from this vulnerable location as soon as possible. The longer we were there with the suspect in front of the house, the more vulnerable the officers with me were. I knew that these small items were not a threat so I did not pull them out of his pockets at that point.”
It was later that he became concerned that since the suspect had on baggy pants that he could have been hiding a small weapon in his crotch.
Officer Beckham meanwhile reported that they cleared the house and found no further threats, and by this point the subject was in the backseat of the car. While they gathered, “I saw that the indicator light on my in-car camera was still on. I felt the scene was contained and there was no more need to keep it on. I walked over to the car and turned off the in-car camera. I normally do this when I determine that there’s no more need for the in-car camera.”
Now he heard yelling from inside the patrol vehicle but could not understand what was being said.
He said, “I saw that Officer Robinson was looking in the rear seat area. I then heard someone say something to effect that ‘he still has a gun.’ I figured the reason we didn’t find the gun in the house was because he still had the gun on him.”
So, the mistaken belief that there was a gun contributed to the officer’s misreading of the current situation.
He continued, “The entire time Officer Robinson had his gun out and was pointing it back toward the backseat of the car with the light on. I could hear more yelling from inside the vehicle but I could not understand what was being said.”
Here is a critical point, “I went over to the passenger’s side rear door of the patrol vehicle and used my long-range rifle to cover Officer Robinson as he approached the passenger’s side rear door. Someone, I don’t know who, opened the rear passenger door.”
So now, clearly, the rear passenger door was open.
He continued, “I could see the subject laying [sic] down in the seat, kind of horizontal in the backseat. His rear end was toward the center and he was on his left side. I could not see his hands, but they were in back of him.”
“At that point, I could only see his shoulders making a shrugging movement up and down. It concerned me and the movement suggested to me that he was trying to get something out of his waistband, possibly a gun. I believed that he still had a weapon or a gun on him,” Officer Beckham stated.
“I heard Officer Robinson tell the subject several times to stop moving. I came up to the passenger door to get a better view,” he said. “At about that time I heard Sergeant Iannone ask Drew (Officer Bornhoelt) if he had searched the guy. He asked if he had checked the waistband to make sure he didn’t have a gun in his pants. I heard Officer Bornhoeft say, “I think I did.” He didn’t sound very certain.”
“I knew that we needed to figure out a way to get the guy out of the back of the patrol car to check to see if he still had a gun on him or to get the gun away from him,” he continued.
“Officer Robinson said something about this guy was trying to get shot. Officer Robinson told the guy several times to stop moving. I also told him several times to stop moving or he was going to get shot, but he continued to keep moving. He was moving his hands toward his waistband and I told him to stop at least two times. He continued to move his hands towards his waistband and I told him for a third time in a way that he might understand,” the officer said.
Here was a critical moment, “I told him to stop reaching towards his waistband or he was going to get his grape peeled. What I meant was that if he kept reaching into his waistband that he was going to get shot.”
He continued, “The suspect looked directly at me and then made one final hard effort putting his hands down his pants. At that time, I was certain that he had gotten a gun and was about to use it. I came up with my rifle and got my sight picture of his head and took one shot. The subject slumped over and stopped moving. I heard Sergeant Iannone call for Code 3 Fire.”
Officer Beckham would also state, “As we were taking him out of the back of the patrol car, he started yelling that it hurt and he couldn’t breathe. He said something to the fact that I did the right thing and that he could have had a gun. At one point he also said that he did not want to live.”
So what do we have here? Those who state that the guy brought this on himself are not wrong. He was drunk and belligerent. In fact, he remained drunk and belligerent even going to the hospital.
But did he need to be shot? One of the crucial questions is over how long a period of time did this occur. After all, had the incident described by the officer happened over a few seconds, it might be more justified to use lethal force.
That does not however, appear to be the case. According to the best information, he was in the back of that car for about seven minutes.
During that time, various officers go over and either look into the backseat of the vehicle or talk to him.
They are discussing what they believe he has said (none of them agree what he said in their reports) and what they should do.
I spoke with a number of law enforcement people and showed them this report. None of them wanted to go on the record, however, they made a number of points that ought to be considered.
The “grape peeled” comment is interesting in that if you look at the entire tone of Officer Beckham’s statement it stands out. He obviously recognized that this quote would be remembered both by the suspect as well as his fellow officers, and put it out there so as to potentially diffuse the situation, but it does give us an insight into his mindset at the time – which was apparently agitation that this individual was being difficult.
Another retired law enforcement officer noted that deadly force should be used as a last resort and that the police always had the advantage in this case as the suspect was in handcuffs, previously searched and in the parole car.
The suspect could have been Tasered, maced, dragged out of the car by the officer, or could have had his hands secured, thus preventing him from either reaching a gun, obtaining a gun or effectively pointing a gun.
There was a considerable amount of time and discussion, and yet never did the police attempt to use any type of lower force, no Taser, no pepper spray, no batons and no other non-lethal force.
Even the final movement had him simply reaching his hands down his pants, and unless he had firm control of a weapon, he would not have been able to use it had they attempted non-lethal means.
“The judge of if this was reasonable is ‘would an officer with the same amount of training and experience do the same thing in the same situation.’ I am pretty sure you could not find one cop that would shoot a handcuffed suspect that had been searched and put in a patrol car without ever seeing a gun or having a gun pointed at them or having a gun fired at them,” the former law enforcement officer told me.
Clearly, one could find a number of officers in Elk Grove who would justify that use of force in a minute.
The bottom line, from the police’s description, is that they had plenty of time to use other means. It was not a situation where he suddenly grabbed a gun and they had to react.
What becomes clear is that this incident is driven by several key factors and mistakes.
First, the initial 911 report was inaccurate. He was not just out of prison, he was not a convicted murderer. He was in prison for an involuntary manslaughter charge when he was a teenager.
That created a mindset in the police about how this guy would respond. As did the fact that there was a gun reported by the wife, when there was not.
Second, we have the search. It is somewhat understandable that, in a vulnerable position, the police would attempt a quicker search. However, why they did not follow it up with a more thorough one is still on them. The lingering doubts that they missed a gun obviously fuel this.
Third, you have the non-cooperation by the subject which obviously drives the second part of this. However, with more accurate information and a proper search, his behavior would have been treated as a nuisance rather than a threat. That should not let him off the hook, but he did bring some of this upon himself.
Finally, the police took their time in assessing the situation and then they suddenly shot him. Given the interactions, if they had doubts as to whether or not he had a weapon, they should have formed a plan, Tasered him or hit him with pepperspray, and then dragged him out of the vehicle and re-searched him.
I will add that some have noted that the suspect himself said he did not blame the officer for shooting him. But that comes from the officer who fired the shot. We have no way of knowing whether that actually happened or whether the officer is simply trying to justify his actions.
The DA might not be wrong to clear the police of criminal conduct, but it seems likely that the City of Elk Grove will have to pay some sort of settlement on this one.
I think Mr. Katz was correct when he asked, “You couldn’t have Tasered him – instead of lining up your shot with his head?”
“If you have time to have this discussion with him, you obviously had time to take affirmative steps … short of trying to kill him,” Mr. Katz added. “This isn’t like ‘I saw the motion and reacted instantly.’ They’re literally talking about it.”
There is certainly enough information now known to at least question this matter further, rather than close the case.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I think it is completely irrelevant whether or not the suspect said he did not blame the policeman for shooting him.
Are we now going to start justifying police action on the basis of the suspects impression of it’s appropriateness? Will the police be as accepting of the suspects point of view if he claims brutality ? I think not.
Points to consider
1. The call to police, even though it was incorrect. The officers didn’t know that at the time.
2. The guy simulated a gun and said, “I got something for ya.”
3. Officer Jimenez tells Officer Beckham he saw the suspect with a gun.
4. Once the suspect is in the back seat Officer Beckham hears Officer Robinson say something to the effect that “he still has a gun.”
5. Officer Bornhoelt is asked if he searched the guy and he responds “I think I did.”
6. Officer Beckham knows the guy needs to pulled out of the car and re-searched.
7. While standing at the open door the suspect is reaching into his pants where a gun would be. Not only is he reaching he is refusing to comply to multiple demands to stop reaching.
Here is the question. Is it reasonable for officer Beckham, given the information he had at the time, to believe his life is was in danger.
It is always possible for the police to go with a lower level of force, but sometimes that wouldn’t make sense. If the officers thought the guy had a can of pepper spray in his pants I would totally agree with DG that he didn’t need to be shot. Officer Beckham thought he had a gun.
Were mistakes made, perhaps. I like to ask the “but for” question. But for this action this incident would not have occurred. If the suspect would not have acted in the manner that he did he would not have been shot in the face.
[quote]Statements by Officer in Elk Grove Shooting Open Door For Skepticism About Official Claims[/quote]
Actually I think the statements by officer Beckham clear up why he took the action he did.
[quote]One of the questions is why did the officer have a rifle. [/quote]
Because he was told the suspect had a gun?
[quote]So, the mistaken belief that there was a gun contributed to the officer’s misreading of the current situation.[/quote]
And your point is?
[quote]Second, we have the search. It is somewhat understandable that, in a vulnerable position, the police would attempt a quicker search. However, why they did not follow it up with a more thorough one is still on them. The lingering doubts that they missed a gun obviously fuel this.[/quote]
In hindsight, which is always 20/20, the police should have done a more thorough search once they had the suspect outside the perimeter of the house but before they put him in the patrol car. However, they thought they had searched him well enough – it was the defendant himself who put the doubt into the minds of the police officer by refusing to obey the officers and making as if he was reaching for something in his pocket.
[quote]The “grape peeled” comment is interesting… [/quote]
The one problem I have w this language is that I am not sure the defendant would necessarily know what the officer meant, especially in a drunken state. So I will have to assume the officer used other language that make it clear to the suspect that he was to cease reaching for something in his pants.
[quote]”The judge of if this was reasonable is ‘would an officer with the same amount of training and experience do the same thing in the same situation.’ I am pretty sure you could not find one cop that would shoot a handcuffed suspect that had been searched and put in a patrol car without ever seeing a gun or having a gun pointed at them or having a gun fired at them,” the former law enforcement officer told me.[/quote]
But unless law enforcement is willing to go on record, we will never know if your guess is accurate, unless and until it is adjudicated in civil court…
[quote]Third, you have the non-cooperation by the subject which obviously drives the second part of this. However, with more accurate information and a proper search, his behavior would have been treated as a nuisance rather than a threat. That should not let him off the hook, but he did bring some of this upon himself.[/quote]
No kidding! However, I would make one comment here. Law enforcement is supposed to be trained on how to deal w drunks. I have no idea what the police policies are, but it would be interesting to know…
[quote]Finally, the police took their time in assessing the situation and then they suddenly shot him. [/quote]
They didn’t just suddenly shoot him. As you noted “There was a considerable amount of time and discussion…”, they tried to get the defendant to cooperate in keeping his hands away from his pocket, but he went for his pocket anyway.
[quote]I will add that some have noted that the suspect himself said he did not blame the officer for shooting him. But that comes from the officer who fired the shot. We have no way of knowing whether that actually happened or whether the officer is simply trying to justify his actions.[/quote]
I do not believe this is a correct analysis. The defendant, in so far as I am aware, is not disputing that he said something or did something to make the officer believe he was reaching for a gun. Secondly, it does not seem reasonable the police would use deadly force just because, where the defendant did nothing to provoke the situation. Even the Vanguard concedes the defendant “did bring some of this on himself”. Thirdly, there is also the possibility laid out, albeit by the officer, that perhaps the defendant was trying to commit “suicide by cop”. I haven’t heard the defendant dispute this either.
[quote]The DA might not be wrong to clear the police of criminal conduct, but it seems likely that the City of Elk Grove will have to pay some sort of settlement on this one.[/quote]
On what grounds? What are normal police procedures in a situation like this, if you know?
[quote]The DA might not be wrong to clear the police of criminal conduct…
There is certainly enough information now known to at least question this matter further, rather than close the case…[/quote]
You’ve contradicted yourself. You concede there was probably no criminal wrongdoing, the DA was not wrong to clear the police of criminal wrongdoing, but then seem to be saying the case shouldn’t be closed. Which is it? As for bringing a civil case, that is up to the defendant, if he thinks he has a case. I don’t see it here, but he is free to try if he has a willing lawyer to represent him…
“1. The call to police, even though it was incorrect. The officers didn’t know that at the time.”
Right, so that is on the complainer. She definitely has a lot of culpability here.
“2. The guy simulated a gun and said, “I got something for ya.””
If he did that.
“3. Officer Jimenez tells Officer Beckham he saw the suspect with a gun.”
Which is a mistake by Jimenez
“4. Once the suspect is in the back seat Officer Beckham hears Officer Robinson say something to the effect that “he still has a gun.””
So that is on Robinson.
“5. Officer Bornhoelt is asked if he searched the guy and he responds “I think I did.””
That gets to the point about the inadequate search.
“6. Officer Beckham knows the guy needs to pulled out of the car and re-searched.”
Yes, but he never attempts to do that – why?
“7. While standing at the open door the suspect is reaching into his pants where a gun would be. Not only is he reaching he is refusing to comply to multiple demands to stop reaching.”
Which is why I question why the first use of force was a gun rather than a taser or pepper spray.
“Is it reasonable for officer Beckham, given the information he had at the time, to believe his life is was in danger. “
Here is how I respond to that, at the point at which he shot the gun, he may well have been justified, but to get to that point, they missed a number of chances to defuse it with lower levels of force, they miscalculated, they relied on bad information both from the caller and themselves, and they failed to properly search him.
[quote]Here is the question. Is it reasonable for officer Beckham, given the information he had at the time, to believe his life is was in danger.[/quote]
Nail hit squarely on head…
[quote]”The suspect looked directly at me and then made one final hard effort putting his hands down his pants. At that time, I was certain that he had gotten a gun and was about to use it.[/quote]
Recall the Resonable Officer Standard, based on the totality of the circumstances…(based on available information here, a mistake of fact, alone does not necessarily deem the officer’s actions as unreasonble).
[quote]However, with more accurate information and a proper search, [/quote]
Interesting comment in light of the FACT, that a proper search did actually occur. i.e., there was no firearm. Yet the author continues to portray the story as if there was an improper search – Why???
[quote]I think Mr. Katz was correct when he asked, “You couldn’t have Tasered him – instead of lining up your shot with his head?”[/quote]
Unless of course, Katz is pandering….why would an attorney (supposedly schooled in this area of law) assert that the officer was mandated to enter the ladder of force at a lower level?
Permit me to suggest anyone, with the time, that is really interested in this subject matter — read case law…
Elaine:
“Because he was told the suspect had a gun? “
No, as each law enforcement person I talked to told me, you don’t use a rifle for close in situations, too easy to grab and too unwieldy. The reason he had a rifle is he took a position of defense when they first entered the house and kept it through out the incident even when a hand gun would have been the better weapon.
“And your point is? “
The point being that the police made repeated assumptions that there was a weapon in part based on the initial report that was eroneous.
“In hindsight, which is always 20/20, the police should have done a more thorough search once they had the suspect outside the perimeter of the house but before they put him in the patrol car. “
That’s not a hindsight judgment. They can get sued in this case for failure to do a proper search, it happens all the time.
“they thought they had searched him well enough”
Actually he never thought he did it well enough because he thought the guy could be hiding a weapon in his crotch.
“The one problem I have w this language is that I am not sure the defendant would necessarily know what the officer meant, especially in a drunken state. So I will have to assume the officer used other language that make it clear to the suspect that he was to cease reaching for something in his pants. “
Actually the law enforcement officers were very clear on this point that, normally if the police have their wits on them, they refrain from that kind of language. The language is indicative that he lost his composure, that the guy got under his skin. That he saw the defiance as an afront, rather than a drunk guy simply acting up. The fact that it does not match the tone of the rest of the account is also telling.
“They didn’t just suddenly shoot him. As you noted “There was a considerable amount of time and discussion…”, they tried to get the defendant to cooperate in keeping his hands away from his pocket, but he went for his pocket anyway. “
And the point is that had they acted more quickly initially they could have prevented that final act that led to the shot.
“The defendant, in so far as I am aware, is not disputing that he said something or did something to make the officer believe he was reaching for a gun.”
We have no idea on this.
“it does not seem reasonable the police would use deadly force just because, where the defendant did nothing to provoke the situation. Even the Vanguard concedes the defendant “did bring some of this on himself”.”
I don’t dispute that his lack of compliance brought this about, the question is whether or not what he did warranted the level of response that he got.
“Thirdly, there is also the possibility laid out, albeit by the officer, that perhaps the defendant was trying to commit “suicide by cop”. I haven’t heard the defendant dispute this either. “
The defendant hasn’t said anything to my knowledge at all.
“You concede there was probably no criminal wrongdoing”
Elaine, I said the DA “might not be wrong” that is a far cry from “conceding there was PROBABLY no criminal wrongdoing.” Which is it? Learn to properly quote me, that’s what it is.
[quote]Here is how I respond to that, at the point at which he shot the gun, he may well have been justified, but to get to that point, they missed a number of chances to defuse it with lower levels of force, they miscalculated, they relied on bad information both from the caller and themselves, and they failed to properly search him.
[/quote]
DG – not to be curt, but dude, you [i]really[/i] need to read caselaw…
[quote]he may well have been justified[/quote]
Look at what you penned above…
If he was “JUSTIFIED,” then it would seem to me that he acted as reasonably prudent police officer under the same or similar circumstaces, no?
DMG,
“at the point at which he shot the gun, he may well have been justified, but to get to that point, they missed a number of chances to defuse it with lower levels of force, they miscalculated.”
I think the point, as others have noted, is that the officers may have made “mistakes” (ie unsure about the thoroughness of the search) leading up to the shooting, however that does not mean the use of lethal force was either unreasonable or unlawful given the totality of the circumstances.
If this is the case and the officer is justified, what then would be the next step in preventing similar incidents from taking place?
“One of the crucial questions is over how long a period of time did this occur. After all, had the incident described by the officer happened over a few seconds, it might be more justified to use lethal force.
That does not however, appear to be the case. According to the best information, he was in the back of that car for about seven minutes.”
The amount of time the suspect was in the vehicle could have been 6 minutes and 45 seconds, but the incident may have quickly escalated to a life threatening one in 15 seconds.
Ad Remmer: When I said he may well have been…, I was simply not precluding the possibility. I don’t think we have enough information.
Super: I agree with you: “is that the officers may have made “mistakes” (ie unsure about the thoroughness of the search) leading up to the shooting, however that does not mean the use of lethal force was either unreasonable or unlawful given the totality of the circumstances.”
I’m not positive that that is the case however. You still have a subject who is handcuffed, he is in the back of a police car, even if he has a weapon, he has limited ability at best to fire and aim it, etc.
“The amount of time the suspect was in the vehicle could have been 6 minutes and 45 seconds, but the incident may have quickly escalated to a life threatening one in 15 seconds. “
While that’s true it doesn’t appear that it happened that way. If they had hit him with pepper spray or a taser when they first opened the door, they could have gotten him out of the car without incident. Instead, they waited around until a point in which one officer felt he had no choice but to shoot him with a rifle.
[quote]Right, so that is on the complainer. She definitely has a lot of culpability here. [/quote]
How is that relevant to the discusssion?
[quote]”6. Officer Beckham knows the guy needs to pulled out of the car and re-searched.”
Yes, but he never attempts to do that – why? [/quote]
Because he didn’t want to get near enough to the suspect to get shot?
[quote]”7. While standing at the open door the suspect is reaching into his pants where a gun would be. Not only is he reaching he is refusing to comply to multiple demands to stop reaching.”
Which is why I question why the first use of force was a gun rather than a taser or pepper spray. [/quote]
To get near enough to the suspect to taser him, the officer would have had to expose his body to the range of a gun?
[quote]However, with more accurate information and a proper search,
Interesting comment in light of the FACT, that a proper search did actually occur. i.e., there was no firearm. Yet the author continues to portray the story as if there was an improper search – Why??? [/quote]
It was the defendant’s actions that put doubt in the officer’s mind remember…
[quote]I think Mr. Katz was correct when he asked, “You couldn’t have Tasered him – instead of lining up your shot with his head?”
Unless of course, Katz is pandering.[/quote]
Katz is defending his client – w whatever he has got – which isn’t much!
[quote]”In hindsight, which is always 20/20, the police should have done a more thorough search once they had the suspect outside the perimeter of the house but before they put him in the patrol car. ”
That’s not a hindsight judgment. They can get sued in this case for failure to do a proper search, it happens all the time. [/quote]
It entirely depends on the situation. I could easily argue the police did a thorough and complete search. But the defendant put the doubt in their minds by his own actions…
[quote]And the point is that had they acted more quickly initially they could have prevented that final act that led to the shot. [/quote]
Acted more quickly initially? Done what exactly more quickly?
[quote]”The defendant, in so far as I am aware, is not disputing that he said something or did something to make the officer believe he was reaching for a gun.”
We have no idea on this. [/quote]
Are you trying to actually argue the defendant did nothing to contribute to this mess? Even you conceded the defendant to some extent brought this on himself. Are you changing your story now?
[quote]”Thirdly, there is also the possibility laid out, albeit by the officer, that perhaps the defendant was trying to commit “suicide by cop”. I haven’t heard the defendant dispute this either. ”
The defendant hasn’t said anything to my knowledge at all. [/quote]
The defendant’s silence on this subject is telling…
[quote]Elaine, I said the DA “might not be wrong” that is a far cry from “conceding there was PROBABLY no criminal wrongdoing.”[/quote]
Your exact words: “The DA might not be wrong to clear the police of criminal conduct”.
[quote]While that’s true it doesn’t appear that it happened that way. If they had hit him with pepper spray or a taser when they first opened the door, they could have gotten him out of the car without incident. Instead, they waited around until a point in which one officer felt he had no choice but to shoot him with a rifle.[/quote]
Open the door and expose their bodies to a gunshot? To pepper spray or tase they would essentially have to expose their bodies to a potential gunshot, reaching in to tase or pepper spray. But for the defendant’s actions, none of this would have happened. He knew he had to comply, and refused at some level… either verbally, physically, or both…
[quote]
While that’s true it doesn’t appear that it happened that way. If they had hit him with pepper spray or a taser when they first opened the door, they could have gotten him out of the car without incident.[/quote]
So we tell police officers they should go into a situation, where a guy is claiming he has a gun, without a gun.
I think DG should contact the Fire Department and tell them when they respond to fires they can only put the protective suits on when they see actual flames. Seeing smoke isn’t enough evidence that there is an ACTUAL fire. The firefighters will actually have to go into the house first to determine if the house is on fire.
[quote]I think DG should contact the Fire Department and tell them when they respond to fires they can only put the protective suits on when they see actual flames. Seeing smoke isn’t enough evidence that there is an ACTUAL fire. The firefighters will actually have to go into the house first to determine if the house is on fire. [/quote]
Good point…
DMG,
“You still have a subject who is handcuffed, he is in the back of a police car, even if he has a weapon, he has limited ability at best to fire and aim it, etc.”
Has anyone looked into what kind of movement a suspect would have in this situation? What is the precedent in cases where officers have shot handcuffed suspects? Also, I think his ability to aim may be irrelevant as a stray bullet or poorly lined up shot could possibly ricochet, thus still life threatening.
“Instead, they waited around until a point in which one officer felt he had no choice but to shoot him with a rifle.”
So do you think they had seven minutes to decide what to do with him?
ERM
“Open the door and expose their bodies to a gunshot? To pepper spray or tase they would essentially have to expose their bodies to a potential gunshot, reaching in to tase or pepper spray. But for the defendant’s actions, none of this would have happened. He knew he had to comply, and refused at some level… either verbally, physically, or both…”
Beckham said, “I could see the subject laying [sic] down in the seat, kind of horizontal in the backseat. His rear end was toward the center and he was on his left side. I could not see his hands, but they were in back of him.”
Would it have been possible for the officers to quickly take cover as other officers came at him from the opposite rear door? Would they have been able to pull him out headfirst and subdue him? Could they have just opened the door and tased him? There could still be a possibility that he could harm someone if he fired a shot, I would guess.
“So we tell police officers they should go into a situation, where a guy is claiming he has a gun, without a gun. “
No I think we tell police that if you are going to shoot an unarmed man who is handcuffed in the back of your police vehicles, you are going to be questioned, hard.
SM:
You ask good questions that I don’t know the answers to. I agree that getting a shot off was a problem, it would be helpful to know where his hands were and why they didn’t make an attempt to move him into a better position to watch his hands. As was explained to me, hitting someone with a taser who has a grip on a gun, the person could get off a shot. If he does not, then you can likely prevent him from grabbing it.
“So do you think they had seven minutes to decide what to do with him? “
No but given the explained movements back and forth, they had enough time to take a less lethal approach.
[quote]No I think we tell police that if you are going to shoot an unarmed man who is handcuffed in the back of your police vehicles, you are going to be questioned, hard.[/quote]
You have got to read up on this topic.
[quote]No but given the explained movements back and forth, they had enough time to take a less lethal approach.[/quote]
Here, time is not the overiding factor.
Again, law enforcement officers under the circumstances can use lethal force, despite the lies of the perpetrator — they are NOT mandated to use less lethal force when firearms are at issue….