Please don't murder people in your office

[ClickClickD'oh]

Youtube link to the incident I'm talking about:



Okay, first... Yeah, I know she was acquitted. To me, that's just proof that if you have the right jury and defense attorney, you can indeed get away with murder, because murder is what's in the video.

So, since this is Stat & Tac and not legal, what went wrong in the video and what could have been done better to avoid murd.. er, um.. Killing a person. Of course, the obvious answer of not shooting someone in the back that isn't attacking you will just have to be accepted as the obvious and left on the table.

There may be a bit of professional bias in here since the event involved a bail bonds recovery agent.. so it's a little slanted to the world of Bounty Hunters and Bail Bondsmen.

First and most obvious to me: If you know that danger is unavoidable and you decide to bring a second person to mitigate the physical threat represented by locking yourself in a room with a physically stronger individual... bring someone that might actually contribute. Your scrawny 18 year old son who clearly has no idea what to do is not a good choice.

Second: This woman has absolutely no control over the situation. She never had any control over the situation. She has absolutely no command presence. Her only options were to hope he complies or use lethal force. When the situation started to go rodeo, she should have de-escalated, re-evaluated her options and attempted the arrest some other time when conditions were more favorable.

Third: Okay, I know I said we were going to leave this one on the table, but don't shoot people in the back when they aren't fighting you and are trying to get away. Suspect wants to jump out a third story window? That's on him. You put a bullet in his back because you lied and said he was fighting you? Go to jail. Please go to jail.

Top to bottom terrible planning, decision making and execution. She's lucky she isn't in jail. I'm sure the civil suit won't go nearly as well as the criminal trial did.

And as a parting thought, Sigmas are still terrible guns.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

From what I can find, the only charge was 1st Degree murder. It wasn't that.
The Oklahoma statute §21-701.7 defines 1st Degree murder as the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought. I don't think you could prove malice aforethought in this case beyond a reasonable doubt.

They may have gotten a conviction on a manslaughter charge, but this isn't murder 1.
Now, I'm going by news articles that say 1st Degree, so there may have been some lesser included offenses on the table and I just haven't seen them.

If murder 1 was all they charged, they didn't get "the right" defense attorney. I'm thinking a 1st year associate fresh out of law school could have won that one, if that was the only charge.

Please note, I'm not saying I think she was justified. I'm just saying it doesn't sound like Murder 1 was the correct charge.

 

[boom boom]

It is a jury trial and obviously the prosecution failed to persuade the jury of the guilt of the defendant. The jury sat through testimony, weighed evidence, and decided not guilty. If it had been a close decision resulting in a hung jury, then maybe the prosecution would have retried her. Thus, if you have to blame someone, blame the prosecution if you must because they did not meet their burden of proof.

BTW, coverage on cases is usually better if you go to local print sources rather than NY Post--I seriously doubt the NY Post sent anyone to cover an Oklahoma trial which means all of their coverage is second hand.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

BTW, coverage on cases is usually better if you go to local print sources rather than NY Post--I seriously doubt the NY Post sent anyone to cover an Oklahoma trial which means all of their coverage is second hand.

This isn't legal. I'm not looking for coverage of the case, details of the charges or court strategis. This is Strat & Tac, I wanted the video of the incident.

The focus isn't the technicality of the charges, but how not to end up needlessly killing people.

 

[boom boom]

This isn't legal. I'm not looking for coverage of the case, details of the charges or court strategis. This is Strat & Tac, I wanted the video of the incident.

The focus isn't the technicality of the charges, but how not to end up needlessly killing people.

You have made your moral judgment but so did the jury and they did not agree with you.

The purpose for this forum is not moral judgment but strategies and tactics which showing a video without context, all but proclaiming it as murder from YOUR viewpoint, is not really informative either.

The jury in this case apparently bought self defense using totality of the circumstances at the moment that the defendant found herself in. If you neglect the facts of the case, you neglect the law of the case, you neglect the charges made in the case, there is not much else there for this forum to discuss.

Very few here are bail bondsmen and would put themselves in that position voluntarily in a small room with a thug and try to restrain them. Nevertheless, bail bondsmen serve a function in society and have a risky job--you might try looking up an Iowa City death of a bail bondsman which popped up on a search for information about this case. People have a constitutional right to try to make bail and these people facilitate it at a price. The risk is that the bail bondman is at risk for financial loss if the felons flee and thus are allowed by law to apprehend these fleeing felons. Apparently, the actual shooting of the individual and alleged attempts to grab the gun from the defendant occur out of frame so this video is essential useless as a S&T issue.

The slippery idea that the person was "shot in the back" and so it is murder is not always so clear--e.g. someone can do a fast turn and this has been an issue in a number of self defense cases if you care to look it up. Action usually beats reaction. Mas Ayoob has a couple of them documented including one where the autopsy was botched on which was the entry and exit wound.

This newspaper account from the OK CIty newspaper is far better than the NY Post in providing some context.
http://newsok.com/article/5586977/j...kill-client-in-shooting-defense-attorney-says

 

[scaatylobo]

Sorry if I am being a armchair QB,but that is NOT a good use of DEADLY FORCE in any book I have ever read ---- or taught.

He was not a threat to anyone that I could see,she was in the wrong business for sure.

I am retired LEO,firearms instr,use of force instr and VERY happy to see a perp not be able to harm others.

But that was wrong,the judge made the error by not charging her properly = or was it the D.A's office ?.

 

[NWPilgrim]

Ignoring the legal aspects, I agree that the tactics are very poor for establishing and maintaining control. It may be the bondsman (woman) works alone and her scrawny son is all she has for backup. Dealing with desperate people (failed to show up in court and facing jail time), often men, she really needs to hire a bouncer guy to provide physical hands-on backup. Otherwise, she needs to have an office set up that isolates the client and protects her. Like a room with auto-locking door and her desk is behind a plexiglas barrier, and some means to incapacitate an uncooperative client. OR she could then approach with him with a gun to hold him compliant while someone cuffs him.

But an open office environment is not suitable for dealing with sometimes violent clients. And if she is going to use a gun it should be ON her person at all times. She is dang luck they guy chose to run rather than beat her and her son up and then run.

(As a side note to the legal aspect, I believe the client signs an agreement giving the bondsman permission to use any means necessary to hunt him down and prevent his fleeing, and state laws also give bondsmen much more leeway in using force to recover their "property". Normal rules of self-defense do not apply in those situations. Resorting to shooting clients instead of non-lethal confinement and restraint is bad business for word-of-mouth marketing and repeat customers.)

 

[WestKentucky]

Wow. That's just... well... Dude was not remotely violent. I don't understand her going for her gun. So tactics, have skilled people with nerves of steel instead of a scrawny teenager. Don't let your first response be go for a gun when your not being threatened, a baton or even a taser would have been much better options, or better yet just let the guy jump out the window since he isn't being a threat. Maybe have an office where you do this business which is set up with good windows that are fixed and not breakable.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

The purpose for this forum is not moral judgment but strategies and tactics which showing a video without context, all but proclaiming it as murder from YOUR viewpoint, is not really informative either.

Well, if I had just declared it murder, dropped the mic and walked out without detailing her bad choices, you might have a point. But, since I clearly talked about the elements and bad tactics that resulted in the bad shoot... you don't really have much of a point other than soapboxing.

The jury in this case...

I don't care. Start a thread in Legal if you want to talk about that. Again, this is Strat & Tac, where we talk about what she did right or wrong in the room that resulted in a man needlessly getting killed. Hopefully with the goal of other people not putting themselves in the same situation and making the same mistakes.

. Apparently, the actual shooting of the individual and alleged attempts to grab the gun from the defendant occur out of frame

Yeah, and her claim that he went for her gun and she beat him to it is a blatant lie as can be seen in the video. She doesn't beat him to the gun because he never goes for the gun because the gun is in a closed desk drawer and he likely never knew it was in the room until she pulls it from the desk.

She also told police that they struggled for the gun, which is another blatant lie. That's why I posted the video, and not a link to her lies. Have you watched the video? Because, the video makes it very obvious that there is no altercation over the gun. The video makes it very obvious that he wasn't going for her gun and she beat him to it.

so this video is essential useless as a S&T issue.

Are you kidding? The video is a catalog of screw ups that led to a needlessly fatal encounter.

Let me help you with the most obvious one to me: She has chosen to lock herself in a small room, with a clearly physically superior male with absolutely zero plan for how she is going to accomplish an opposed arrest and no tools for doing so other than a gun. She doesn't have OC. She doesn't have a taser. She doesn't have a baton. I'm pretty sure she has no effective combative training. What she has is a completely useless, clueless and probably untrained son, and a gun in an unlocked desk drawer.

If you don't think that is a horrible strategy, and if you don't think that's clearly obvious in the video, I don't know what to say.

This video should be used in Bail Bondsman training as a perfect example of what not to do.

 

[entropy]

Correct charge should have been 2nd, or 3rd degree if OK has them. She should not have been in that business, it is obvious she was not cut out for it. Her command presence reminded me of Police Cadet Hooks in Police Academy, no non-lethal compliance equipment, it appears no training. Just amazing that she was (assumedly) licensed as a bondsman. (Bondsperson?)

Just increasing the amount of obcenities in your speech is not command presence.

The St. Paul PD had a 5'2" female officer many years ago who shot several suspects within the first couple years on the job, because they'd just laugh and try to disarm her when she'd try to cuff them.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I don't care. Start a thread in Legal if you want to talk about that. Again, this is Strat & Tac, where we talk about what she did right or wrong in the room that resulted in a man needlessly getting killed.

I agree with a lot of what you said in your OP. However, you trespassed into the world of legal arguments overtly when you interjected your opinion that basically the legal system is crooked because the jury didn't see things the way you did, after you watched a 1:33 video. Then after making your judgment on the legal proceedings, went on to say that this wasn't a legal discussion, meaning you wanted to get your opinion out there, but didn't want it challenged.

Again, I agree with a lot of your thoughts on the matter. It certainly didn't seem necessary judging by the footage we saw.

But that was wrong,the judge made the error by not charging her properly = or was it the D.A's office ?.

The initial charges (at least in Arkansas) are charged by the Prosecuting Attorney's office.

I am not an expert persay on the topic, but I can tell you about one particular self defense case that I worked on where something like this came up.
I won't give too many details because it was pretty recent but here is the brief summary.

A guy shot and killed two people who were on his property, and claimed it was self defense.
The PA's office charged Murder 1, and wanted jury instructions given for Murder 2 and manslaughter as well.
The defense attorney (wisely) objected to the lesser included offenses being included. Her exact words were, "The state doesn't just get to throw everything it has at the wall and hope something sticks. It was either murder, or it wasn't."
The judge agreed and only Murder 1 jury instructions were given.
The jury came back with a verdict of not guilty. It was the right decision in this particular case, as there was much more evidence of aggression on behalf of the 2 dead guys than we see in the case we're discussing now.

So it starts with the PA or DA depending on your state, and then it gets more complicated as the judge decides on what instructions to give the jury.

 

[boom boom]

Well, if I had just declared it murder, dropped the mic and walked out without detailing her bad choices, you might have a point. But, since I clearly talked about the elements and bad tactics that resulted in the bad shoot... you don't really have much of a point other than soapboxing.




I don't care. Start a thread in Legal if you want to talk about that. Again, this is Strat & Tac, where we talk about what she did right or wrong in the room that resulted in a man needlessly getting killed. Hopefully with the goal of other people not putting themselves in the same situation and making the same mistakes.



Yeah, and her claim that he went for her gun and she beat him to it is a blatant lie as can be seen in the video. She doesn't beat him to the gun because he never goes for the gun because the gun is in a closed desk drawer and he likely never knew it was in the room until she pulls it from the desk.

She also told police that they struggled for the gun, which is another blatant lie. That's why I posted the video, and not a link to her lies. Have you watched the video? Because, the video makes it very obvious that there is no altercation over the gun. The video makes it very obvious that he wasn't going for her gun and she beat him to it.




Are you kidding? The video is a catalog of screw ups that led to a needlessly fatal encounter.

Let me help you with the most obvious one to me: She has chosen to lock herself in a small room, with a clearly physically superior male with absolutely zero plan for how she is going to accomplish an opposed arrest and no tools for doing so other than a gun. She doesn't have OC. She doesn't have a taser. She doesn't have a baton. I'm pretty sure she has no effective combative training. What she has is a completely useless, clueless and probably untrained son, and a gun in an unlocked desk drawer.

If you don't think that is a horrible strategy, and if you don't think that's clearly obvious in the video, I don't know what to say.

This video should be used in Bail Bondsman training as a perfect example of what not to do.

From my understanding, this is a forum for S&T used by everyday folks, not bail bondsmen, military, nor leos. What is appropriate strategy and tactics for them is not for average Joe. As a bail bondsman, in accordance to law and other customs, she can apprehend a fleeing bondee, even with reasonable force, due in part to an old 1873 U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Taylor v. Taintor, 83 US 366 (1872).
"When bail is given, the principal is regarded as delivered to the custody of his sureties. Their dominion is a continuance of the original imprisonment. Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge; and if that cannot be done at once, they may imprison him until it can be done. They may exercise their rights in person or by agent. They may pursue him into another State; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and if necessary, may break and enter his house for that purpose. The seizure is not made by virtue of new process. None is needed. It is likened to the rearrest by the sheriff of an escaping prisoner. In 6 Modern it is said: "The bail have their principal on a string, and may pull the string whenever they please, and render him in their discharge." The rights of the bail in civil and criminal cases are the same. They may doubtless permit him to go beyond the limits of the State within which he is to answer, but it is unwise and imprudent to do so; and if any evil ensue, they must bear the burden of the consequences, and cannot cast them upon the obligee."

State courts have also weighed in on the matter and the laws regarding bail bondsmen do vary among the states but that is well beyond S&T on THR. Interesting legal question about boundaries of practice such as presenting and holding a fleeing felon at gunpoint but of little practical use for most of us in S&T. BTW, the defense claims that he came at here out of frame of the video before she shot him. That is in the Daily Oklahoman link above. Never assume that the video tells the whole story.

Now, let's summarize the lessons for S&T for the average THR reader who is not in the military, law enforcement, corrections, or a bail bondsman:

Average Joe should not invite a fleeing felon into their place or work or house under false pretenses to affect an arrest. Average Joe certainly should not lock themselves into a small room with their family member present to confront a potentially violent felon and attempt an arrest. Average Joe should make sure that the desperate felon has a way to escape rather than using lethal force to stop them. Average Joe should not dally in presentation of lethal force if necessary to protect their life. Average Joe should presumably have access to less than lethal technology and use that in preference to lethal if possible due to escalation of force doctrine. Average Joe should not try to affect an arrest. Average Joe should not try to prevent the escape of the fleeing felon. Oh, by the way, Average Joe should not shoot someone in the back if they are trying to exit peaceably. To the best of my knowledge, few if any THR posters have ever supported alternatives to any of these propositions, let alone all of them.

Depending on what testimony coupled with forensics and suitable experts, as a jury member, I might vote to convict on manslaughter or its equivalent in Oklahoma. First degree murder is not in the cards absent some evidence that she planned to execute the individual in advance and the prosecution as Entropy noted above clearly botched the job on first degree murder either through overcharging to get a plea deal or failure to collect/present sufficient evidence of the elements of the first degree charge (or its equivalent in OK). Self defense claims in jurisdictions often involve pretty guilty folks involved in criminal activity when the violence occurs and the prosecution could have been lulled to think that this would be an easy case to get a plea by threatening through the charge of giving the defendant the death penalty if convicted. Guilty people often fold under such pressure with a plea.

What is unknown unless you are from the area and familiar with the case is whether the court excluded evidence that might have suggested first degree murder but the prosecution for whatever reason could not bring it forward to the jury. The prosecution apparently recognized that they had problems with the case by belatedly trying to present lesser charges just before the jury went into deliberations. The judge wisely refused in this case because it presents a constitutional due process problem for the defense because their presentation to the jury is done.

Defense strategy and case in chief go to the specific facts and law on a particular charge rather than all possible charges under the law. Impossible to defend if you do not know what charges are to be applied to a case and this affects what witnesses, cross examination questions, and evidence that you would present to the jury. In an affirmative defense case, it would be tantamount to conviction in some cases as the defendant's case requires presenting evidence of guilt in the shooting but that defendant must present evidence to show it was justified. No defendant evidence presented, no self defense claim is allowed.

Have fun with the rest of the thread as I am done.

 

[JohnKSa]

Yeah, I know she was acquitted. To me, that's just proof that if you have the right jury and defense attorney, you can indeed get away with murder, because murder is what's in the video.

Actually, it shows what happens when a prosecutor over-reaches. The charge was premeditated murder/murder with malice aforethought. What happened in the video was pretty obviously not premeditated. If the prosecutor had brought the proper charges it is very likely that the bail agent would have been convicted.

However, that is neither here nor there in the context of the S&T subforum of THR which is supposed to be for the discussion of: "Training and mindset for staying safe."

In this case, it seems clear that "staying safe" doesn't include intentionally locking yourself in a very small enclosed space with a criminal who can obviously, easily physically overpower you. I'm not sure what other S&T lessons there are to be learned past that one, and I think that lesson is pretty obvious without further discussion.