Deputy Shooting Of Military Officer Under Investigation (merged multiple threads)

[Inline_6]

From what i can see that police deput- i mean that jack booted thug was way out of the line. I hope someones head rolls for this one.

Comparing him to a Nazi SS trooper is so far out of line it isn't even funny. Making that statement is no less offensive than when the moronic head of the NRA used the term. I hope you have done something to contribute to our free society besides run your 18 year old mouth. You have much to learn.

As for the shooting... we still don't have all the facts. Yes, it does look very bad for the deputy and my gut tells me he did muck up. But consider this possiblity... perhaps the person we hear on the video telling the passenger to get up is not the cop who we see holding the gun. If that is the case, and the deputy with the gun was telling him to remain on the ground, he might not have heard someone else order him up and assumed he was getting up for more sinister reasons.

I offer this possibility bcz it has happened. There was a shooting a few years back in Baltimore where agents stopped a car. One was yelling for the occupants to keep their hands up. Another was ordering them to get out/unbuckle. The 16 year old in the passenger seat heard the one who told him to get out... the agent ordering him to keep his hands up did not hear this and shot the kid under the assumption he was reaching for a weapon.

All I can say is I hope the truth comes out in the end and parties who did err are held responsible.

 

[Sindawe]

I hope you have done something to contribute to our free society besides run your 18 year old mouth. You have much to learn.

So, it would appear, do you Inline_6...

Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

I've not yet had a chance to view the footage of this sad incident, but from the data at hand, it sounds very bad for the shooter.

 

[ccw007]

I just saw this on the news. They started the video about the time the officer had him get on the ground. The guy who was shot identified himself as military. The video was enhanced and you could see him start to push up from the ground with both hands best I could tell and as he does bang... I think the officers reaction saying "shut the @#%$ up" was him panicking because he knew what he just did was a @#%$ up. It will not be hard to sell this to a jury. May he retire a rich man.

 

[Firethorn]

Let me get this straight... You can shoot someone and then go on "paid leave"? Man, I need to become a cop.

Look at it the opposite way. You're a public employee, say a teacher, and you get accused of being a child molester. Now, this is totally baseless, the kid who made the accusation did so because you failed him or her, with cause last week.

Now, it takes two weeks for this to come out and you to be cleared.

1. Obviously, the school can't have you keep teaching until this is cleared up
2. Suspending you without pay can result in financial distress, which, once you're cleared, you can sue the school for

Thus, most public positions have the policy to keep paying those accused of a crime, up to some point where they can fire them 'for cause'. This is often at conviction. Even for cops, shooting somebody has to be investigated on the level of a crime, so you place them on paid leave(or administrative duty) until the investigation is done and a ruling made.

Back on the subject, I've watched the video several times, it does indeed appear that somebody ELSE said get up. The one is going on is saying he's his friend, going to help, served more time... He has that California accent. Then I hear a deeper voice saying 'get up'. He goes to get up, then the deputy shoots him.

Wait a minute... Listening to it three times, is the Latino accent, higher pitched, the Air force guy? All the Shut the hells seem to be deeper voiced.

 

[Cosmoline]

The victim was calm and *I* can see his hands the whole time EVEN IN THAT GRAINY VIDEO.

Barring some additional evidence, it looks like the LEO's blood was up and he wasn't thinking clearly. The cursing and totally unprofessional behavior don't help. Frankly this looks a lot worse than the RK beating video. That's lethal force he's using there. Beating a non-compliant suspect after an intense chase is one thing, but blowing him away and trying to kill him quite another.

The ND followed by more shots actually sounds possible. The officer's bizarre cursing afterwards may have been the result of his own panic. I wonder if he thought his own first ND was a hostile shot, then fired in response to his own shot? That's about the best light I can view it in.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[carebear]

What's frightening is this was fortunately caught on tape so the action can be reviewed for negligence or criminal conduct. How many times does (did) this sort of thing happen across the country without any way to disprove the claim of the officer in the wrong?

 

[Firethorn]

I'm not a professional, and I'd really like to have the original source, and be able to mute/chop segments for better clarity, but here you go.

nothing is the main cop
+I think this line is the air force guy
&Sounds different than the other two

Partial transcript:
Alright, I'm here on your side. Alright
I'm here to tell you that
+!Sgt Brag !Sgt Brag (maybe I'm Sgt Brag?)
I'm here to tell you alright

+I didn't do nothing wrong
Louise quiet.

--Quiet Spot--
Mean you no harm
+I'm military _somthing I can't make out_
Don't talk about the military alright, alright I served more time than you
Bleep Bleep military
Okay
Alright, Okay
&Get up
&Get up
+I'm going to get up
Boom Boom Boom

*Bleep*
Shots fired! SHOTS Fired

Shut the ----
Shut the ----
Call mayday I got one down
Shut the ----
Shut the ----

*Bleepbleepbleepbleep*

 

[buck00]

I have a friend who is a police officer so I am usually pretty sympathetic to police in general. If they slam some drug dealer against a wall, if a gang-banger type gets thumped with a baton a few times- no problem, all part of the job. But this video made me sick to my stomach.

The whole point of the "Get up! Get up!" command and the MP following that command has already been talked about. He was clearly following the command given.


Here is something else I noticed from the video. A mistake the MP made was: he was trying to talk to the pumped up deputy too much. The deputy interpreted his talking as disrespect and a lack of submission to his authority, which apparently got him angry. What I think really pissed off the deputy was when the MP said (meaning well) "I've done more police work than you have." (or something to that extent)

What was amazing is after the shooting the cop is still in "Dirty Harry" mode. If you listen he actually sneers into his radio "one down" like he's in some 80s action movie. He also keeps barking "shut the f--- up!" as the MP is moaning in agony after being shot.

I agree with some of the other members, it had to be 9 mm. That is really lucky as many departments use .40 or .45 these days.

 

[losangeles]

I'm all for LEO but that deputy didn't handle the stress of the situation well. He probably discharged by accident. Three bad shots at close range, for one.

I'm glad that AF guy is okay.

 

[odysseus]

What's frightening is this was fortunately caught on tape so the action can be reviewed for negligence or criminal conduct. How many times does (did) this sort of thing happen across the country without any way to disprove the claim of the officer in the wrong?

Even better is he is apparently surviving and will be talking about this. I certainly will be keeping a look for more info on this case. I didn't see any reason for this shooting as well. The LEO had the guy on the ground, he could and should have cuffed him and searched him then. I am not sure why he asked him to get up. I think it is too early to inject malice by the LEO into this as some have here, but it really looks like a bad mistake at the very least.

It looks very bad, and yes - it does make you wonder about some of the claims like these in the past, to which no there was no camera.

Remember, LEO are just people. So like in anything else, there are bad apples in with the good ones.

BTW - I am listening to the clip. I am not sure I am hearing "Shut the F.", but I am hearing "What the F."

 

[Byron Quick]

Some of you folk who think the shot MP was somehow at fault here need to consider a few things. If you're a passenger in a car and the driver floors it, he's going to be going too fast to abandon the vehicle. What are you going to do to make him stop? I think the prosecutor's office might frown upon you shooting him to make him slow down. Besides, the car would probably go out of control, crash, and kill innocent bystanders. Turn the igniton off? Uh-uh. That would lock the steering wheel with very poor results. So exactly what should the man have done to avoid this?

Another thing. I think a trained military policeman has got enough training and enough common sense not to make any 'furtive' movements that any officer could mistake for a threat. I don't have any training. But I'll tell you one thing. If a cop stops me, my hands are in his field of view at all times. My hands are moving slowly. My license and insurance are in my hand before we come to a complete stop. And if you're ever told that I was shot because I reached under the seat, in my pocket, in the console, the visor, scratched my butt...and you're talking to the man who shot me...you're talking to a liar.

And you don't fire three times from being nervous.

 

[MSgt B]

I too am in the Air Force.

It feels like watching a member of your family being gunned down.

If I was intent on murdering someone who was lying on the ground, I'd tell them to get up first. That way I could "sell" the fact that he was lunging at me when I shot him.

I think the jerk-off just didn't know he was being videotaped.

I hope he goes to jail.

 

[No_Brakes23]

Anybody got a good link for this? I have been to 5 different sites now and all are down or have the vid removed.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Anybody got a good link for this? I have been to 5 different sites now and all are down or have the vid removed.

Here's a news story with part of the video shown and "analyzed by an expert" on Google Video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5211306153925066798


If you are familiar with torrents, you can download a couple different versions of the video here (mp4) although they bleep a whole lot of the audio out:

http://ts.searching.com/torrent/527147/Chino_CA_cop_shooting_mp_airman_KTLA_TV
(warning: some of the ads on that site may be considered inappropriate)

 

[Mad Man]

Let me get this straight... You can shoot someone and then go on "paid leave"? Man, I need to become a cop.

Look at it the opposite way. You're a public employee, say a teacher, and you get accused of being a child molester. Now, this is totally baseless, the kid who made the accusation did so because you failed him or her, with cause last week.

Now, it takes two weeks for this to come out and you to be cleared.

1. Obviously, the school can't have you keep teaching until this is cleared up

2. Suspending you without pay can result in financial distress, which, once you're cleared, you can sue the school for

Thus, most public positions have the policy to keep paying those accused of a crime, up to some point where they can fire them 'for cause'. This is often at conviction. Even for cops, shooting somebody has to be investigated on the level of a crime, so you place them on paid leave(or administrative duty) until the investigation is done and a ruling made.

Granted that things vary by jurisdiction, but generally:

If, say, a teacher is accused of child molestation, child abuse, sexual assault, etc., is he going to be arrested? Is his name going to be released to the public? Is his mug shot shown all over the media? Or is this going to be handled as an internal matter by the school administration?


There is a difference between the way alleged crimes committed by LEOs are dealt with, and alleged crimes committed by civilians are dealt with.


UPDATE: For example, see http://volokh.com/2003_12_07_volokh_archive.html#107124536045679786 and http://volokh.com/2003_12_07_volokh_archive.html#107126104846020861

Eugene Volokh, 12/12/2003 08:09:20 AM

Arrested for legal self-defense? The Corpus Christi Caller-Times reports:

[BLOCKQUOTE]Police, prosecutors and women's advocates acknowledge that the public might find it strange that Noelle Richardson is facing a murder charge in the shooting death of her estranged husband.

After all, police say he broke down the door the night before she had a court date to seek a restraining order. Records show that he had stalked her and beat her before.

"The cops don't worry about self-defense," First Assistant District Attorney Mark Skurka said Wednesday. "They have to determine if a homicide took place."

Police say Richardson, 22, shot 23-year-old John Washington Richardson on Monday night with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun that police suspect he gave her before the couple separated. Investigators said Richardson shot him in the face after he broke into an apartment on O'Grady Drive, and that when he kept advancing she shot him again in the side. . . .

Police say they didn't have a choice but to arrest Noelle Richardson, despite what appeared to be an attempt to defend herself.[/BLOCKQUOTE]

UPDATE: Referring to the article mentioned in the original post, reader James Guinivan writes:

[BLOCKQUOTE]So "[p]olice say they didn't have a choice" and "it's up to the district attorney and the grand jury to decide about charges based on whether it's justifiable circumstances"?

I take it from this that if a police officer is attacked by a perp in the course of duty, and shoots the perp dead, then he or she is arrested and thrown in jail by others on the force? After all, they have no choice, right?

If, on the other hand, the police officer is simply put on administrative leave with pay pending investigation (as is done in most other jurisdictions that I'm aware of), then it would appear that the police do "make such decisions in the field" after all.[/BLOCKQUOTE]

 

[Mad Man]

The way things should be (bold added):

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/07/whats_in_a_coat.shtml

I have no problem with cameras being ubiquitous on public property, as long as anyone with an Internet connection can watch them.

I'll see you and raise you there, Crimethink--if the government's going to stick cameras all over the public sphere, then if there's a civilian-cop altercation of any kind, if the film is not available for whatever reason then the civilian will be automatically presumed innocent and blameless. Otherwise, it's FAR too easy for the government to conveniently "lose" any film that makes it out to be the guilty party.

Comment by: Jennifer at July 29, 2005 11:53 AM

True. That's a dilemma with any police shooting: The victim is to be presumed innocent, but if the cop is prosecuted for murder then he's also presumed innocent until proven guilty. The only way both parties to the shooting can be presumed innocent is if you presume a tragic but understandable mistake until proven otherwise.

Which might sound like sophistry, but there is a practical point to it: If the cop is presumed to have made a tragic mistake unless he can prove otherwise, then the presumption should be that he will have to turn in his badge unless he can defend himself in the investigation. Doesn't mean that he should go to jail, but it does mean that he should no longer enjoy the authority of a cop.

Now, I know somebody will shout "Innocent until proven guilty!" but that only applies to prosecuting a person, when the stakes are potential loss of liberty. Firing somebody from the police force isn't depriving him of liberty, it merely deprives him of authority over his fellow citizens. That's undoubtedly unpleasant for him, but authority is something you have to earn on a continuous basis. Liberty is something that citizens are guaranteed in a free society. So, authority is earned and liberty is (or should be) a guarantee. (And yes, I know, freedom needs to be protected, it isn't something you can just take for granted. My only point is that the burden of proof for depriving somebody of liberty is not the same as the burden of proof for depriving somebody of authority.)

So, I can see a lot of situations where the average person might shoot somebody else in a panic and we might consider it justified under the circumstances. But cops are supposed to be trained professionals and authority figures, and to be an authority figure you are supposed to demonstrate more competence than the average person in stressful situations. If you can't demonstrate that competence that doesn't necessarily mean you should go to jail, but it does mean you shouldn't be an authority figure.

Comment by: thoreau at July 29, 2005 02:44 PM

 

[Gunsnrovers]

Watching this again on local news with commentary. Much nicer to watch it on a large TV then on a monitor.

The MP points with his hand towards the officer, announces that he is about to get up, puts BOTH hands on the road, pushes himself up, and is shot. Both hands are on the pavement when he is shot.

This will be very interesting when the Fed and local reviews come in.

 

[CB900F]

Fella's;

Here's one to ponder. Presumably Airman Carreon will be questioned by L.E.O.'s while in a medical facility recovering from his wounds. How much security should he be provided, and who's going to provide it?

900F

 

[KnightHawk67]

I got to view the tape this morning on TV, its fairly clear, but dark. You can hear the AF guy responding to the command to "Get Up!" by saying "I'm getting up." and putting both hands down on the ground & begin to push up. Then you hear the Deputy start shooting. The guys hands are obscured by shadow as he pushes upward, but the AF guy was complying with his orders.

The voice that asks "What did he do that for?" overlaps the Deputy screaming for the AF guy to "Shut the *$%%& up!" and the AF guy moaning. Cameraman or another witness voice? Dunno, but it looks bad for the Deputy.

 

[NineseveN]

Murder 1.

 

[spartacus2002]

Here's a news story with part of the video shown and "analyzed by an expert" on Google Video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5211306153925066798

Yeah, that "expert" was tapdancing like hell, trying to find a way to justify the shooting. If this goes to a civil trial, I would love it if he testified for the defense; the USAF guy would win a million bucks.

 

[chuckles]

MSgtB wrote:

If I was intent on murdering someone who was lying on the ground, I'd tell them to get up first. That way I could "sell" the fact that he was lunging at me when I shot him.

I think the jerk-off just didn't know he was being videotaped.

I hope he goes to jail.

+1, this looks very clear to me also. It will be interesting to see what song and dance the Police try to present on this one.

 

[Inline_6]

So, it would appear, do you Inline_6...

If I was out of line, then I apologize to the forum... but his JBT comment was way out of line and those of us in the military/LE take great offense to such trash. Saying he's "running his 18yo mouth" is not a personal attack IMO.

 

[isp2605]

Murder 1.

Usually someone has to die before a person can be charged with murder. Just a small legal technicality.

 

[NineseveN]

Usually someone has to die before a person can be charged with murder. Just a small legal technicality.

Guess I should have included the sarcasm smiley in there.