Man Shot by Trooper Was Unarmed

[carebear]

Not being sympathetic about an armed robber getting shot is not necessarily the same thing as feeling that the cop was justified in doing the shooting.

There's no necessary (formal logic term) contradiction in thinking both "cop screwed up" and "still not sorry for the bad guy".


He got him in the liver with a .308? Yeah, that robber will be getting a trauma center punch card by the time he's through.

On a legal note, they're charging the trooper with aggravated assault. By insisting he actually intended to shoot due to a perceived threatening movement the trooper is giving the jury an out to acquit him; if they choose to accept his perception as reasonable.

Apparently the tape won't help him, but if he gets a friendly jury (the guy was elected mayor, he must have some friends in the area) with no sympathy for armed robbers? He might have a shot.

 

[razorburn]

Another anti-cop(per) that can't, first, read the article and referrence it correctly but, secondly, has obviously no idea what it's like to be in a similar position.

I didn't, obviously, sit on the Grand Jury in this case and I have ONLY the "facts" as reported by some newspaper that may well be anti-cop also so I can't say any of us in here truly has the facts.

Yet, I see so many willing to judge the trooper.....and in Razorburn's case hypocritically condemns the trooper saying he (the trooper) played Judge and jury yet he sees it OK that he can. Hmmmmm...whatever.

God, if the trooper's case goes to trial I hope he has the justice of drawing a jury that, at least, keeps an open mind until they do see and hear the proof.

He certainly wouldn't get it in here.

You re-read the article. He was going to get off mostly free, but then repeatedly insisted that he shot the man on purpose. It wasn't "an accidental shot under a high stress situation", which is the conclusion that many forumites jumped to before reading it completely. A man who was recorded on camera, following the troopers commands exactly. He had his hands on his head when the trooper claimed that he dove for a gun. There is no way for you to mistake a man standing still with his hands on his head, not moving, for one that is ducking down reaching for a pistol. This is attempted murder. I wouldn't feel any sympathy for the trooper if the ex-trooper was shot afterwards. This is why he was fired. He was a liar and a trigger-happy criminal, and that is why he has already been condemned for his actions by his peers. It's just you and other cop idolizers, who want to imagine that it was "just an accident, following instinctive training" under a high stress situation, while the trooper HIMSELF stated that he shot that man on purpose. It was no screw up. It was intentional and malicious. It was attempted murder.

Being lead on a high speed chase does not justify shooting an unarmed, submissive man. It's not his right to decide something like that. Honestly, I wouldn't have the slightest bit of sympathy if this cop was shot.

 

[carebear]

If they felt he had intended to kill the man unjustifiably they would have charged him with attempted murder. They didn't, they charged him with 2nd degree felony aggravated assault.

Looks like they charged that way because they can't prove intent to kill. We know he claimed he was shooting due to a perceived threatening movement and probably wisely used the phrase "to stop" at some point.

76-5-102. Assault.
(1) Assault is:
(a) an attempt, with unlawful force or violence, to do bodily injury to another;
(b) a threat, accompanied by a show of immediate force or violence, to do bodily injury to another; or
(c) an act, committed with unlawful force or violence, that causes bodily injury to another or creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another.
(2) Assault is a class B misdemeanor.
(3) Assault is a class A misdemeanor if:
(a) the person causes substantial bodily injury to another; or
(b) the victim is pregnant and the person has knowledge of the pregnancy.
(4) It is not a defense against assault, that the accused caused serious bodily injury to another.

76-5-103. Aggravated assault.
(1) A person commits aggravated assault if he commits assault as defined in Section 76-5-102 and he:
(a) intentionally causes serious bodily injury to another; or
(b) under circumstances not amounting to a violation of Subsection (1)
(a), uses a dangerous weapon as defined in Section 76-1-601 or other means or force likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.
(2) A violation of Subsection (1)(a) is a second degree felony.
(3) A violation of Subsection (1)(b) is a third degree felony.

 

[razorburn]

All that is known is that he shot the man, and then he tried to lie about it. Through the tape, it was shown that the guy had his hands on his head, and was complying with the ex-troopers commands when the trooper decided to shoot him. The tape did not show him ducking down and reaching for a weapon, or any other threatening movement which would've been drastic to see on the video if the situation occured as the ex-trooper described. The most it could've been to remain imperceptible to the camera was a minor twitch.

Cops often recieve a degree of leniency not afforded to the common citizen when acting on the job. Had this been a ccw who'd apprehended a criminal, and who'd then decided to shoot him in the stomach for kicks, he would be facing much more serious charges.

It's appalling and disgusting how certain forumites will grovel at the feet of a criminal LEO to try to avoid being branded an anti-cop. With this particular situation, even his fellow LEOs condemned his despicable actions, but it still rallies support among certain forumites? Is this due to an imagined kinship some feel for him, often picturing themselves playing the hero and taking vengence on a robber?: Fortunately he has been fired, and that tape presents a very strong show of evidence against him. And judging by reaction on other places, most normal, non-rambo wannabes strongly condemn his actions. Hopefully, he is branded a felon and never allowed to lay a hand on another firearm again. An armed man as irresponsible as that is far more dangerous to the public than those 2 robbers.

 

[carebear]

Where do you get that he tried to lie about it?

It seems pretty clear from the articles that he had his version of events and has stuck to it, even in the face of contravening evidence. To say he "lied" is to say you absolutely know for certain what he thought he saw when he shot.

He could be completely deranged or was delusional from stress, a guy'd have to be an idiot to say he meant to shoot someone for justifiable reasons knowing the dash cams and other eyewitnesses there would contradict his version of events. He can be certain of what he thinks he saw and be completely and utterly wrong, he doesn't necessarily have to be being deliberately deceitful.

All we can say from the outside looking in (and assuming the tapes show what is described) is that he deliberately shot at a suspect with no objective justification and is getting ready to face the music for it. From the reports he definitely committed aggravated assault under the law and will probably rightfully go down for it.

I don't know they could demonstrate mens rea for attempted murder. Though if the guy dies there'd probably be enough for a manslaughter charge at least, if I recall the elements of the crime correctly.

 

[jerkface11]

You're right carebare if he told the truth about trying to murder this guy he should go free

 

[buzz_knox]

BUT, whenever I see these things happen AFTER a long high speed chase I just can't give much sympathy to the perps and think the officer's punishment should be downgraded a notch because of it. As Chris Rock said on a video that was going around on email "If you make the cops chase you, they're gonne bring an @$$ whippin' with them."

I read something similar in American Cop. The article discussed the apparent fact that if you resist arrest in that manner, you can expect to be beaten. After all, if you drive fast, you tend "to get banged up."

Sorry, but the moment we condone that kind of behavior, we are authorizing the police to be uniformed thugs little better than those they allegedly protect us against. The law already recognizes that in high stress situations, people will react differently than they would have otherwise. But that's very, very different than saying that cops get a freebie in this situation.

 

[buzz_knox]

All we can say from the outside looking in (and assuming the tapes show what is described) is that he deliberately shot at a suspect with no objective justification and is getting ready to face the music for it. From the reports he definitely committed aggravated assault under the law and will probably rightfully go down for it.

I don't know they could demonstrate mens rea for attempted murder. Though if the guy dies there'd probably be enough for a manslaughter charge at least, if I recall the elements of the crime correctly.

If the facts are as you allege them to be, then you've got an attempted murder charge. Manslaughter would just be a lesser included offense.

He apparently knew right from wrong. He just apparently thought he was justified in his actions. That isn't sufficient to get him off for any mental defect.

 

[BobCat]

You know, I hate to sound like I'm sitcking up for the officer - I'm usually pretty unforgiving of excessive force, and cynical (having grown up in the Chicago area) - but it is quite possible in this case that the cop "saw" what he said he saw, and on one else saw.

What I mean is, perception is subjective. The camera apparently did not show the "bad guy" reaching for a weapon, but it is not impossible that some small motion he made actually did give the officer the distinct impression he was doing so.

In the excitement of the moment, having pursued the guy at high speed, probably feeling the guy had been risking everyone's life by running, and finally having him surrender - if he twitched a little, it is quite possible the cop "saw" him put his hands down and reach for his pistol. At that point, the cop decided he was fixin' to get shot by the "bad guy" so he fired first. I'm not saying he was right, not trying to excuse the action, certainly not taking the "bad guy's" side - just trying to point out that perception is tricky, and the officer could be telling the truth about what he thought he saw, and made the decision to shoot. He was wrong to shoot, but might have "seen" reason to, in the fog of action.

Maybe more facts will come out at the trial.

Regards,
Andrew

 

[buzz_knox]

There are two aspects to every shooting: the reasonable belief that deadly force was going to be required, and the subjective belief. Not only must the shooter articulate a true belief that force was necessary, but a reasonable person must be able to agree that deadly force was required after reviewing the facts, including the shooter's statement.

There was a cop in Miami (if memory serves) who went on trial for murdering an apparently unarmed man. The defense showed that the cop, a serious professional when it came to training, had seen the shoulder shrug that, based on his years of range observation had taught him, preceded the reaching for a weapon. He fired, and the investigation showed that the subject had been going for a concealed firearm. The combination of a hidden firearm and demonstrable proof that the shrug was real and observable got him acquitted.

Here, the shooter has to deal with the fact that he was in fear of his life from an unarmed man. The high speed chase goes to mitigation of the offense (i.e. he didn't set out to murder someone, he just got hyped up and shot an unarmed man in the heat of the moment). It's not a particularly good defense.

 

[BobCat]

buzz_knox,

Agreed; he apparently has been fired from the police department, and is going to be tried - his defense would be interesting to read / hear about. Maybe the original poster will follow up as infromation becomes available.

My only point was that it is easy to sit comfortably and judge someone's actions from a written description of the situation and events, but it can be difficult to see clearly exactly what is really happening, while the action is ongoing. He could simply be wrong - he does not have to be lying.

Regards,
Andrew

 

[NineseveN]

Sorry, but the moment we condone that kind of behavior, we are authorizing the police to be uniformed thugs little better than those they allegedly protect us against.

And that's not only bad for Joe Citizen, that's bad for the good cops, like many of those that we have on THR. I doubt any one of them wants the public they serve to have that impression, which is often why I come down hard on cops that break the law or are negligent in their duties, it's just bad for everybody.

 

[razorburn]

Where do you get that he tried to lie about it?

It seems pretty clear from the articles that he had his version of events and has stuck to it, even in the face of contravening evidence. To say he "lied" is to say you absolutely know for certain what he thought he saw when he shot.

He could be completely deranged or was delusional from stress, a guy'd have to be an idiot to say he meant to shoot someone for justifiable reasons knowing the dash cams and other eyewitnesses there would contradict his version of events. He can be certain of what he thinks he saw and be completely and utterly wrong, he doesn't necessarily have to be being deliberately deceitful.

All we can say from the outside looking in (and assuming the tapes show what is described) is that he deliberately shot at a suspect with no objective justification and is getting ready to face the music for it. From the reports he definitely committed aggravated assault under the law and will probably rightfully go down for it.

I don't know they could demonstrate mens rea for attempted murder. Though if the guy dies there'd probably be enough for a manslaughter charge at least, if I recall the elements of the crime correctly.

Well, he says the suspect had already had his hands lowered and was additionally turning around to face him, possibly to attack with a weapon. The camera clearly showed that he had his hands in the air, was not facing the trooper, and surrendering when he was shot. The two are such drastically different situations that the only possible explanations are that either he tried to lie to avoid charges or that he suddenly suffered some intense psychological delusion in which the suspect appeared to change into a position completely different way that he actually did. Occam's razor suggests the simpler explanation of the two is usually correct. Cops do sometimes forget about their on-board camera, and have been convicted of crimes because they were caught by them.

 

[carebear]

You're right carebare if he told the truth about trying to murder this guy he should go free

Where exactly did I say or even imply he should go free?

razor,

I agree lying is the more believeable reason, but perception in stressful situations is a tricky enough thing that I hate to slap it on there without real proof. Either way, he's facing the music.

Aside from being able to undo the shot, the next best thing is he face charges for taking it, so the truth can come out and maybe others in similar situations use better tactics/gunhandling in the future.

 

[hoji]

"A cop may not always be right, but a perp who runs is always wrong without exception."


Spoken like a true brownshirt.