Tag: police-involved shooting

  • Good Shooting in Brookyn

    From the Daily News:

    The fearless off-duty cop who faced down an armed robber in a Brooklyn beauty parlor on Saturday managed to shoot the pistol right out of the crook’s hands, cops said Monday.

    And in a scene that would be over the top even for the most ridiculous Hollywood cop movie, one of Officer Feris Jones’ bullets hit the front door – and locked it.

    He escaped by kicking out the glass on the lower portion of the door and crawled out to the street on his hands and knees, leaving a trail of blood.

    When Cox was arrested in a single-room-occupancy hotel on Pacific St. in Bedford-Stuyvesant early Monday, he answered the door meekly, his bloody hands wrapped in Bounty paper towels borrowed from his mother.

    The suspected gunman’s mom told the Daily News she was shocked her parolee son was mixed up in it.

    “I can’t come to grips with it,” said Cheryl Cox, whose 19-year-old son, Winston Cox, the youngest of her eight kids.

    I was hoping for a better quote from him mom, though. But maybe she made those little air quotes with her fingers when she said the word, shocked. That would make it good.

    [Update: Actually, in the mom’s defense,she has filed eight charges of assault against her son and had good things to say about the police officer, “I’m just thankful to God the police officer is OK — she did a good job.” It’s in the Post.]

  • Las Vegas Shooting “Justified”

    As predicted, the killing of unarmed Trevon Cole in Las Vegas, based on bad tactics, a bad warrant, bad flashlight batteries (?!), a bad track record, misinformation, mis-identification was found to be justified.

    Despite contradictory statements by nearly everyone else who testified, Yant stood by his story that he fired the fatal shot only after Cole stood up, turned and thrust his hands toward Yant as if he had a gun.

    Yant testified: “Unfortunately he made an aggressive act toward me. He made me do my job.”

    Silly me. All this time I thought the job of police officers was to uphold the laws and state and federal constitutions.

  • Why cops hate the New York Times

    Most cops hate the newspaper. I don’t. But that’s probably because growing up, there was more newspaper blood in my family than police blood. And a healthy freedom of the press is one of the founding principles of this nation.

    And just think for just a few bits every day, comics, sports, news, opinion, it’s all dropped off on my stoop every morning (well, not the comics. I have to get my comics online)!

    But police often have good reason to hate the press. Reporters, and it must be taught in journalism school or something, feel obliged to get all sides of the story. Sounds good… unless, of course, you understand that all opinions are not equally true. Sometimes, especially with crime stories, there really aren’t two sides to the story. Sometimes, as a reporter, you shouldbe biased (if bias is a taboo word, how about “be willing to reach a conclusion”?).

    Say a criminal gets shot by police. He had a gun. Some police spokesperson says as much. Duly noted. But then you talk to the dead guy’s mother who says, “Pookie was an angel. He would never hurt nobody! And he was home with me at the time he got shot.” Why, the mother may actually believe this. Or maybe not. But the gentle reader trying to figure out the truth sees this and says, “Hmmm, there are two sides of the story. I bet the truth lies somewhere in between.” Actually… sometimes… no. And it’s the reporter’s job to get the truth and not just lay out all the junk and let the reader decide what’s true.

    Now here’s a rule of thumb: don’t value mothers as objective determiners of their babies’ character. Nor should you value a criminal’s friends as objective determiners of the criminals non-criminal activity.

    Now the Timespresent a story that can at best be described as a police clusterf*ck and hints at a very bad police-involved shooting, with obligatory references to Sean Bell and hints at the idea that all the bullets were fired by police. The first headline said, “After 50 Shots in Harlem, One Dead and 6 Hurt.” Wow. Well, that certainly got my attention. And here’s this from the August 9th story by William Rashbaum, Karen Zraick, and Ray Rivera:

    The witness accounts retold by the police were at odds with what some other witnesses said had happened. Robert Cartagena, 19, Mr. Alvarez’s cousin, and another witness, Shariff Spencer, Mr. Alvarez’s friend, said they never saw Mr. Alvarez fire a gun. [well what do you expect them to say?]

    Mr. Alvarez’s lawyer [whose job it is to defend his client regardless of guilt] … said his client … motioned “no” when asked if he had had a gun or fired one.

    Now let’s go back to the August 8th storyby Trymaine Lee and Colin Moynihan:

    Yet questions were being raised among some witnesses as to whether the police had acted appropriately.

    When that first shot went off, “Angel was still punching,” Mr. Spencer [a friend of Alvarez] said.

    “Never once did you hear, ‘Freeze,’ ” he said. “Never once did you hear, ‘Stop.’ Never once did you hear, ‘N.Y.P.D.’ ”

    Several residents expressed outrage at the shooting, saying the police were overly aggressive.

    “People feel like they have no concern for life,” Sean Washington, a television producer who lives down the street from where the shooting occurred, said of the police. Before the gunfire started, he added, the D.J. at the block party said over the loudspeaker “how good a feeling it was because there was no violence. It was all love.”

    See… it was All Love. And then police showed up. Two guys just in a little scuffle and police blow them away.

    Having been a police officer, I assume — no, I know — that nine times out of ten the police version of the story is closer to the truth than any “witness” account.

    Now I wasn’t there. So I don’t know what happened. But I bet it’s pretty close to the Post’s account:

    Moments before a police-issued semiautomatic slug fatally ripped through Soto’s chest, he allegedly pulled his .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver on Alvarez, a small-time hood who was getting the better of him in a fistfight, sources said.

    Alvarez lunged for the weapon, and it went off twice during the struggle, attracting the attention of officers nearby, witnesses told police.

    Alvarez, 23, then allegedly fired at Patrolman Douglas Brightman — prompting the uniformed cop and three officers on the other side of the block to return a volley of 46 rounds, police said.

    Also, the A.P.’s Colleen Long has a good story.

    The Daily Newssays: “NYPD officials initially said Alvarez killed Soto with the revolver, before shooting at four cops who returned fire. Yesterday, cops said the revolver was in Soto’s waistband but Alvarez took it from him and shot at a uniformed officer with it.” For the record, Soto was killed and Alvarez shot many many times but is alive.

    So what’s my point? I’m not certain yet. But why does the Timessee fit to quote Ms. Craft, Alvarez’s bother, saying her brother has a job (auto mechanic) and a 2-year-old son? Well maybe because the story is trying to make Alvarez look like a victim, which makes police out to be the criminals.

    But if we want a character study on Soto and Alvarez, why not tell the whole story? The Postis willing to call Alvarez a small-time thug. And apparently there’s nothing small time about Soto. According to the Daily News:

    Both had records. Alvarez had two prior arrests, including one for gun possession and trying to run down a cop with a car, for which he served two years. Soto had been arrested eight times, including for burglary.

    But I can hear people saying, “So maybe they had trouble in the past. But how long can you hold that against them? Poor kids.” Whatever. And I have a bridge to sell you.

    Michael Feeney of the Daily Newsdigs up a Twitter account (I found this under the name BooBillzMB) and writes: “Luis Soto, slain in Harlem shootout, painted himself as tough gangbanger on Twitter.

    “I go 2 da grave b4 I be a b—h n—-! Fa’realll,” he wrote July 23.

    He posted photos of himself flashing gang signs, or holding a new iPhone, an iPad and cocktails.

    In one photo, he looked out at the camera over a thick fan of crisp new $50 bills – many thousands of dollars worth.

    Though he had no job, he planned to trade in his BMW 760, a $130,000 car, for an equally pricey Mercedes-Benz CL550, he tweeted.

    A turf rivalry between Harlem, where Angel Alvarez lives, and the Bronx, where Soto was from, surfaced in his tweets. “Not for nothin da BRONX Got More Real N—-s Den HARLEM,” he wrote July 28.

    Friends said Alvarez and Soto had an argument two weeks ago that led to their clash Sunday in Harlem.

    With a past record of illegal gun possession and assaults on police, and with a running feud with Soto, perhaps Alvarez’s biggest mistake was bringing a knife (or his fists) to a gun fight. Was Soto a b*tch n***a? Not for me to say, but he got his wish about going to the grave first. Was Alvarez just in the wrong place at the wrong time? I doubt it. Is any of this relevant? Actually, yes.

    Because imagine going to work and getting into a gunfight. Just another day at the office? Imagine the fear as you see a muzzle flash and think you’re going to die. Imagine the guilt of learning that you almost killing another officer. Imagine how lucky you feel to be alive. Imagine the relief of going back to your wife and kids. And for this the department and city you serve make you get a piss test and strips you of your gun “pending investigation.” And then in the papers your friends and family read about how you might have killed an innocent hard-working might for no reason.

    Did police behave correctly in using lethal force and shooting 46 times at these two fighting men with a gun? Absolutely. I don’t want to go too far, but it seems like the least we could do is appreciate what these officers went through and thank them for risking their life while just doing their job.

  • Mehserle Convicted of involuntary Manslaughter

    This is the officer who shot and killed Oscar Grant on the BART train platform.

    He could be been convicted of the more serious charges of Voluntary Manslaughter or Murder. He also could have been acquitted. I didn’t follow the trial, but this seems about right to me.

    I certainly believe it’s much more likely that Merhserle meant to Taser Grant and made a horrible and lethal mistake more than I believe that he just decided to become a cold-blooded killer and kill somebody in front of a big crowd.

    Merhserle faces two to four years in prison.

    For what it’s worth, back in January I wrote this:

    So let’s just say that the police officer is put on trial and says, “I plead no contest. I didn’t mean to do it. But I did. All I remember was that there was a large crowd yelling and a man was struggling. Next thing I know I hear a gunshot and look down and discover it was my gun. I didn’t ever realize I was holding my gun. I feel terrible for the victim and his family. I’m sorry. I beg the court’s mercy.”

    What should happen to the police officer? What is appropriate justice in a case like this?

    That basically became his defense. The Oakland Tribune reports:

    “I didn’t think I had my gun,” Mehserle said last week as his face turned red and his lips started quivering. “I heard the pop. It wasn’t very loud. It wasn’t like a gunshot. And then I remember thinking, What went wrong with my Taser?

    “I remember looking at my gun in my right hand,” Mehserle said as he broke down in sobs. “I didn’t know what to think. It just shouldn’t have been there.”

    So I guess the answer is conviction for involuntary manslaughter and two to four years.

  • Baltimore Officer Not-Guilty in 2008 Shooting

    So finds a Baltimore City Jury. The story by Erica Green in the Sun.

    Sanders testified that Hunt assaulted him during a drug arrest at Hamilton Park Shopping Center two years ago, and that if Hunt hadn’t reached for his pocket while running away, the five-year veteran wouldn’t have shot him twice in the back.

    The jury began deliberating Friday afternoon and returned the not-guilty verdict a little more than three hours later.

    At the time of the shooting, Hunt was on probation for assaulting and eluding a police officer. He faced two years in prison if arrested again.

    Belsky [Sanders’ laywer] emphasized that the case was all about whether his client acted reasonably.

    “This is a good man who did nothing wrong,” Belsky said after the verdict. “The state’s attorney’s office should spend its time trying to foster good relations with the Police Department instead of prosecuting good police officers. That’s how we’ll solve the crime problem in Baltimore.”

  • What Flags?

    Off-duty Baltimore officer Gahiji Tshamba, the guy who seems to have emptied his glock at and into a man for touching his girlfriend seems to have a bit of a history. “Investigators found13 bullet casings at the scene and the officer’s gun was empty. Nine of those bullets ended up hitting the ex-Marine, which some say is excessive.”

    The problem is not drinking and carrying a gun in a bar. The problem is being drunk while having a gun, a temper, and really bad judgment!

    Meanwhile another Baltimore officer is on trial for an on-duty shooting. This case is not so clear cut and knowing nothing, I’m not willing to comment. But he is the first officer to be put on trial for an on-dutyshooting since the Lexington Market police-involved shooting of James “Don’t Shoot that Boy!” Quarles (I saw that video in the police academy–one officer shot, many didn’t).

    [Update on the life and career of Officer Tshamba.]

  • New Development in Rev. Ayers Case

    Turns out that Billy Shane Harrison, the officer who killed Ayers, didn’t (and doesn’t) actually have police powers. He let his firearm training lapse. Oops (and from TV news).

    Maybe if this drug officer had had proper training, oh, I don’t know, he could have figured a better tactical way of stopping an innocent man for questioning without causing a situation where a good man gets killed while trying to get away from armed men he didn’t know were police!

    Now we don’t need to get into another debate about the shooting. But all you fools (I mean folks) who think this killing was somehow justified, ask yourself this: Can you imagine any police-involved shooting that isn’t justified? (short of cold-blood premeditated murder–which this was not.)

    It’s one thing to say, “Cops sometimes make mistakes. And sometimes a whole bunch of dumb-ass mistakes. And sometimes they comes together and, well, sorry. But mistakes aren’t crimes and we always need to give police the benefit of the doubt.” OK, fair enough. But if you go beyond that and think that allpolice-involved shootings are justified, then why even have this discussion?

    [I can think of only one shooting that was as bad as this one. After doing nothing wrong and following the orders of one FBI agent, poor Joseph Schultz gets shot in the face by the agent’s partner (a scared agent who probably never walked a beat, cleared a corner, or made a car stop in his life). And he got away with it, too! Turns out only the taxpayer got punished for their professional ineptitude.]

    [Thanks to Peter Guither’s excellent drugwarrant.com.]

  • Ayers killing “justified”

    Indeed, you read it here first (many thanks to my anonymous tipster).

    Here’s the story by Stephen Gurr in the Gainesville Times.

    Of course regardless of this decision and any lack of criminal conviction, the Ayers’ family will get a lot of money in some civil case. But no amount of money will bring Jonathan Ayers back. The whole situation–up to and including the shooting death of Ayers–this was bad policing.

  • The killing of Jonathan Ayers judged “good”

    I have just received word over the virtual transom (as of yet still unconfirmed word [update: now confirmed]) that this morning the grand jury decided notto bring criminal charges against the officers who killed Jonathan Ayers.

    I would have loved to have heard the facts as they were presented because knowing what I do know, the police-involved shooting seems very wrong. Certainly wrong enough to let a jury decide.

    If this is true, the officers had best be buying a very sympathetic prosecutor a nice Christmas present since, as the saying goes, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

  • Cops shoot bad guys with guns

    Mostly I just like the headline.

    But as usual, Peter Hermann has interesting things to say. Particularly about suspended sentences. That’s the crazy concept where you do a crime, get caught, get convicted, get sentenced, and then don’t serve time. Not even in theory.

    Guest, when was 15, he shot another youth in the head and pleaded guilty, but spent just under five years in prison. Guest [now 32] died later at a hospital [after being shot by police].

    Guest had a convoluted series of prison stints. In 1994, a judge delayed imposing a 13 year sentence for the murder and instead put him away for three years for a handgun violation to give him a break. He served one year for the gun but in 1999 he got arrested on a drug distribution charge. Another judge then reimposed the 13 year sentence for the killing and folded an 8 year term for the drugs into that. The judge suspended four years, meaning Guest’s total sentence was nine years. He got out after serving 4 and a half years because of credits earned while incarcerated. Later, he got sentenced to another three years on a drug conviction but was out in one.