Wild West on the Common

[Baystatesuks]

Sigh. I don't suppose that you noticed this in my response:

Did I say that Tenn. v. Garner (and it is Garner not Gardner) was a broad decision? Did I even imply it? No, I did not.

We don't know the true circumstances of the situation on the Common, but for argument's sake, let's assume that what has been described did occur -- the perp ran away from police officers and drew a gun while doing so (the fact that it turned out later to be a fake gun is immaterial).

Now would a reasonable person, knowing what the officer knew at the time, believe the individual to pose significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officers or others? Running away from a police officer and drawing a gun while doing so?

Are you truly asserting that the police officer would not think such a person was serious threat to others?

Hey I can't type.

What I am saying is you are confusing a 4A right with whether or not it would be reasonable to use deadly force. These are separate inquiries.

For example, it may have been reasonable to shoot this guy after he took off running with a gun - that part maybe wouldn't infringe 4A under the Garner std. However, his 4A right could still be violated because they had no probable cause or reason under Terry to question him in the first place.

Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, if the initial encounter was tainted, then all the evidence, reasonableness, etc. goes right out the window.

You are implying that anytime someone pulls out a gun when running away from someone they would necessarily be a threat to others? If so, keep your head down for the flaming that is about to commence.

 

[News Shooter]

Late edition says the gun was a pellet gun. Not sure exactly what they meant by replica

 

[jhblaze1]

It will be interesting to see if he was shot in the front or the back of the shoulder. Hopefully, for this cop's sake, not in the back.

Why would it make any difference? Either way it will be ruled justified. Thin blue line.

I would like to add though that this POS deserved to be shot. Pull out a gun or fake gun and IMO you deserve what you get.

 

[Baystatesuks]

Why would it make any difference? Either way it will be ruled justified. Thin blue line.

I would like to add though that this POS deserved to be shot. Pull out a gun or fake gun and IMO you deserve what you get.

I actually agree he deserved to be shot based on the facts thus far.

It will matter if (1) he was black; (2) shot in the back; while (3) trying to retreat from likely police brutality (maybe they put his arm in the sling from a previous encounter?).

I am not saying that is what happened, just what some groups may allege.

Hopefully, they will maintain the dangerous weapon charge and not ignore it like usual.

 

[Riverside]

http://bpdnews.com/
Here's the BPD version of events.
Best Regards.

 

[M1911]

You are implying that anytime someone pulls out a gun when running away from someone they would necessarily be a threat to others?

Nice strawman argument there and a complete misrepresentation.

The man was being questioned by police. He ran away from them when they still wanted to talk to him, drawing a gun in the process. What, pray tell, would you have thought if you were the police officer? That he was running to get to the gun club in time for his match?

 

[M1911]

http://bpdnews.com/
Here's the BPD version of events.

The appropriate part of their description of the events is here:

While in the vicinity of the Park Square MBTA station, a suspect named Shawn Craig was observed in the area. Craig, known to probation officers, was believed to be wanted on a Boston Municipal Court warrant. With this information, officers approached Craig to conduct a threshold inquiry. As the officers approached, Craig fled in the direction of the Park Ranger’s station. As the officers followed, Craig produced a firearm, turned and pointed the firearm in the direction of an officer.

At this time, the officer ordered Craig to drop the firearm, to which he refused, causing the officer to fire a single shot from his department firearm. As a result, Craig was struck one time and consequently dropped his weapon.

 

[Baystatesuks]

The appropriate part of their description of the events is here:

Cause the BPD would say, "we shot a guy in the back so he would drop his gun and we wouldn't have to chase him."

You think the police are going to admit they were wrong. Get real.

This is crap. The "suspect" was "believed to be wanted." Based on this reasoning, the police could question any of us if they "believed" we were wanted of some crime. Mere "belief" doesn't constitute probable case. Try and get a warrant from a judge with beliefs and we think-so's.

I believe you have a non-MA compliant firearm, I am going to need to take you in for questioning now. I believe you are violating penal code 1234. I am going to need to search you now. Just not right.

 

[Garys]

Like when a guy is running around with a drawn gun?

So let me see if I have this straight. A guy points a firearm at a police officer and then immediately turns around. The officer can't shoot him? How about if he shoots and then turns around? I seem to remember a few local cases where something like that did happen and the officer returned fire, killing the suspect. All of them were determined to be justified.

Gary

 

[Martlet]

So let me see if I have this straight. A guy points a firearm at a police officer and then immediately turns around. The officer can't shoot him? How about if he shoots and then turns around? I seem to remember a few local cases where something like that did happen and the officer returned fire, killing the suspect. All of them were determined to be justified.

Gary

I don't have a problem with the shoot. It's the events leading up to it.

 

[Baystatesuks]

I don't have a problem with the shoot. It's the events leading up to it.

+1. Based on his actions, he probably deserved to be shot. It is how they got to the point where they were forced to shoot him that is highly questionable.

 

[Half Cocked]

I don't have a problem with the shoot. It's the events leading up to it.

Ummmm...what is the problem? They knew him. They believed him to have an outstanding warrant. They approached him to speak with him. As they approached he ran.

Craig, known to probation officers, was believed to be wanted on a Boston Municipal Court warrant. With this information, officers approached Craig to conduct a threshold inquiry

Are they to just ignore him?

Come on guys!! This was all good!!

 

[Martlet]

Ummmm...what is the problem? They knew him. They believed him to have an outstanding warrant. They approached him to speak with him. As they approached he ran.

Not the events with him specifically, the "questioning people that look like they're up to no good".

That being said, why did they "believe" he had an outstanding warrant? Why didn't they call it in and "know" if he had an outstanding warrant?

What was the outcome? Did he have an outstanding warrant?

I really don't care whether or not people agree. I don't think people should be able run down people who aren't breaking any laws. If I'm standing in the common, come talk to me. I think it's important for officers to become members of the community again. However, if someone tells them to go talk to someone else, then keep walking.

Are they to just ignore him?

Come on guys!! This was all good!

Lots of cops know me, too. Does that mean they can run me down? What was he doing wrong?

 

[Baystatesuks]

My bigger issue with all of this is that this guy maybe should be off the streets. But because the way this was handled, he has a reasonable chance of getting the whole case tossed. Judges are sympathetic to the poor criminals in this state.

That is what always pisses me off - someone who is likely guilty but is never even tried because of blunders by law enforcement or other govt. officials.

I agree with Martlet - how much a burden would it have been to confirm he had a warrant rather than act on a mere suspicion. They already knew his name apparently. A simple call would have cleared it up. Then they would have an absolute right to arrest him.

 

[gene]

Having read all the reports leaves me to wonder whether he was taking his own drugs which would be my only conclusion if he pointed a replica, pellet gun or any other gun at an officer. He would not have been shot, I don't feel, had he not done so even if they found the gun during a frisk.

Final article mentioned that their was criminal history and also an outstanding warrant. I would like to think they will keep his kind of trash out of my own back yard doing what they did as mentioned in the story.

 

[jairadio]

My biggest concern here is that the LEO hit him in the arm instead of center mass.....

I'm with you, as far as I am concerned CRIMINALS do not have rights, they sure don't think honest citizens do. Pointing a real or replica gun at a police officer, they should be shot, THE END. I don't think all of us law abiding citizens here at the forum would ever consider doing such a thing.

 

[S. Kelly]

Originally Posted by Baystatesuks
"The police think Terry v. Ohio is a license to stop anyone they want for anything. SCOTUS never said that. Instead, they held that if the police have a reasonable suspicion (not necessarily rising to the level of probable cause) that someone has committed a crime or may be committing a crime, they can stop them and search their person for weapons (for example, for protection of the police officer themselves). Basically, under certain circumstances the police don't have to go to the trouble of getting a warrant before they can search you."

Baystatesuks is wrong, the police can stop and frisk you, not search. It's all Con Law I. Warrantless searches are different than a Terry Stop.

I also think Baystatesuks believes he knows how the police act and think, by his statements. I think everybody here should take a stroll across the Common some Friday night at 7PM and see what "up to no good" looks like, then make a decision. Don't sit behind a computer and debate it, see what it's all about.

 

[Baystatesuks]

Please provide statutory authority or case law to support your position.

What I believe that Terry v. Ohio held was it is permissible to surface search some one (i.e. pat them down) for the purposes of ensuring an officer's protection when they had a reasonable suspicion that the person was armed and dangerous.

I think you are mincing words with frisk and search. How can a frisk not be a search? I'm not talking body cavity search here. What this all hinges on is do the police have a reasonable basis to stop you at all for the purposes of questioning, frisk, search, whatever. If they do, then they can search you and if they find items, arrest you and then find other items (e.g., crack cocaine) then that can be admitted as evidence. See Virginia v. Moore and U.S. v. Robinson (both SCOTUS decisions).

Fundamentally, the police are looking for weapons that may harm them because they had that reasonable suspicion said suspect was armed and dangerous. Plus, it is somewhat unworkable to detain the person until they could go and get a proper warrant from a magistrate.

Are you stating that the police can set up a line as people walk across the column and frisk everyone? Or that the police can stop me in my car, make me get out and frisk me just in case I have something on me?

Please clarify your position. Thanks.

As far as how the police act and think, I know a lot of LEOs, some family members, one is a neighbor, and their conclusion is similar to many prosecutors. If a person looks guilty or "up to no good," then they are guilty or up to no good. This is one of the reasons that former cops make good prosecutors and really, really bad defense attorneys.

 

[abomb60]

My biggest concern here is that the LEO hit him in the arm instead of center mass.....

I don't know you and I mean no disrespect but from your comment it's apparent to me that you have never had to fire a shot in self defense or any other stressfull situation. The fact that the officer hit him at all is enough. I am sure that he was indeed aiming for center of mass and stress is going to factor in here.

No one should be Monday morning quarterbacking this unless you've ever been in that situation. Doesn't matter why the officer was talking to the guy the fact is he presented what the officer thought was a deadly weapon and had the means and opportunity to use the weapon so the officer did what he was trained to do.

Guy is damn lucky the cop remembered his use of force training and stopped firing after the guy dropped the gun and was no longer a lethal threat.

 

[Half Cocked]

If I'm standing in the common, come talk to me. I think it's important for officers to become members of the community again. However, if someone tells them to go talk to someone else, then keep walking.

Martlet, I agree with you on this...

What do you think a threshold inquiry is anyways....?

 

[Martlet]

Martlet, I agree with you on this...

What do you think a threshold inquiry is anyways....?

States, and cities, have different definitions of what is allowed, or at least what has been challenged Constitutionally. Essentially, a threshold inquiry is questioning a person who "looks like he's up to no good". If he refuses to be interrogated, he can be detained and frisked. I'm completely against them.

Aren't you a cop? It's odd that you don't know what a threshold inquiry is.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

The only thing I can think of is that they are desirous of suicide by cop.

How exactly do you "seem" like you might be involved in criminal activity? Based solely on the way you look or actions the police are observing from afar? I can understand if they saw a drug transaction or the like, but just "seeming" to be committing a crime is a stretch as justification for questioning people.

Maybe more facts will come out soon to clarify some of the issues.

could one call that profiling?

 

[Half Cocked]

Aren't you a cop? It's odd that you don't know what a threshold inquiry is.

I know exactly what they are but you seem a little off on your definition.

Are you completely against the police being pro-active to solve/prevent crime?

 

[Half Cocked]

Martlet,

If there were a rash of house breaks in your neighborhood that were happening in the overnight hours would you not want the police to be conducting extra patrols during the overnight hours. Would you not want them to question someone who was dressed in dark clothing carrying a backpack and walking out from behind someones house during these hours? Or should they not talk to anyone unless they are 100% positive that they had actually comitted a crime?

Threshold inquiries are a important part of the job.

 

[Martlet]

I know exactly what they are but you seem a little off on your definition.

Then educate me. What are they?

Martlet,

If there were a rash of house breaks in your neighborhood that were happening in the overnight hours would you not want the police to be conducting extra patrols during the overnight hours.

Would you not want them to question someone who was dressed in dark clothing carrying a backpack and walking out from behind someones house during these hours?

Absolutely not. For what reason? Wearing dark clothing and carrying a backpack is criminal activity now?

Or should they not talk to anyone unless they are 100% positive that they had actually comitted a crime?

Not necessarily 100% positive before talking. However, wearing dark clothing and carrying a backpack is 0% positive,

 

[Will Brink]

Papers please!!!

I was thinking the same thing. If you point a replica gun at an LEO and get shot, you deserve exactly what you got, but I am disturbed with the implications of the rest of this report. What, none of the local uber lib ACLU loving types not going to raise an alarm about that?

 

[Will Brink]

Martlet,

If there were a rash of house breaks in your neighborhood that were happening in the overnight hours would you not want the police to be conducting extra patrols during the overnight hours. Would you not want them to question someone who was dressed in dark clothing carrying a backpack and walking out from behind someones house during these hours? Or should they not talk to anyone unless they are 100% positive that they had actually comitted a crime?

Threshold inquiries are a important part of the job.

In your example, I agree, and have no issues with the above example personally, but what is the threshold for the threshold? Your example is quite specific, but randomly stopping people on the Common 'cause they might not fit in, seems pushing the intentions of Threshold inquiries past it's reasonable use. Now, I was not there and am partially making that point as discussion.

I was interviewed in Threshold inquiry at the airport (long story), and all things considered, they were doing their job and I can see why they targeted me for that. After it was clear I was not a terrorist or person with ill intent, and they knew a bunch of guys I knew, etc, it was all good, but for 5-10mins there it was a bit tense. Regardless, I felt they were well within their job to do it, didn't take it personally, and went on my way.

I don't think I would feel that way if say I had some some old jeans, hadn't shaved for few days (ergo, not looking like most people in the yuppie class going to work) and was targeted for questioning there. Now, add some strange behavior on my part, and their may be justification.

 

[jairadio]

Boston Common

Just think of the Boston Common as a big store. After running this big store for awhile,you begin to know all the customers by their first names.

The Boston Police Dept. have a very good idea who all these fine outstanding citizens are, rapist, thiefs, drug dealers etc.

In 62 years, living in the City, I have never had a Police Officer question me about anything. But of course I don't have a rap sheet, so the Officers don't know me and have no reason to bother me.

I'm a very happy person.

 

[Half Cocked]

In your example, I agree, and have no issues with the above example personally, but what is the threshold for the threshold? Your example is quite specific, but randomly stopping people on the Common 'cause they might not fit in, seems pushing the intentions of Threshold inquiries past it's reasonable use. Now, I was not there and am partially making that point as discussion.

I was interviewed in Threshold inquiry at the airport (long story), and all things considered, they were doing their job and I can see why they targeted me for that. After it was clear I was not a terrorist or person with ill intent, and they knew a bunch of guys I knew, etc, it was all good, but for 5-10mins there it was a bit tense. Regardless, I felt they were well within their job to do it, didn't take it personally, and went on my way.

They are not randomly stopping people. As in the example of your situation, there was, I am sure, specific and articulable facts that led them to believe that closer scrutiny should be given to you.

None of us were there and to speculate at the events leading up to the shooting is a disservice to all involved.

 

[Martlet]

They are not randomly stopping people. As in the example of your situation, there was, I am sure, specific and articulable facts that led them to believe that closer scrutiny should be given to you.

None of us were there and to speculate at the events leading up to the shooting is a disservice to all involved.

Aren't you going to correct my definition?