Trial in shooting opens for 2 Pa. Troopers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
591
Location
New York NY
By Jerome L. Sherman
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Samuel Nassan's voice was shaking. He had just shot 12-year-old Michael Ellerbe.

"Get an ambulance here, quick!" he said over a police radio. "Get him here quick!"

The trooper's lawyer played the recording Wednesday during the opening arguments of a federal lawsuit targeting him and Trooper Juan Curry. They had been responding to a report of a stolen car in Uniontown on Christmas Eve of 2002 when Michael was killed.

Both sides in the trial gave sharply contrasting descriptions of the event.

Attorneys for Michael Hickenbottom, Michael's father, and the troopers agree that Trooper Nassan shot the unarmed boy in the back as he fled from a Ford Bronco. But they agree on little else.

They disagree about how many people were in the car, the positions of the officers at the time of the shooting and whether Michael was hit once or twice.

Geoffrey Fieger, a prominent trial lawyer from Michigan who is representing Mr. Hickenbottom, repeatedly referred to Michael as "the little boy with candy in his pocket" and claimed that troopers Nassan and Curry had changed their stories several times. He argued that they knew they never faced a serious threat and violated Michael's constitutional right by using "unnecessary force" to subdue him.

"They're not ever, ever permitted to shoot a child, or even an adult, in the back when he is running away from them," he told jurors in his hour-long opening statement. He noted that today would have been Michael's 18th birthday.

Andrew K. Fletcher, who is representing the troopers, described the shooting as a terrible tragedy. But he argued that the troopers were pursuing a suspected felon under tense, confusing circumstances. The entire incident, he said, took place over 90 seconds, and he recounted it for the jury with a computer animation.

The troopers had been driving on Cleveland Avenue when they spotted the Bronco, which had been reported stolen. Trooper Nassan yelled for the driver to stop. Instead, the car backed down an alleyway and crashed. Michael then ran from the car.

Mr. Fieger, who called the animation a "cartoon," argued that Trooper Nassan was close enough to see that the suspect was a boy. He also cited witnesses who said that someone else had been driving the car.

Trooper Nassan yelled several times for Michael to stop. He said the boy kept putting one hand in his pocket and looking behind him. Trooper Curry also joined the pursuit, pulling ahead of his partner with his gun drawn.

Michael scaled a fence. As Trooper Curry tried to follow him his pants became stuck on the top of the fence. At that point, Trooper Curry has maintained, his gun went off accidentally. He then slid down the fence, Mr. Fletcher said.

Trooper Nassan, thinking his partner had been shot, fired at Michael.

Mr. Fletcher then showed a poster-size picture of Michael's dead body, pointing out a bullet wound on the back and one on the arm. He said the bullet came in at an angle, killing the boy.

"It did turn out that he was unarmed. It did turn out that he had candy in his pocket. It did turn out he was 12 years old," Mr. Fletcher said. "It was heartbreaking. But the troopers were doing their jobs."

Mr. Fieger said tests by an expert witness show that Trooper Curry's gun couldn't have gone off accidentally. He argued that both troopers fired at Michael. He also said the troopers went back to their barracks together, giving them a chance to craft a story.

Mr. Fletcher said the troopers were separated immediately, following standard procedure.

Several witnesses testified yesterday. One, 15-year-old Melvin Duley, who was 10 at the time and watched the incident from his window, told the court that he heard Trooper Curry laugh when an ambulance arrived. The trooper then said, "He's dead."

Melvin also said he heard three shots, not two. But he said he didn't see who fired the shots.

On cross-examination, Mr. Fletcher showed the boy a copy of sworn testimony he originally gave to state police investigators, saying that he saw Trooper Curry fire at Michael. Melvin said he didn't remember giving the statement.

The lawyer also questioned the boy's mother, Elsie Cornish, showing her a photo of a sign that used to hang in the window of their house. It read, "USA Police Sucks."

She denied that she was anti-police, although she said she belongs to a group called People Against Police Violence.

The trial was scheduled to resume on Friday, when former Allegheny County Coroner Dr. Cyril H. Wecht is due to testify on behalf of the troopers.

ARTICLE
 
And, your reason for posting this is...........???? Do you have any thoughts or opinions on the incident?
 
Michael scaled a fence. As Trooper Curry tried to follow him his pants became stuck on the top of the fence. At that point, Trooper Curry has maintained, his gun went off accidentally. He then slid down the fence, Mr. Fletcher said.

Trooper Nassan, thinking his partner had been shot, fired at Michael.

Mr. Fletcher then showed a poster-size picture of Michael's dead body, pointing out a bullet wound on the back and one on the arm. He said the bullet came in at an angle, killing the boy.

"It did turn out that he was unarmed. It did turn out that he had candy in his pocket. It did turn out he was 12 years old," Mr. Fletcher said. "It was heartbreaking. But the troopers were doing their jobs."

Mr. Fieger said tests by an expert witness show that Trooper Curry's gun couldn't have gone off accidentally. He argued that both troopers fired at Michael. He also said the troopers went back to their barracks together, giving them a chance to craft a story.

If the story mentioned exactly what model of gun it was, perhaps we could discuss the probability of the gun firing accidentally based on its design. :scrutiny:
 
Thanks for sharing.

Information alone, without any additional thoughts of your own, is something like sending a friend to visit without a phone call first. Someone arrives at the door, and... who's this? Not only was I not expecting this person, but is it holding one of those cop-bashing brochures? I can't tell in this light.

You can't blame us for not opening the door too far.
 
There are a couple of interesting points to be made.

1) Michael kept putting his hand in his pocket and looking behind him. This is told by one of the Troopers and since Michael is no longer around, we have no way to determine whether this is false or not.

2) The Trooper supposedly was trying to go over a fence with a gun in his hand?? I find this hard to fathom, and while it may be a possibility, I don't know of anyone who would climb over a fence with a gun in his hand.

3) The first Trooper's gun "went off".......causing the second Trooper to believe his partner was being shot at, which caused him to fire.

4) What makes the second Trooper think his partner was being shot when it was the first Trooper's gun that fired?? Why wouldn't he think his partner shot Michael and the incident was over?

5) Alot will depend on what was going through the mind of the second Trooper. What did he see? What did he believe? If as claimed, he saw Michael digging in his pockets, a reasonable person could believe that he was reaching for a firearm.

6) The Troopers are either carrying a Beretta 96D or have transitioned to Glocks's in .45GAP.
 
Since newspaper reports are always filtered through the writer's bias, it is almost impossible to determine any facts from them, let alone know or understand the thoughts and intentions of those involved who survived. The intentions of the dead will never be known.

Worse, I can't remember what I was doing six years ago, and I doubt that any of those witnesses, police included, can either. Over time, the events become clouded in false memories, self-justification, and attempts to say what people want you to say.

I pass on this one.

Jim
 
since the troopers are not in jail it would appear their department has already cleared them of any wrong doing, no big surprise.

who knows what really happened? one side in this case did the investigation and has no reason it would want to admit the troopers did anything wrong. its possible that a fair investigation resulted, but since these things tend to follow a script, its hard to believe.

OTOH, after 6 years, the situation is no doubt so mucked up that who knows what the jury will believe.
 
Its a civil trial, not a criminal trial.

Just like a homeowner, you might end up being cleared in a shooting as far as any criminal charges, but the family of any persons shot or killed can come after you in civil court.
 
Nobody has yet remarked on the involvement of Geoffrey Fieger representing the parents. The Wikipedia article on him is probably a decent quick introduction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Fieger.

Fieger's involvement might win the parents a large award and the troopers and the commonwealth even larger heapings of misery.
 
Just like a homeowner, you might end up being cleared in a shooting as far as any criminal charges,
If I shot an unarmed 12 YO kid in the back while he was running away from me, chances are there would be charges of some sort filed. I would not expect to get away with the tired old "I feared for my life" story.
 
What has to be determined is if they "knew" the 12 yo was unarmed and didn't shoot at the other trooper. Its not what we find out afterwards......its what is believed at the time.

Supposedly, the 12 yo was making movements towards his pocket (looking for a gun??????) and kept looking back towards the trooper.

IMHO, the biggest determining factor is going to be, where the 12 yo was in relation to the first trooper going over the fence............and the second trooper who fired. If the 12yo was not close to the first trooper......and the first trooper's gun went off........why would the second trooper think the 12 yo fired??
 
"If I shot an unarmed 12 YO kid in the back while he was running away from me, chances are there would be charges of some sort filed."

Bingo!!!. The old "they were pumped up with adrenalin and had to shoot someone" would not work for a civilian who shot a 12 year old kid in the back.
 
Was the 12yo making movements like he had a gun??

You do NOT judge what happened after the fact, you judge by what is known or should be known at the time of the incident.
 
You do NOT judge what happened after the fact, you judge by what is known or should be known at the time of the incident.
I agree. However, the point is there is no way to know after the fact what was known at the instant the shooting occurred.
 
You do NOT judge what happened after the fact, you judge by what is known or should be known at the time of the incident.

This might be the topic worthy of discussion because what we knew or should have known, and the appropriate responses, will be judged after the fact. People removed from the event in question will determine if your actions are valid or not.

2) The Trooper supposedly was trying to go over a fence with a gun in his hand?? I find this hard to fathom, and while it may be a possibility, I don't know of anyone who would climb over a fence with a gun in his hand.

3) The first Trooper's gun "went off".......causing the second Trooper to believe his partner was being shot at, which caused him to fire.

4) What makes the second Trooper think his partner was being shot when it was the first Trooper's gun that fired?? Why wouldn't he think his partner shot Michael and the incident was over?

As to point 2, the trooper may have forgot to holster his weapon before hitting the fence or made the decision not to do so, in the interest of saving time. Once he hit the fence, sympathetic response would have caused his gun hand to curl while his free hand was grabbing the fence. If his finger was on the trigger, nothing beyond an activated manual safety or an empty chamber would have stopped the shot from being discharged.

As to 4, the trooper might not have seen the muzzle flash of the other trooper's weapon. He hears a shot, thinks that he is being fired upon or the other trooper has seen something warranting deadly force, and opens fire as the suspect (who he thinks has not been hit in the exchange and poses a threat) opens fire.
 
No mention made (that I saw) as to why the Broncho was pulled over or how it was stopped. This is kinda like chasing a motor vehicle thru town at very high speed for a tail light out!!
 
To address the point of the Trooper's weapon firing or "going off" without his intent to fire it, I would point to the subject of inter-limb reflex or inter-limb response to explain that. If he were climbing a fence with one hand and a weapon in the other, inter-limb response would explain the ND/AD that started the shooting. And, it would partially explain why the Trooper thought/believed it wasn't his weapon that discharged since he didn't knowingly discharge it.
More on inter-limb response

We had an ND a couple of years ago by an officer in a town where I lived. He was climbing up into a trailer home with one arm and his weapon discharged due to inter-limb response.

This is a physical occurrence few people know exists and is partly the reason for trigger discipline when dealing with firearms in dynamic situations. And, it's something everyone should understand who would use a weapon for self defense.
 
Omerta

Given just the information in this thread, I'd be willing to say the cops screwed up. I might even go so far as to SPECULATE that they tried to cover up their mistake. I wouldn't go any where near so far as to call it murder.

What AMAZES me is the respone of our law enforcement contingant I.E. any thread questioning or in this case simply relating events is automatically "cop bashing"

Wow just ........wow .
 
And any LEO that tries to explain the incident from an officer's perspective (what they officer believed at the time, etc) is viewed as trying to cover up something.

In other words, it's okay to pick apart and berate the officers in threads like these, but LEO's aren't afforded the same courtesy, lest they be deemed to be making excuses.

The trial will determine whether the officer, knowing what he knew or should have known, acted correctly.....or screwed. Again, its what the officer believed at that time............not what is found out after the fact.
 
Lesson #1, don't run from the police when they tell you to stop. LEsson #2 if they can't see your hands you are a threat.

This probably would have gone down no differently if we took two random people on this board, trained them as LEOs, and tossed them into the exact same situation.

in this case simply relating events is automatically "cop bashing"

Experience tells people that threads like these quickly degenerate into cop bashing. You are willing to say that the cops screwed up based on a very VERY fact light article. It is like reading the abstract of a book and then arguing with an expert on the subject while refusing to be reasonable. It is SOP on Internet forums.
 
treo - Not a member of the law enforcement contingent, but the only useful information I could see in the OP was, Do Not run from the police if they tell to to stop.

But then I figured most of the posters here already knew that. There does appear to be some mistakes the police made, but this is not a training forum for police tactics, at least not that I am aware of.

Therefore my brilliant conclusion was that the best that could be hoped for was a bit of cop bashing. Now maybe some cop bashing is deserved in this case. But I don't think that is one of the forum's purposes either.

I do get a bit concerned about all of the anger directed at the police on here. Some of posters here have some real issues that are brought up every time a police involved event is discussed.
 
IMHO, the biggest determining factor is going to be, where the 12 yo was in relation to the first trooper going over the fence............and the second trooper who fired. If the 12yo was not close to the first trooper......and the first trooper's gun went off........why would the second trooper think the 12 yo fired??
Steve, the article filled in one of the blanks created by your ellipses (the dots, indicating where you truncated the text) by saying the Trooper Curry's gun went off and then he slid down the fence. That, in the context of the situation and hearing a gun shot, would appear to be reason to think he might have been shot.

What concerns me is that the defense is planning to use Cyril Wecht as their expert. I wonder if their lawyer knows what he's doing?

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4209112

Steve, was there an outcome to Wecht's trial? Is his reputation today solid, or is he now "damaged goods"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top