LE shoots man in the back when cuffed and down

[mark056]

oh I'm not curious about the murder charge, I'm curious about involuntary manslaughter, or anything else. I would like to know, if I would be completely let off the hook, no charges.

That would be up to a grand jury which would listen to all of the evidence assuming the officer in question is brought up on manslaughter charges which one would think is the most probable charge along with some lesser included offenses.

Mark L.

 

[DickWanner]

That would be up to a grand jury which would listen to all of the evidence assuming the officer in question is brought up on manslaughter charges which one would think is the most probable charge along with some lesser included offenses.

Mark L.

It is sad that he would have to go through with all of that, but I have to think of how I would be treated in a similar situation as a non-LEO. There has to be some accountability here.

 

[M1911]

There has to be some accountability here.

I think there will be. Give the legal system time. It often grinds very slowly.

 

[center442]

I think there will be. Give the legal system time. It often grinds very slowly.

Apparently it's going too slowly for some people.

Rioting aftermath over shooting.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

I would really like to know how you came up with this ?

I Call the cop shooting the handcuffed guy in the back MURDER, and the person who runs into the man handcuffed to a telephone pole murder as well.

What would you call it Manslaughter ?

No...it would not be.

 

[M1911]

What would you call it Manslaughter ?

It is about intent. Did he intend to kill the man? If you believe that he thought he had his Taser in his hand, then his intent was to subdue the man, not to kill him.

Murder generally requires intent to kill. Manslaughter does not.

Has this happened before, that a cop thought he had his Taser in his hand and not his gun? Yes. The link to that article has been posted, but apparently many people here refuse to read it.

One of the possible scenarios expressed by those who have observed the video of the New Year’s Day shooting on Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) in Oakland, Calif. is that the officer intended to use his TASER and mistakenly grabbed his firearm. This is altogether possible, and we have written about similar tragedies in the past.

How this could happen is truly at the root of what we understand about human mistakes. For example, we have learned that the disruption of a motor program to a high level can cause us to make mistakes. James Reason in his book, Human Error, explains how this occurs and calls these errors "double-capture slips." In the BART video, we see the officer who is straddling the subject who is ultimately killed reach for his TASER, then drop his hand to the subject in what appears to be a controlling movement. So the officer appeared to initiate the motor program to draw the TASER and was then interrupted. He then rises and draws his firearm and moments later fires into the back of the struggling subject.

Relevant to this is the motor principle that keeping movement patterns as close as possible to already well-learned patterns enhances learning and speed. This is one of the reasons it is often considered a great idea to carry an off-duty weapon as close as possible to where you carry your on-duty weapon. Great idea so far, since the "cues" that will cause you to initiate the motor skill of drawing a handgun will be the same on- and off-duty.

But the TASER is a different animal. It is used in less lethal situations, which will look like a much different set of "cues" to our senses. The position and training of that instrument must be done in a completely different manner than our handguns! One of the many problems we have to deal with is that our program or schema for drawing a handgun is or should be learned to an automatic level. It is done automatically whenever the proper cues, stimuli or threats are present.

Once something is learned to that level after thousands of repetitions, it is difficult to change and damn near impossible to quickly forget. As stress gets greater and greater motor programs get run exactly as trained and this implies we need to practice drawing both firearms and TASERs from non-traditional positions, but ones we certainly might end up in during a confrontation. Just look at the video of the BART shooting and the stress the officers are exhibiting (it is obviously a high-liability, ambiguous crowd situation) and the awkward position of the officer who fires his handgun.

The TASER feels and draws like a handgun, but it is completely different. It should be placed completely away from our firearm and a new schema should be trained into our memory for its use. The proper cues should be practiced for when to use it, how to tell if it is working (knowledge of results) and how to retain it in a conflict. We need to make sure we do sufficient repetitions for all our tools and for more insight into motor learning issues check out Motor Learning and Performance 2nd ed. by Richard Schmidt. (See more information about Dr. Schmidt's research below)

It remains to be seen whether TASER confusion was actually a factor in the BART shooting, but it does serve as a good reminder for all officers. Hopefully by applying these human learning and performance principles we can prevent TASER/firearm placement confusion. Also, if you train anyone in any motor skill - from Little League to Officer Survival - you should familiarize yourself with Dr. Schmidt's principles.

Full text here: http://www.policeone.com/officer-sh...ART-shooting-raises-issue-of-TASER-confusion/

Do I know that is what happened? No, I don't, but I think it is entirely likely.

Note in the comments of that article is this:

I have viewed three separate recordings from people who used their camera phones. I think that this scenario has strong possibility because I saw another BART officer with a TASER mounted on the same side as his firearm (strong side).

Putting the Taser on the strong side of the belt, along with the gun, is a setup for this type of mistake to happen, and is indicative of a failure of policy in the department. No, I'm not saying that absolves the officer of his responsibility. But I do think it calls into question the training and policies of the department, possibly increasing the department's liability.

 

[clinotus]

I would really like to know how you came up with this ?

I Call the cop shooting the handcuffed guy in the back MURDER, and the person who runs into the man handcuffed to a telephone pole murder as well.

What would you call it Manslaughter ?

Its going to depend on the mens rea, this instance looks more like a manslaughter charge which would likely be gross negligence, criminal negligence, or recklessness.

For the car example it would be Vehicular Manslaughter.

 

[Jaxon]

 

[mark056]

I would really like to know how you came up with this ?

I Call the cop shooting the handcuffed guy in the back MURDER, and the person who runs into the man handcuffed to a telephone pole murder as well. What would you call it Manslaughter ?

This has been more than adequately answered by Clinotus and 1911, still I'd love to have read how the Banned Barrister of Bulletland: the Scrivner would have answered it.

Mark L.

 

[M1911]

Agreed. IANAL, so Lord knows just what I'm missing. Scrivener would be sure to point that out exactly, in his usual gentle way

 

[Erebus]

I find it possible yet quite doubtful that the LEO made a decision to kill this man. If he did decide to kill the man it's murder. If he had not decided to kill the man and accidentally grabbed his pistol instead of his tazer than it's something less than murder.

It's the same with the car scenario. If you intentionally pushed the accelerator with the intention of running down the pedestrian it's murder. If you mistakenly pushed the accelerator while intending to push the brake it's something less than murder.

 

[HooVooLoo]

...something less than murder...

They call it "manslaughter".

 

[FalArAk]

Handcuffed people can still be quite dangerous. Was it necessary in this case? I don't know.

How can someone,which basically has no use of their arms, pose a threat ?

If what you are saying is true,then after every person a cop handcuffs,the cop should then taser the person into submission.

You make it sound like cops are afraid their own shadow is a threat to their safety.

It seems to me,cops pose a serious threat to my safety,being as they never feel safe and can justify beating my ass into submission because apparently everything is a dangerous threat to them.

I swear,cops live in a fantasy world when it comes to justifying lethal or non lethal force.

 

[M1911]

How can someone,which basically has no use of their arms, pose a threat ?

More than a few police have been injured by handcuffed subjects. More than a few handcuffed subjects don't stay that way.

Have you ever handcuffed someone? If all you know about handcuffing is what you learned from TV, then you don't know jack. Handcuffing someone is not a two-step process: click-click all done. After you get the cuffs on the perp, you need to tighten them properly. Not too much, or you will injure the perp. Too loose and he'll get out.

After you have the tightness adjusted, you're not done yet. The cuffs are not secure until you lock them. That requires fitting a small pointed object (projection on a cuff key or the point of a pen) into a hole on each cuff and pushing down. That is basically impossible while someone is resisting unless you've got a huge pig pile on them.

I swear,cops live in a fantasy world when it comes to justifying lethal or non lethal force.

I'm not a cop and never have been. But you've got no frickin' clue. Try handcuffing someone. You'll find it isn't all that easy with a cooperative subject.

 

[GSG]

More than a few police have been injured by handcuffed subjects. More than a few handcuffed subjects don't stay that way.

Have you ever handcuffed someone? If all you know about handcuffing is what you learned from TV, then you don't know jack. Handcuffing someone is not a two-step process: click-click all done. After you get the cuffs on the perp, you need to tighten them properly. Not too much, or you will injure the perp. Too lose and he'll get out.

After you have the tightness adjusted, you're not done yet. The cuffs are not secure until you lock them. That requires fitting a small pointed object (projection on a cuff key or the point of a pen) into a hole on each cuff and pushing down. That is basically impossible while someone is resisting unless you've got a huge pig pile on them.



I'm not a cop and never have been. But you've got no frickin' clue. Try handcuffing someone. You'll find it isn't all that easy with a cooperative subject.

+1

Handcuffing someone is one step in restraining them. There have been plenty of handcuffed people who have escaped from cruisers, shot & killed police officers (while handcuffed, keep in mind), fistfought their way to freedom or otherwise.

Here's one:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2487004&page=1

Cop Killing Sparks Immigration Debate
Police Chief Blames Federal Government for Officer's Death
Sept. 25, 2006

The shooting of a Houston police officer has sparked a new battle over immigration.

Juan Leonardo Quintero, an illegal immigrant, has been charged with killing a Houston police officer last week after a routine traffic stop.

Police Chief Harold Hurtt blamed the federal government for failing to secure U.S. borders.

Quintero allegedly shot Officer Rodney Johnson four times in the head while in handcuffs in the back seat of his patrol car.

Johnson arrested Quintero during a routine traffic stop for speeding but apparently missed the suspect's gun in a pat-down search.

Following the shooting, a video showed Houston police officers pulling open the back doors of Johnson's patrol car and yanking the suspect out of the back seat.

"It's very easy to make a mistake. I am not saying a mistake was made," one Houston police officer said. "Unfortunately, we are in the business where a mistake can kill you."

The suspect should not have been in the United States.

Quintero was deported in 2004 after a conviction for indecency with a child.

"The subject was deported, and yet he came back, so if the government fulfilled their responsibility of protecting the border we would probably not be standing here today," Hurtt said.

The Houston Police Department has been struggling this year to deal with the influx of Katrina evacuees and an immigration problem that is only getting worse.

Border Patrol said thousands of illegal immigrants crossed into the United States each month.

Johnson received a commendation for valor for pulling several children from a burning building.

He leaves behind a wife who is also a police officer and their five children.

 

[theGringo]

How can someone,which basically has no use of their arms, pose a threat ?

If what you are saying is true,then after every person a cop handcuffs,the cop should then taser the person into submission.

Can't we all just get along?

 

[JonJ]

I finally saw this video tonight. It's disturbing and sad. Not only because someone died but in it's totality. One mistake in the fraction of a second. It can happen to anyone at anytime.
It doesn't appear that the shooting was intentional but it was very costly.
Hopefully some good will come out of this in the form of training and policies/procedures.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

Yes it has been answered,

Thank you all of you that replied to my posts.

Maybe you can E mail Scriv and ask him his POV.

I guess I'm not as forgiving as most here I would call proper punishment for the LEO an Eye for an Eye and a Life for a Life.

Not getting fired and or being incarcerated for a # of years in state prison.

At the minimum I would like to see him get the punishment that a average citizen would get for doing the same thing.

I'm tired of the average cop (Revenue Officer) and tired of the court system that is for most respects is a collection agency for the state.

This has been more than adequately answered by Clinotus and 1911, still I'd love to have read how the Banned Barrister of Bulletland: the Scrivner would have answered it.

Mark L.

 

[M1911]

I guess I'm not as forgiving as most here I would call proper punishment for the LEO an Eye for an Eye and a Life for a Life.

Not getting fired and or being incarcerated for a # of years in state prison.

At the minimum I would like to see him get the punishment that a average citizen would get for doing the same thing.

You've already tried and convicted not only the officer but the justice system as well. Either you don't understand the difference between murder and manslaughter or you are so blinded by your dogma that you can't accept the possibility that this might not have been intentional.

The investigation is just starting. The process is just barely begun. The officer will face criminal prosecution. Justice isn't like a hamburger. You don't get it 30 seconds after you order it.

For @!@#!@!@# sakes, let the process work. Don't be such a prejudiced @#!@!

 

[FalArAk]

More than a few police have been injured by handcuffed subjects. More than a few handcuffed subjects don't stay that way.

And how many handcuffed people have been killed or shot by cops ?

 

[SemiAutoSam]

IF the officer that is accused of killing the man that was in handcuffs on the ground was the actual cop that pulled the trigger I dont care if it was intentional IN My Court he would burn either way.

Yes I do understand the difference in law I just would not apply the difference to his punishment if I were on the jury.

Oops I shot you in the back Gee I'm sorry...

A LEO is held to a higher standard right ? If this is the case shouldn't he be answerable to pay the price of this higher standard ?

I would really like to know how this would play out if we had the old English common law and not the statute BS that is in place now.

OK Ill wait with baited breath for the results of the officers trial..

But as far as the so called justice system some parts of it are fraudulent and corrupt.

My experience with the court system mostly has to do with the offence called an infraction. But this is not to say that all other areas of Court procedure are free from flaws and corruption.

Beating Civil Traffic Tickets - Part 1 Standing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL70LQPHiQA

Beating Civil Traffic Tickets - Part 2 impeach a witness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcVnzaUduZU

Beating Civil Traffic Tickets Part 3 - Fair trial impossible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz4bfPc4xJM

You've already tried and convicted not only the officer but the justice system as well. Either you don't understand the difference between murder and manslaughter or you are so blinded by your dogma that you can't accept the possibility that this might not have been intentional.

The investigation is just starting. The process is just barely begun. The officer will face criminal prosecution. Justice isn't like a hamburger. You don't get it 30 seconds after you order it.

For @!@#!@!@# sakes, let the process work. Don't be such a prejudiced @#!@!

 

[mikem317]

Holy crap. Can you say executed?

 

[sig2009]

Funny thing is the police department is not pressing charges because he resigned. Case closed they say.

 

[mikem317]

Funny thing is the police department is not pressing charges because he resigned. Case closed they say.

I feel irrational
So confrontational
To tell the truth I am,
Getting away with murder

~ Papa Roach

 

[hminsky]

I may be off base here, but this is the kind of thing that makes we wonder about the trend for issuing guns for cops that have no safety on them.

It seems like there is a tradeoff between having a safety, and you get some officers forgetting to remove it before firing, versus having no safety and having more accidental discharges. Watching the video, my gut feeling is that the cop pulled out the gun, it had no safety, and in the heat of the moment he squeezed the trigger too hard.

Is there any study of how the number of accidental discharges changed when a police department switched to a gun with no safety on it? Or have police departments always used guns with no safety? And no, the stupid thing in the middle if the Glock trigger does not count as a safety.

 

[Jaxon]

I may be off base here, but this is the kind of thing that makes we wonder about the trend for issuing guns for cops that have no safety on them.

It seems like there is a tradeoff between having a safety, and you get some officers forgetting to remove it before firing, versus having no safety and having more accidental discharges. Watching the video, my gut feeling is that the cop pulled out the gun, it had no safety, and in the heat of the moment he squeezed the trigger too hard.

Is there any study of how the number of accidental discharges changed when a police department switched to a gun with no safety on it? Or have police departments always used guns with no safety? And no, the stupid thing in the middle if the Glock trigger does not count as a safety.

Really, even when we carried a gun with a safety, it was never used. So, it probably doesn't make any difference.

 

[GSG]

You've already tried and convicted not only the officer but the justice system as well.

Reminds me of the Malice Green case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_Green

"Local leaders, including Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young, may have feared a repeat of the Los Angeles riots in Detroit. Young stated that Green was "literally murdered by police" on national television less than 72 hours after the incident, before any investigation had been concluded. He also stated that the "wrong" verdict in the case could cause riots similar to those in Los Angeles after the Rodney King incident."

and

"Stanley Knox, Detroit's Chief of Police, denied the officers involved a Police Board of Review and refused to hear their side of the story, firing or suspending without pay all 7 officers at the scene. Knox openly compared this incident to the Rodney King incident in LA.

The City of Detroit paid a civil agreement of $5.25 million to Malice Green's family, and an assistant city attorney allegedly stated that "a generous settlement might spare the city the riotous violence that racked Los Angeles after the acquittal of the police officers."

 

[-kj-]

As for tasers, perhaps they need to be a completely different form factor so that you can't confuse them with a handgun. Set them up like the Star Trek TOS phasers (Type 1, that is), perhaps - rectangular with a button on the top that you press instead of a pistol grip style.

Good idea... I agree 100%.

But IMO in this particular case I don't believe for a second that a properly hired, properly trained man or woman would mistake one from the other.

An exception being in a split second decision situation where the subject was un-cuffed, maybe in an isolated low light area, possibly armed... with no back-up around.

But cuffed, face down, ON THE GROUND, with a knee on his neck, with 2-3 other officers?!?!?!! C'mon now. How many seconds does it take to glance a few inches down at your weapon before pulling the fuggin trigger?!?!

My opinion is that it happens to be the only possible, "last resort excuse" left for such a negligent mistake.

.

What you see here in my opinion is a classic training shortfall. Eliminate from your thoughts that LEOs are necessarily into firearms or non-lethal weaponry. Many are trained to a minmum standard, but that does not mean that they are comfortable with either. Then there were the dynamics of the situation itself.

It's important to realize that we are gun guys and gals, but for many in law enforcement firearrms and other weaponry are merely tools like flashlights and pens.

Mark L.

If that is the case then maybe a requirement for being a LEO is that you must be, or learn to be a "gun guy, or gal"... or you are not suitable for the position that involves carrying and USING one.

My opinion... (which again, means nothing).... is that the guy was in fact actually reaching for his gun, in an effort to get the crowds cooperation by "displaying" his capability of lethal force.

I also believe that he obviously either ignored or forgot the 2nd rule of firearms safety while under pressure... inadvertantly letting a round off.

I do not believe for one second that he did intentionally fire. Just a very unfortunate accident..... one that could have been avoided.

 

[LKB3rd]

I believe that the "New York Trigger" on Glocks, which is a very heavy Glock trigger, was originally special ordered by NYC PD for this very reason.

I may be off base here, but this is the kind of thing that makes we wonder about the trend for issuing guns for cops that have no safety on them.

It seems like there is a tradeoff between having a safety, and you get some officers forgetting to remove it before firing, versus having no safety and having more accidental discharges. Watching the video, my gut feeling is that the cop pulled out the gun, it had no safety, and in the heat of the moment he squeezed the trigger too hard.

Is there any study of how the number of accidental discharges changed when a police department switched to a gun with no safety on it? Or have police departments always used guns with no safety? And no, the stupid thing in the middle if the Glock trigger does not count as a safety.

 

[Will Brink]

And how many handcuffed people have been killed or shot by cops ?

Or, read the thread and realize he was not handcuffed, but resisting being handcuffed, and the LEs appeared to be going SOP for a person resisting, and an ugly mistake was made in the process. He was handcuffed after being shot which is also SOP. See post:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=717420&postcount=16

And those that followed. Seems to me, we have people responding knee jerk style minus actually reading the thread and or the facts as we know them.