Officer cleared by Phoenix police board in homeowner shooting

[Smokin Gator]

When you are trying to determine whether an act is criminal or not, somewhere in there the person's "intent" is part of the equation.

A man in ST. JOHNSBURY VT. accidently killed his son turkey hunting. tragically shot him on accident. do you think he had intent to kill his son? he was charged with felony and in the end he pleaded no contest to manslaughter of his son, 3 year deferred sentence 10 years banned of anykind of hunting activity and 3 years unable to buy or possess any weapons for 3 years. Granted there was a death but losing his son should be punishment enough. it didn't sound like his family wanted to press any charges only to have by all accounts the model family man back home to grieve with family. so clearly there was NO intent yet he was prosecuted. just like the cop in this situation should have to face more than a "review board".

Yes. In this case the intent of the person figured heavily in the sentence he received. It's only part of the equation. He plead guilty but if his intent was different he may have been convicted of an even more serious crime and received prison time.

 

[JellyJar]

Shots fired?

In an earlier thread I talked about how it would be advantageous to use hearing protection especially active electronic hearing muffs, if possible, during a home burglary/invasion. ( Of course only if you have the time and opportunity ). As the officer was responding to a report of "shots fired" it is possible that the officer ordered the homeowner to drop his weapon but the homeowner did not hear the command.

Lots of things we don't know yet so the above is only speculation.

 

[silhouette004]

I would just like to play devil's advocate for a little bit.

I'm neither justifying nor condoning this LEO's actions, but if LEOs are forced to face more than a review board for a bad shoot, and could possibly face long jail sentences (like normal average joes), it could make other officers hesitate in situations where it could mean life or death for other homeowners or officers.

With that aside, I believe the police department should have made some sort of monetary restitution to the family because the hospital fees and other issues that came from that shooting had to have been steep, especially with 2 months of home care. Yes, the officer was cleared of any wrongdoing, but this does not erase the fact that he made a very dangerous mistake. The emotional hardship from the shooting is bad enough, especially if the reports of Lilly shooting Arambula in front of his son are true, but add in the financial hardship from hospital bills and it's a lose-lose situation all around for a law abiding family that did no wrong.

 

[lobo9er]

C Grunt i am picking up a little elite-ness from you.

I have noticed in this country over the past few years that some LEO in some parts are moving towards a more military look and presence. for example using words like "civilian" when the word citizen should be used.

And just like in those professions, they arent liked by there peers and usually dont have very long careers.

thats not always tru around these parts the bad ones float around from town to town or county to county before they eventually get arrested on drunk driving charges causing death or serious injury to a "civilian" then they are fired with a pension oh and the drunk driving or like case gets them some community service or couple months.
Bad "LEO" SHOULD BE FIRED. Bad doctors should be fired also. the thread in my opinion is another example of certain citizens not playing by the same set of rules. I have run into alot of very nice, good police. I also do not dismiss the dangers of their job, but they signed up knowing the dangers. No different than military. Its part of the job.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm neither justifying nor condoning this LEO's actions, but if LEOs are forced to face more than a review board for a bad shoot, and could possibly face long jail sentences (like normal average joes), it could make other officers hesitate in situations where it could mean life or death for other homeowners or officers.

How do you define "bad shoot"?

Is it a split second judgment call where the officer makes a mistake? - Maybe this case?

Is it the officer doing something reckless or negligent? - The shooting death of Michael Pleasance by Officer Alvin Weems of the Chicago PD or the shooting death of the handcuffed subject by a cop in a transit station in California?

Is it the officer doing something unlawful? - The murder of Kathryn Johnston by Atlanta cops.

And if it IS a "bad shoot", WHAT should that review board do? No review board can do anything except take administrative action, such as disciplinary action or firing. Should the officer be immune from all legal action?

 

[Kleanbore]

I have noticed in this country over the past few years that some LEO in some parts are moving towards a more military look and presence.

So have I. When I was young, our police officers carried a revolver, cuffs, club, and flashlight. Most patrol cars had a shotgun.

Now, they carry a large-capacity pistol and in addition to the other things they carry a taser and a radio. The wear protective vests. Most cars have both a shotgun and an AR-15. When a special team is brought in, they have helmets, grenade launchers, and machine pistols.

Anything wrong with that? I don't think so. It is reflective of the times, and has to do with the needs of the job.

for example using words like "civilian" when the word citizen should be used.

??????

The term "civilian" is used--properly, in fact--to distinguish between law enforcement officers, who are in fact citizens, and persons who are not law enforcement officers. The term "citizen"makes no such distinction. Here's the definition

Main Entry: ci·vil·ian
Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b : outsider 1

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian

 

[Officers'Wife]

Why does the name Serpico spring to mind?

 

[silhouette004]

How do you define "bad shoot"?

Is it a split second judgment call where the officer makes a mistake? - Maybe this case?

Is it the officer doing something reckless or negligent? - The shooting death of Michael Pleasance by Officer Alvin Weems of the Chicago PD or the shooting death of the handcuffed subject by a cop in a transit station in California?

Is it the officer doing something unlawful? - The murder of Kathryn Johnston by Atlanta cops.

And if it IS a "bad shoot", WHAT should that review board do? No review board can do anything except take administrative action, such as disciplinary action or firing. Should the officer be immune from all legal action?

In this specific incident, I have the luxury of having the entire picture after the fact. My definition in this specific case only, of a "bad shoot," is that a LEO shot a homeowner 6 times. Yes this is simplistic, yes this leaves out state of mind, extenuating circumstances, and yes this leaves out many other circumstances, but in light of all the evidence after the fact, it appears to be a "bad shoot."

Now if I was the review board, I cannot so casually dismiss extenuating circumstances, state of mind, and any other outside factors, but I'm merely an outside observer.

And as you mentioned, all the review board can do is take administrative action, however under that administrative action, I'm sure they could include a memorandum to pass on to another governing body to suggest that the family be financially compensated for this mistake. That administrative board could also institute disciplinary action forcing the officer to undergo more training or something to that effect.

I cannot stress enough that despite all the circumstances surrounding this event, a LEO shot a homeowner 6 times, and that fact alone means something needs to be done, not a simple slap on the wrist and the casual swept under the rug attitude shown by the review board. An innocent nearly died, far wiser men and women than me should decide what happens, but I do not believe administrative leave for a couple of days is enough.

 

[C-grunt]

Ok first thing the review board is administrative, it has to do with department policy not criminal action. Thats up to the county attorney.

Also, at least here in Phx, the people you talk to on 911 are not the same people we talk to on the radio. There is a delay of sometimes a minute or two. The 911 operators have to relay to several departments as well as the fire department. Its not a great system, but we are slowly upgrading it as it cost insane amounts of money to do it.

Mr Lobo. Where in my posts did I say I was better than anyone else? Because I truly dont believe that nor do any of the officers I work with.

 

[Deanimator]

And as you mentioned, all the review board can do is take administrative action, however under that administrative action, I'm sure they could include a memorandum to pass on to another governing body to suggest that the family be financially compensated for this mistake. That administrative board could also institute disciplinary action forcing the officer to undergo more training or something to that effect.

I can't IMAGINE that EVER happening. They will deny fault and or responsibility. At MOST they will recommend some kind of administrative action vis a vis the officer. I can't imagine any kind of compensation for the victim without the threat of civil suit.

There was a mistaken address raid a while ago, where the "fix" offered by the police was to leave the front door destroyed and to leave cleaning supplies for the VICTIMS to use to clean up a home heavily contaminated with tear gas. The victims got legal representation, and as I recall, shortly thereafter, the family were moved to a habitable location while the home was decontaminated and the door replaced at city expense.

The evidence I've seen indicates that when the police wrongfully harm a citizen, the relevant governmental body will either blame the victims or do as little (or nothing) possible, absent the threat of legal action. If they care, they certainly don't give any indication of it.

 

[C-grunt]

Silhouette the review board covers policy only. The shoot was obviously a bad shoot but the officer was acting within policy. There have been a lot of good shoots where the officers get disciplined for being out of policy.

If you are found out of policy, like I was for my accident, they can give out administrative punishment, ie my ticket. They have nothing to do with compensation for the other parties.

This family will get their money from the city. But the city being a government entity, its not going to just give it away, just like all the other government agencies.

 

[Z-Michigan]

Also, at least here in Phx, the people you talk to on 911 are not the same people we talk to on the radio. There is a delay of sometimes a minute or two. The 911 operators have to relay to several departments as well as the fire department. Its not a great system, but we are slowly upgrading it as it cost insane amounts of money to do it.

That's good to know but it indicates a terrible 911 system. Bordering on inexcusable for whoever runs the 911 system.

Some pertinent information that I don't have: transcript of the 911 call, transcript of the police radio operator's communications with Officer Lilly, transcript and notes of any intermediate communications between the 911 operator and police radio operator.

 

[lobo9er]

in my opinion theres no individual responsibility for the officer. the department gives the family taxes dollars, which they deserve, and the individual is not held to the same standard as the home owner.

the county prosecuter would have felt different if it was the home owner accidently shooting the LE.

i dont object to to officers carrying better weapons. the militarization of police is a whole different debate all together, and really is off topic all together. my fault for going there.

 

[lobo9er]

i would like to ask all of your opinion?

Should the officer in question be sent back out on the beat with the confidence of the public and or his department?

 

[graywolfls]

What ever happened to the good old warning "POLICE OFFICER PUT DOWN YOUR WEAPON" do you just shoot someone in the BACK and on the floor just because he was holding a gun?

 

[Dulvarian]

Trust is gained in millimeters and lost in miles.

Now. Ask yourself if you want that police officer to show up at your house after you were holding an intruder at gunpoint? I am just going to step out on a limb here and presume that the large majority of the people that read this post have weapons (not specific to firearms) in their homes that they are willing to use to defend said homes.

I am not asking if he deserves that confidence. I'm asking if you would want him to come your house in that event (that you decided to defend yourself and your home and acted on that decision).

The other difference between where I am at in the military and any mistakes that we make (whether in training or not) is that anything done wrong gets completely dissected and then disseminated to anyone that might find it applicable. I don't know if police do that. I could give more specific comments, but I don't really want to broadcast what I do. In fact, I know that some here could already tell me what community I am in.

And on the funny side of the citizen/civilian argument... a rookie cop calling me a 'civilian' was one of the funniest things I might have heard in a gun shop.

 

[ChCx2744]

Sometimes the truth is funny. I never, personally, use the term "civilian" freely, because I brace myself for a "thumbs down barrage" from people who cry about it *cough*

Even If I do use it...Would it be out of context? The American language sure does recognize the differences between "civilians" and "police." Some people are too proud of the conduit in life they chose to follow and will love to debate a term that offends them, yet they can not do anything about it.

 

[makarovnik]

It doesn't seem right or fair.

 

[Kleanbore]

I cannot stress enough that despite all the circumstances surrounding this event, a LEO shot a homeowner 6 times,

Yep. A law enforcement officer summoned to a home invasion scene shot a man who was pointing a gun at another man six times. As it turned out most unfortunately, the man he shot was the homeowner.

...and that fact alone means something needs to be done, not a simple slap on the wrist and the casual swept under the rug attitude shown by the review board.

What, and why? As pointed out in the bulletin, had the officer hesitated, a homeowner could well have been shot by a burglar. Would you be recommending some kind of discipline at that point?

An innocent nearly died, far wiser men and women than me should decide what happens,....

Wiser perhaps, but most certainly people more knowledgeable of not only the facts but of police procedures and the underlying reasons for the way they are formulated must decide.

...but I do not believe administrative leave for a couple of days is enough.

Suddenly wiser, now?

Seriously, no one is qualified to pass judgment on actions without knowledge of the facts. A person was wounded, but it could have turned out far worse.

We know that the officer mistook the homeowner for an armed criminal and made the kind of split second decision that is required in a situation involving an encounter with armed persons.

We also do know that it has been responsibly determined that the officer followed procedure.

We do not know if there is any cogent reason to modify the procedure.

We do not know that another reasonable person in the same circumstance, with the same sworn duty, would not have done the same thing.

We do know that, had the homeowner not been pointing a gun at someone wean the officer arrived, he would almost certainly not have been shot.

And from that history, we can learn something, or be condemned to repeat it.

I'm sure the homeowner never really thought out what would likely unfold when the police arrived. I'm also sure that upon reflection, he probably now considers his pointing a gun at someone else at the time of the arrival of police officers who have been summoned to counter an armed criminal to have been rather risky, if not downright foolhardy.

Is there anyone who has not learned from that?

Here's what I have learned from this and from other sources: do not have a gun in your hand when police arrive at a crime scene.

 

[sniper5]

OK, I'm gonna get flamed from all the macho men and wanna be LEO's, but here goes:

A quote I read once from Jim Wilson really stayed with me: As a citizen, your weapon is used to facilitate ESCAPE.

My pre-firing command is: "GET OUT" which in my mind is the best possible outcome in a HD situation. Post firing, my first thought is to find somewhere else to be. Holding someone at gunpoint is the second riskiest thing you can do as a homeowner, off duty cop, or plainclothes officer, the first being walking over to him to handcuff him by yourself. He is an immediate threat to me, either by attacking directly, taking your concentration off of the scene and potential partners, or making you a target for potential first responders. I want to be in another place/room/house/city/world when someone just attacked me. Listen to that little voice in your head that says "RUN, GET OUT!!!" If that makes me a gutless chicken, then I am.

It looks really good in the movies, both the ones you watch and the ones that play in your head, for you to stand there with a gun when the cops show up and say "Hey, I got him!" and they walk over and shake your hand smiling and say "Thanks, we've been trying to get this guy for months."

BUT IT NEVER, EVER, EVER GOES DOWN THAT WAY!!!!!

And I've spent a long career cleaning up the bloody aftermath from the real world.

Anyone ever in the military knows the term "The Fog of War".

 

[Z-Michigan]

sniper5, that seems like a very practical/pragmatic viewpoint.

My question would be, sincerely, if you have the guy with his hands up inside your house, do you actually tell him to run? Is there a safe way to handle this that doesn't involve him getting away or you holding a gun on him while waiting for police?

 

[Kleanbore]

A quote I read once from Jim Wilson really stayed with me: As a citizen, your weapon is used to facilitate ESCAPE.

I had never heard that before, but I agree--it is worth committing to memory.

My pre-firing command is: "GET OUT" which in my mind is the best possible outcome in a HD situation.

Mine also, three times now.

Holding someone at gunpoint is the second riskiest thing you can do as a homeowner, off duty cop, or plainclothes officer, the first being walking over to him to handcuff him by yourself.

Thanks for the well founded advice.

The truth of that comment was certainly demonstrated in the case at hand.

He is an immediate threat to me, either by attacking directly, taking your concentration off of the scene and potential partners, or making you a target for potential first responders.

Yes indeed. I have felt that way for some time.

It looks really good in the movies, both the ones you watch and the ones that play in your head, for you to stand there with a gun when the cops show up and say "Hey, I got him!" and they walk over and shake your hand smiling and say "Thanks, we've been trying to get this guy for months."

Excellently put, and I think that's the reason so many people seem to see the need to "clear the house," "investigate the noise," or command an intruder to "get on the ground."

But as you say,

IT NEVER, EVER, EVER GOES DOWN THAT WAY!!!!!

Great post, sniper5!

 

[sniper5]

Z-Michigan

I don't care if he gets away. I am after survival. Him leaving is the best outcome. It turns a very tense scene into a police report after the fact with a description and a witness at his trial. If he stays, then my next course of action is to take my family and back out of the house and be waiting somewhere else so I can tell the police "OK, this scumbag is still in my house and this is what he looks like. I'm not interested in taking people into custody. The law says I can, but what I can do is not always what I should do.

Not to mention, have you ever seen the aftermath of a shooting? He can't steal enough stuff to do that much damage to my walls, floor, carpet. It ain't just a couple of drops of blood on the doorknob, friend.

 

[doc2rn]

what ever happened to "drop your weapon" commands?
i know someone who wont have to work again thanks to that simple lapse of good judgement, the part where he was cleared for shooting a fella in the back also makes it very hard to stomach the fact the city cleared him. I agree if the officer was cleared the dispatcher/911 operator needs to be up on the block too.

 

[silhouette004]

Yep. A law enforcement officer summoned to a home invasion scene shot a man who was pointing a gun at another man six times. As it turned out most unfortunately, the man he shot was the homeowner.

They were already responding to a shots fired in the area, I believe the wife alerted the police that arrived at the premises that her husband was inside detaining the intruder at gunpoint.

You want to stress the point that the LEO shot a man who was pointing a gun at another man, I'd rather stress the fact that the LEO shot the homeowner who had a gun pointed at an intruder.

What, and why? As pointed out in the bulletin, had the officer hesitated, a homeowner could well have been shot by a burglar. Would you be recommending some kind of discipline at that point?

It is not up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be done, I have an opinion and am entitled to voice it. Otherwise what would be the purpose of intellectual debates if no one voiced their opinions based on facts presented to them?

As for the hesitation and the situation at hand, say the LEO killed the homeowner. The LEO just made a tragic mistake and has to live with that for the rest of his life, but just because it's a mistake doesn't mean he doesn't have to face the consequences of his mistake.

That homeowner nearly died, but the LEO suddenly doesn't have to face the fact that he put 6 rounds into an innocent man? He's put on leave for a couple of days and then is back to work? Is that safe? Would you trust an officer that made a bad shoot and is back to work a couple days later?

Suddenly wiser, now?

What? So I'm not entitled to voice my opinion now? I said I don't believe administrative leave for a couple of days is enough. I didn't say, throw him in jail, fire him, or any of that. I simply said I believe that it is enough.

Seriously, no one is qualified to pass judgment on actions without knowledge of the facts. A person was wounded, but it could have turned out far worse.

And even then with all the knowledge and all the facts in the world, is anyone seriously able to pass judgment on another person? Who here can say, "I've never made a mistake, this guy is wrong and should face ________ as punishment." The LEO knew he made a mistake, he even told his supervisor on site.

Yeah it certainly could have. The homeowner could be dead. Instead he has to live with pain from wherever he was shot for the rest of his life and the financial burden of paying for all his medical bills.

We know that the officer mistook the homeowner for an armed criminal and made the kind of split second decision that is required in a situation involving an encounter with armed persons.

We also do know that it has been responsibly determined that the officer followed procedure.

We do not know if there is any cogent reason to modify the procedure.

We do not know that another reasonable person in the same circumstance, with the same sworn duty, would not have done the same thing.

We do know that, had the homeowner not been pointing a gun at someone wean the officer arrived, he would almost certainly not have been shot.

I'm not disputing any of this. I was simply trying to call to peoples' attention the fact that an innocent man nearly died and yet because he didn't, the family is suffering more than they should. It just seems callous and uncaring.

To deanimator: Yeah I really don't see the review board passing any sort of memo to another governing body for financial compensation, but they could and they should. Even though in this day and age, most people tend to shy away from admitting their mistakes.

To C-grunt: Thanks for the clarification.