Recidivist
Registered User
The cop is being charged with attempted manslaughter
Should put some to rest all of that horse-beating from the other thread.
Should put some to rest all of that horse-beating from the other thread.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
follow-on to socal cop shooting
- Thread starter Recidivist
- Start date
glad this was posted... looks like the investigation didnt clear the deputy...good. I hope the airman gets his money's worth after a lawsuit. I wonder if the military gives him disability as well since he was active duty when this happened? I dont care if i was running down I-64 naked spouting jibberish, it doesnt justify getting shot, just as his being a passenger in a car chase AND following that cop's orders didnt justify it either. The point here is being shot after obeying a lawful command, not being a passenger in a car chase that he most likely did not see coming.
That will be an interesting determination to be made by the line of duty investigators. Regardless of being unreasonably shot, does being a passenger in a car running from the law imply any degree of complicity or culpability? I don't know the answer and don't have access to the facts, but it will make for an interesting investigation. I suspect they'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Does anyone know what his long term prognosis is?rare21 said:
Brett
This is straight from the The Texas Peace Officer The basic training course third edition (I know the incident happened in California, but "hopefully" the laws wouldnt be too much different):
Any driver of a motor vehicle who willfully fails or refuses to bring his vehicle to a stop, or who otherwise flees or attmepts to elude a pursuing police vehicle, when given visual or audible signal to bring the vehicle to a stop, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. It is presumed that the driver recklessly engaged in conduct placing another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury if the driver knowingly operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated during the commission of the offense.
To me, if taken literally (and will most likely by a lawyer) the driver is the only one at fault. In fact it seems that the driver could be charged with placing the passenger in imminent danger if he did this while intoxicated.
Again, this is from Texas law, who knows what Commiefornia may have on their books.
Any driver of a motor vehicle who willfully fails or refuses to bring his vehicle to a stop, or who otherwise flees or attmepts to elude a pursuing police vehicle, when given visual or audible signal to bring the vehicle to a stop, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. It is presumed that the driver recklessly engaged in conduct placing another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury if the driver knowingly operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated during the commission of the offense.
To me, if taken literally (and will most likely by a lawyer) the driver is the only one at fault. In fact it seems that the driver could be charged with placing the passenger in imminent danger if he did this while intoxicated.
Again, this is from Texas law, who knows what Commiefornia may have on their books.
This is from Principles of Police Patrol by Nathan F. Iannone
This is just an FYI but its something that every cop should know and be aware of. This seems to be exactly the problem during this situation:
"Shooting during Pursuit Studies have indicated that bad judgment shootings occur nearly twice as often when a pursuit is involved in an apprehension than when there is no pursuit. From these studies the unmistakable conclusion was drawn that a decrease in the quality of an officer's judgment occurs during pursuits.
The obvious conclusion the officer should draw from these studies is that, under the stress of pursuit and closely connected activities, he is more likely to overreact and make judgmental mistakes than under ordinary conditions. This characteristic reaction may be at least partially overcome by preconditioning. The officer should prepare himself emotionally beforehand so that the stress of a pursuit will not be entirely unexpected. He will then be able to temper his reactions to given stimuli."
It seems that this is what happened in this situation. From my recollection the cop was fairly new at the job and was not "preconditioned." I may be wrong and if thats the case it looks worse on him. I have no doubt that he probably felt that he did what he had to do at the time, but thats not an excuse. I feel bad for all parties involved but more so for the airman.
This is just an FYI but its something that every cop should know and be aware of. This seems to be exactly the problem during this situation:
"Shooting during Pursuit Studies have indicated that bad judgment shootings occur nearly twice as often when a pursuit is involved in an apprehension than when there is no pursuit. From these studies the unmistakable conclusion was drawn that a decrease in the quality of an officer's judgment occurs during pursuits.
The obvious conclusion the officer should draw from these studies is that, under the stress of pursuit and closely connected activities, he is more likely to overreact and make judgmental mistakes than under ordinary conditions. This characteristic reaction may be at least partially overcome by preconditioning. The officer should prepare himself emotionally beforehand so that the stress of a pursuit will not be entirely unexpected. He will then be able to temper his reactions to given stimuli."
It seems that this is what happened in this situation. From my recollection the cop was fairly new at the job and was not "preconditioned." I may be wrong and if thats the case it looks worse on him. I have no doubt that he probably felt that he did what he had to do at the time, but thats not an excuse. I feel bad for all parties involved but more so for the airman.
Brett327 said:
I think the AF is gonna find a way to screw him out of benefits even though the VA may take up the slack.
To be seperated without benefits:
Not in the Line of Duty
*Misconduct or Willful Neglect
*UA or deserter status
*Confined by court martial for Dishonorable Discharge
*On appellate leave
*Confined under civil court for conviction of a felony
Willful Neglect
*Intentional, unjustifiable, and inexcusable failure to perform some act or duty or,
*Unreasonable refusal of medical, surgical or dental treatment requirements
I bet they deny any benefits coming from a medical board due to "misconduct or willful neglect" due to being in the car with the driver.
rare21 said:
no way, I'm sure any competent lawyer could ensure he got his benefits. Have you ever accepted a ride from someone you didn't know all that well because it was convenient? I know I have and I'm sure almost everyone has at some point in their lives for one reason or another. That's hardly willful neglect, what's he supposed to do, jump out of a moving car in a high speed chase?
nocal80 said:
Its possible, it'd be a pain in the butt but he can appeal his findings all the way up to D.C. if needed. Thats where a lawyer will come in handy. I mean with his coming lawsuit (you know its coming) he wont need the Air Force's money anyways but its the principle I guess. It just seems that if a guy can slip and fall on an icy sidewalk, bust up his leg, be found to have some alcohol in his system and get 0% (an actual example i've heard of) due to willful neglect then this can certainly be skewed to show the same thing. Its all about money and politics.
That's a bogus example and not IAW the guidelines of the JAGMAN. I know that there's lots of scuttle-butt and sea lawyering that gets spread around about this kind of thing, but the JAGMAN is very specific about that kind of stuff. If you get to go to Legal O school, you'll get to enjoy the minutiae of line of duty determinations. Having said that, I don't discount the possibility of errors (willful or otherwise) in the process, but that's something which would ultimately be subject to review, appeal and reversal. It has absolutely nothing to do with money or politics.rare21 said:
I'm also not going to assume that the USAF would be out to get this guy. We don't know the facts.
Brett