Richmond Va police officer guilty in shooting

[1911 guy]

Ah, more details.

So the first post was a bit, shall we say, skewed in its details. The officer was not dragged, the driver was compliant. A far cry from the tenor of the original version.

O.K., I have an unknown person who may or may not be armed. They are being cooperative. So what do I do? Reach into their vehicle and forcibly drag them out? Sorry, bad department policy or the cop is a numbnut. With a cooperative driver, there was nothing to de-escelate.

I must now publicly state that I am reversing my initial reaction, which was in support of the police officer. While I do support cops being able to deal with threats they find themselves confronted by, I see a certain "gung-ho" attitude in the actions of the two officers that cost a man his life.

 

[Lucky]

If an officer thought he saw a pistol, then he did nothing wrong saying so. How the offending officer chose to act was, it seems, quite wrong.

 

[JohnBT]

I found this cached report on Google. The original report was on a local tv station's site. Note the next to last sentence:

"Investigators on the scene during the incident maintain that a firearm and a small amount of marijuana were found in Oliverria's car."

What would you do when the driver grabs you, puts the car in gear and drives off with you hanging out of the open door? John

_____________________________________________________________
By Amy Lacey, 8News

A high-profile case involving a former Richmond Police Officer Michael Couture returns to court. 8News was inside the courtroom for jury selection and opening arguments in the trial. We were inside the courtroom for jury selection and opening arguments in the trial.

Michael Couture is charged with voluntary manslaughter for the May 2004 shooting death of Santanna Oliverria during a traffic stop. Today, Couture entered a not guilty plea.

In a video-taped statement played for the court, Couture said he attempted to get Oliverria out of his burgundy Pontiac during the traffic stop, when the car started rolling forward, with Couture partially inside.

On the tape, Couture said he managed to pull himself into the car with his head facing the passenger side floor panel, he then grabbed his gun and fired one round, shooting Oliverria in the chest.

During opening statements, Commonwealth's Attorney Michael Herring said the shot was fired under circumstances of passion - Oliverria, who had both hands on the steering wheel, was not an immediate threat to Couture.

But, defense attorney David Baugh said it was a justifiable homicide -- Oliverria put Couture in danger and the officer feared for his life.

You'll recall that Couture was tried on murder charges last year, but it ended in a mistrial.

Couture's former partner, Edward Aeshelman had all charges cleared against him earlier this year.

Investigators on the scene during the incident maintain that a firearm and a small amount of marijuana were found in Oliverria's car.

The first full day of arguments is set to begin Thursday at 9 AM.

Copyright 2006 by Young Broadcasting, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[Lucky]

They all seem pretty clear in their description of 'rolling forward', not accelerating, and it's simply understandable that the foot could come off the brake peddle if you are in a submission hold and being dragged out of a vehicle. If it happened like you say then the driver was really stupid, but the way everything reads he was just really unlucky. And the officer had a great lawyer.

 

[wolfgang77]

Follow up

I know this is an old thread but I recently came across it. I am a Richmond police office that sat in on most of both trials. I read through all of your posts and there are many conflicting reports. You must remember there are differences with what the prosecutor says, the defendant says, and what the news says. From what I remember the facts as Couture stated them and not the prosecutor or the papers are as follows.

He stated that he was attempting to remove the person from the car to get the person out of the car and away from the gun. He admitted that he never saw the gun but that from his partner’s statements he was sure there was a gun under the seat, which there was. He easily could have lied said that he saw the gun.

Couture said that the driver put the car in gear and started to pull off and flee (the prosecutor and the papers said car started to roll). He said he ran with the car trying to get the driver to stop until he lost his balance and fell half in and half out of the car. He further stated that fearing that he could not back out of a moving car he pulled himself further into the car.

Couture stated that during this time he continued to tell the driver to stop but the driver refused to. Couture said that after fearing for his life he rolled over fired one round at the driver. He said that simultaneously as he fired his gun and noticed the driver’s hands starting to come up and saying don't. Was the driving submitting and giving up, or did he realize he was about to get shot and was recoiling?

After the trial I spoke with the Richmond PD head of internal affairs who sat in for the whole trial. In his words he told me it was a good shooting.

With respect people who question the jury assigning a 2500 dollar fine. During sentencing the jury was given information that is not available during trail. It was then that they found out that the hand gun in the car was illegally purchased and that there were also drugs in the car. There were jury members crying during the sentencing hearing, did they feel guilty that they made a wrong decision that they could not go back on? Or were they crying for a grieving mother? I don't know but the $2500 dollar fine is the best they could do to attempt to correct a bad decision (if that was the case).

I can't see convicting a police office and then just giving a fine, police officers are held to a high standard. It is more often that the police officer when convicted of a crime will get the maximum sentence not the minimum. That is the only thing that makes me think that the sentence was an attempt to fix a mistake. It just sucks that Couture even had to make that decision. If the driver does not resist and flee we would not be talking about it.

 

[Superlite27]

There will always be situations and occurrences that are hard to explain. Who was right? Who was wrong? We all have our opinions even though none of us were there. Nobody will ever know for certain.

The thing I personally find frightening is wolfgang77's apparent ease with letting the "end justify the means". This is a common occurrence within law enforcement IMHO.

Good thing the handgun was illegally purchased and there were drugs found in the car DETERMINED AFTERWARD. Had the firearm been legally owned and the car free from controlled substances, would it then have been determined a bad shoot as opposed to a good one?

How was Officer Couture supposed to know these things before he fired? Did he somehow have E.S.P. and was able to determine that the firearm was illegally purchased and there were drugs in the car before he shot?

If not, how do you justify calling it a "good shoot" since these things were not determined until afterwards? How does the presence of illegal items alter the justification of a shooting that occurred before the knowledge of them existed?

Does this mean people can just shoot others at random? Maybe some will get lucky and an illegally posessed weapon will be found on some of the bodies making those random shootings justified. Wolfgang77 uses this occurrence to justify the above scenario.

The thing I noticed is simply the presence of a firearm in this case seemed to make the officers lean towards deadly force as a natural reaction.

I carry a firearm. Of course, I would always comply with an officers demands. Hopefully, an officer never enters my car trying to remove my seatbelt and falls on my legs causing my car to move. However, after I am shot, the officer won't have the benefit of discovering illegal items to justify the homicide in the jury's minds.

 

[Buck Snort]

"Herring, who took office in January, decided to present a case for a lesser charge and also dropped a murder charge against Aeschlimann. Aeschlimann, 28, remains on the Richmond police force and testified on behalf of his former 1st Precinct partner."

That's not the way it works unless you're a cop. Normally they drop the charges when you agree to testify AGAINST the defendent, not for him.

 

[Buck Snort]

wolfgang77 wrote: "After the trial I spoke with the Richmond PD head of internal affairs who sat in for the whole trial. In his words he told me it was a good shooting."

Surprise, surprise.

 

[Ben86]

I think shooting the guy may have been an over-reaction, since the cop voluntarily leaped into the car, as opposed to being forcefully kidnapped. However, how was he supposed to end this ride?

 

[wolfgang77]

Superlite:

I think you misunderstood what I was pointing out about the gun being illegally obtained. I was just addressing why a jury would convict a police officer and then give a minimum sentence. I was pointing out that I think these issues may have played into the jury’s decision to give the minimum especially if some jurors reluctantly voted guilty. If the gun was legal or illegal had no bearing on the shooting being justified or not. I think the car was more of an issue than the gun but the defense never really made that argument well during the trail.

First of all Ben 86:

Couture stated that after running with car trying to stop the driver from fleeing he fell into the car laying across the driver. Not that he leaped into the car, Herring made that argument. Like I said there are many versions. You get the defendant’s version, the prosecution’s version, and the Media’s version, and unless you were there or do a thorough investigation, how do you discern fact from speculation?

Put yourself in this position, you are laying half in and half out of a moving car; do you push yourself out and possible get run over by the fleeing vehicle or by another car? It has not worked out well for other officers that were in the same situation; unfortunately they are not alive today to give their opinion. Do you pull yourself the rest of the way into the car? What do you do when you are in the car if the driver refuses to stop? Do you get in a fist fight behind the wheel of a moving car like in a Hollywood movie? What happens when you are fighting in a moving car and you hit another car or a child walking on the side walk? Do you sit in the passenger’s seat and wait until he gets where he is going? These are all decisions that need to be made in a split second. Police officers are trained to put themselves in harm’s way to protect others but that doesn’t mean they cannot protect themselves. The main point I am trying to make is that it is easy to play armchair quarterback when someone has to make a life or death decision in less than a blink of an eye and we have the rest of our lives to debate if it was justified or if it was manslaughter.

Buck Snort: “Surprise, Surprise”

I guess you must think all police offers are corrupt? IA is there to investigate police officers, I have been investigated and written up by IA and let me tell you they were not my friends. I have talked to many attorneys in the Prosecutor’s office and they thought this case should have never gone to trial.

 

[hirundo82]

With how much latitude police get from IA, prosecutors, judges, and juries, and how often they get no punishment at all for obviously bad shoots (other than a few months of paid [strike]vacation[/strike] leave), I won't apologize for being dubious that an officer is wronged when a case makes it all the way through the justice system and ends up with a guilty verdict.

 

[Buck Snort]

wolfgang77 wrote: "I guess you must think all police offers are corrupt? IA is there to investigate police officers, I have been investigated and written up by IA and let me tell you they were not my friends. I have talked to many attorneys in the Prosecutor’s office and they thought this case should have never gone to trial."

There are IA's and there are IA's. Some of them do a good job of keeping a department cleaned up and some of them are just a rubber stamp.

 

[tobyjones]

This is one of the reasons that I choose not to utilize my CPL. I feel like I have no faith that doing the right thing would keep me out of trouble. If I was ever in a situation where my safety or that of my family was at risk I stand an equal chance of surviving a badguy or our justice system.

 

[Art Eatman]

Enough contentious opinions. But, thanks, Wolfgang...