Cop shoots DUI suspect after crash, DA won't charge cop

[EOM]

good grief, the dumb!

its amazing how these threads bring out the dummies.

Basic firearm safety is dumb?

So you're saying it was intentional? Or are you leaning towards negligent? As posted above there is no such thing as accidentally shooting someone. Either one of those being the explanation leads to the obvious lack of training the officer received.

Pick one.

 

[EOM]

Meh. I would be happy enough if he simply lost his job. I'm not really seeing any convictions coming from this. Why even bother?

Why even bother firing him? Just to placate the citizenry? He'll just get a job at another department as if nothing happened. I'm as cynical as you though... no chance of a conviction.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I still haven't really heard a valid reason why the cop shouldn't be charged. Whether or not the man died, he still shot an unarmed, non-threatening man in the neck. Intentional or accidental, doesn't matter. What he gets charged with would change, but can't see how he gets a free pass.

In the non-cop world, that is a crime. I guess cops get special rules or something. Not sure how shooting someone isn't a crime.

That NYPD cop got charged with manslaughter when he accidentally shot someone, and that was a legitimate accident, not like this.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

How do you see this as unintentional?

To my eyes this looked pretty clearly like an accidental discharge. Looked like the cop intended to point the gun but not pull the trigger. Stupid, and the result of unsafe gun handling/trigger discipline, but not intentional. I do have a huge problem with it, and an even bigger problem with the officer not rendering assistance or immediately reporting the shooting, though.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

To my eyes this looked pretty clearly like an accidental discharge. Stupid, and the result of unsafe gun handling/trigger discipline, but not intentional. I do have a huge problem with it, and an even bigger problem with the officer not rendering assistance or immediately reporting the shooting, though.

Nothing about it looks unintentional to me. It looks like he draws down on the subject and squeezes off two rounds, then calmly holsters his weapon. Then he proceeds to the car to look down the open window. It appears he reaches inside the car for a moment. When he see movement inside, he immediately touches his holster as if to draw again, but decides not to. He then takes out a flashlight and looks into the window again. Then he radios in, "I've got an unresponsive female and a male inside the vehicle who refuses to get out." While he waits for dispatch he immediately scans the ground around him with his light, gives the cross street, "Pearson" to dispatch, glances at the woman lying on the ground, then begins looking at the ground more. Second and third officers arrive.

Body cam audio is off until other officers arrive.

As Feaster continues to lie about exactly what occurred (mainly by omission), he also continues to look all over the ground for his shell casings, almost completely disregarding the man in the car and the woman on the ground, who the other cop was talking to ("just hang on m'am").

Fast forward to end of the video. Two cops are going to "The Cantina" to look for a shooter/witnesses. As they walk off that's when Feaster decides it would be a good idea to make up the AD story. "I think I shot him, I wasn't even pointing at him".

At best, complete negligence, cover-up, utter disregard for severely injured humans, at worst, cold blooded murder.

 

[werepossum]

Exactly. If you do the very simple things that I've been taught like direct visual of the chamber after you eject the magazine that accident is impossible. Even AFTER that you still treat the gun as loaded and you don't point it at anyone. Every person that touches the gun after should pull the slide back and check the chamber regardless if you just watched someone else do it.

I saw zero reason why the cop should have put his finger on the trigger. The guy couldn't have been less of a threat when as he had his full body weight on both of his arms. The only time your finger should touch the trigger is when you intend to immediately put a hole in something. Where I come from finger on the trigger = you meant to pull it. Granted it's high stress and all that which is why I call it negligence and not anything else. I, as a civilian, am expected to follow those rules and if I don't and accidentally get someone shot I will be, and fully expect to be, charged with a crime. I expect no more or less from the people we give vastly more training and then issue a firearm to.

I'd almost let this go too if it wasn't for the cop pretending he didn't shoot the guy even after the guy said he was shot and not telling the EMT, or anyone, until he absolutely had to. Knowing what's wrong with a patient is vital to saving someones life, the fact that he was getting out of the vehicle shows that he probably wasn't seriously injured from the crash.

Edit: Don't forget that the officer said that he wasn't even pointing the gun at him so it's hard to claim fear for his life is what caused him to put his finger on the trigger. The only explanation is that the officer fucked up. There are supposed to be consequences when you fuck up and seriously injure someone else in the process of fucking up.

Pretty much. Being a cop entails taking some risks. I could see an accidental discharge in a chase or a struggle being a non-prosecutable event, but simply giving him a pass in this situation seems beyond the pale.

Blaming the victim in 3....2.....1....

Well, the "victim" certainly deserves his share of blame too.

Why can't a cop be charged in a situation like this unless they actually kill someone as the chief said in his statement?

Allow me to translate the chief's statement:
We cannot charge him because we don't want to.

 

[werepossum]

Meh. I would be happy enough if he simply lost his job. I'm not really seeing any convictions coming from this. Why even bother?

If you don't prosecute him, then he's a cop at a different city in 2016 Q1.

To my eyes this looked pretty clearly like an accidental discharge. Looked like the cop intended to point the gun but not pull the trigger. Stupid, and the result of unsafe gun handling/trigger discipline, but not intentional. I do have a huge problem with it, and an even bigger problem with the officer not rendering assistance or immediately reporting the shooting, though.

I tend to agree except apparently there were two shots. Even if there turns out to be only one, this is a difficult situation to accept as a non-prosecutable accident, as you point out. And I very much agree about not rendering assistance or immediately reporting the shooting. Even if a cop guns down someone in the act of bludgeoning a child, he should be obligated to render aid to the scumbag (after checking and rendering aid to non-scumbags.)

EDIT: This reminds me of the Korean shopkeeper who killed the black teenage shoplifter on security camera. Then as now, it is impossible to distinguish accidentally shooting someone from intentionally shooting someone. In such a case, it is hard to extend much sympathy for the shooter since there are no real mitigating factors.

 

[bshole]

The reason I know that this was an accidental shooting is simple. The cop actually hit the perp in one shot. If it was on purpose, the cop would have shot 30 times and hit the perp maybe 4 times. I don't think it is physically possible for a cop to hit a target on purpose with only one shot.

 

[CitizenKain]

You're right, you don't. And I am kind of tired of teaching here, only to find the same people making the same retarded comments in every daily cop hate thread.

Just about all of you already know what to believe as soon as you read the headline.

Maybe cops can hold back on killing someone consequence free, is that thought too difficult for you to understand? Sorry this concept is too difficult for you.

 

[Vaux]

I still haven't really heard a valid reason why the cop shouldn't be charged.

Say a doctor was performing surgery and the doctor made a mistake that led to his patients death. Should the doctor be criminally charged as well?

I'm not going to spend 45 minutes typing up a post about police work in this incident, only to say that I don't believe - as does the county attorney - that the officer meant to shoot the guy and I also believe that the officer did not know the man was shot and I don't believe the officer tried to cover it up either. It would be pointless - you can't hide a bullet hole in a person. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Say a doctor was performing surgery and the doctor made a mistake that led to his patients death. Should the doctor be criminally charged as well?

Apparently it's a 'thing'.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/texas-neurosurgeon-charged-with-killing-maiming-patients-1.3203753

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/oregon-doctor-charged-death-botched-cosmetic-surgery/story?id=17104454

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/05/surgeon-convicted-manslaughter-negligence-patient

and a dentist

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/1...harged-in-death-patient-during-procedure.html

I'm not going to spend 45 minutes typing up a post about police work in this incident, only to say that I don't believe - as does the county attorney - that the officer didn't mean to shoot the guy and I also believe that the officer did not know the man was shot and I don't believe the officer tried to cover it up either.

So he just forgot to tell his boss that he's shot at the guy? And his insistence that the man had not been shot? And he just coincidentally remembered to tell his boss when his boss looked like he was going to pursue an investigation of the shooting?

In case you missed it the first time:

Video: Commander surprised by officer’s shooting admission

"Ayala’s video starts at 12:05 a.m. early Thanksgiving morning, just after the chase from the Canteena on the Skyway to the accident site on Pearson Road. Ayala was the second officer on scene and immediately asks if Ehorn is the only victim. Feaster tells him there is a male in the car who refuses to get out. Moments later, Alvies directs Ayala to hold Ehorn’s head until medics arrive.

Ayala tells Ehorn, “Ma’am, I am just going to hold on to your neck? OK?”

On the audio, Feaster appears to tell Alvies that Thomas refuses to exit the car. Feaster then says, “Get out of the car, sir. You’re not shot. Get out of the car, sir.”

Ayala spends the rest of the time until medics arrive trying to stabilize Ehorn. While he’s doing that, Alvies can be heard talking to Thomas. He tells Thomas to get out of the car. That’s when Thomas tells Alvies he’s been shot.

“Who shot you? Did you get shot at the Canteena?”

Thomas responds, “The cop.”

“The cop did not shoot you,” Alvies said.

It was the second time that Thomas had told an officer he had been shot. Thomas had told Feaster right after the shooting.

Alvies then returns to Ehorn to check on her status.

As Feaster and Alvies attempt to break the windshield to get Thomas out,

Ayala tells Alvies, “I think he’s hurt in there.” “I know he is,” Alvies said. “I think he’s in shock.”

Ayala’s video later shows firefighters pulling Thomas out of the car with Feaster and Alvies observing. Alvies begins to walk away and orders Feaster to watch the scene. He tells Ayala, “You’re with me! We’re going to the Canteena to see who ...”

It appears Feaster then says, “No, no. I had an A.D. (accidental discharge). ... I don’t think I shot him. I wasn’t even pointing at him but the gun did go off.”

Alvies looks incredulous and says, “Oh my (expletive) God. Are you serious?”

http://www.chicoer.com/article/NA/20...NEWS/151219808

The article also notes that Feaster had not turned on his body cam.

 

[Vaux]

I know what the article says. But what you and many others do not understand is the stupid shit people constantly say when they are arrested or in trouble or in handcuffs or have been drinking. You would not understand it unless you had to deal with it constantly. Cops become immune to it. I believe the cop heard the guy saying he had been shot, and was only saying he had been shot because he heard the gun go off and the cop really didn't think he shot him. Once the cop realized it was probably true... then the "oh shit" sank in.

Remember Eric Garner and "I can't breathe!" - same situation.

And in both situations they were not charged. There is a reason why people that understand police work are the ones who decide to charge officers... and not public opinion.

 

[Vaux]

About the doctors - I found an interesting tidbit here in one of those links -

"Prosecution of doctors for gross negligence manslaughter is rare and the threshold for criminal prosecution is high, but this doctor's actions were not mistakes or errors of judgment, but negligence so serious that he has now been convicted of a criminal offence. Our thoughts are with the family of Mr Hughes."

Was this officer's accidental discharge a mistake?

What you have to take into account is the entirety of the situation - this isn't equal to you standing at the range and your gun going off - this officer was in a pursuit, which is one of the most stressful things an officer can do. Your pulse is racing. So basically - what you should do is run around the block a few times and then be confronted with potential life or death situations. It makes the process harder and more stressful, and incidents like accidental discharges are more prone to happen under those types of situations. People in Law Enforcement know this. They actually try to train for it too.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

About the doctors - I found an interesting tidbit here in one of those links -

"Prosecution of doctors for gross negligence manslaughter is rare and the threshold for criminal prosecution is high, but this doctor's actions were not mistakes or errors of judgment, but negligence so serious that he has now been convicted of a criminal offence. Our thoughts are with the family of Mr Hughes."

Was this officer's accidental discharge a mistake?

What you have to take into account is the entirety of the situation - this isn't equal to you standing at the range and your gun going off - this officer was in a pursuit, which is one of the most stressful things an officer can do. Your pulse is racing. So basically - what you should do is run around the block a few times and then be confronted with potential life or death situations. It makes the process harder and more stressful, and incidents like accidental discharges are more prone to happen under those types of situations. People in Law Enforcement know this. We actually try to train for it too.

If you're some kind of cop, for the safety of everyone, please turn in your badge. The job is obviously beyond you.

 

[Vaux]

If you're some kind of cop, for the safety of everyone, please turn in your badge. The job is obviously beyond you.

I am not currently a police officer, but thanks for your support :thumbsup:

 

[woolfe9998]

Hey, just another bad apple right? No systemic cop abuse and collusion right? Not like this happens all the time, with cops murdering people and getting away with it.

Enough already with the "few bad apples" crap. Every time you create a new thread about cops I know that phrase will appear in your post. The truth is, none of these cases proves a damn thing about what percentage of cops are bad. We have over 2 million cops in this country. No individual scenario, or even any 50 of them, proves anything about the overall composition of police in this country. Not a damn thing.

I'm not saying it's a "few bad apples." That's your phrase, not anyone else's. I'm just saying we can't tell one way or another from these news stories because they don't prove jack about anything except the people directly involved. It amazes me your arrogance in countering what is first of all a straw man argument, then failing to counter even that because your approach is illogical. It's like you believe that with every new story you post, you are progressively disproving "a few bad apples." I guess you failed in critical thinking or never took the course.

While news stories are interesting, statistics are pretty much the only thing you can use to prove the general point. From the statistics I've seen, the only thing I can verify is that cops do not get prosecuted very often. In only 3 cases our of 450 officer involved killings in 2015 was the cop charged with any crime. That actually proves something about the system. So far as how many of these killings are taking place, there are some numbers out there but we need something to compare them to, such as other countries, and data over time in this country to see if there's an upward trend. I suspect there is no upward trend in officer involved killings. They're just more public these days so it seems that way.

Either way, these stories, compelling as many of them are, prove nothing. You may as well post news stories about Muslims committing terrorist acts then claim this proves that Muslims are violent and radical in general, that it isn't just "a few bad apples." The logic of it is literally identical. Funny how you actually believe you can get away with making such a foolish argument so long as your target is police.

 

[woolfe9998]

So far as this case goes, I don't understand why the cop drew his weapon and pointed it at the guy with his finger on the trigger. The situation did not warrant it. It was pretty clearly an AD but I think this cop should be charged with criminal negligence. At the very least he should be fired.

 

[Subyman]

About the doctors - I found an interesting tidbit here in one of those links -

"Prosecution of doctors for gross negligence manslaughter is rare and the threshold for criminal prosecution is high, but this doctor's actions were not mistakes or errors of judgment, but negligence so serious that he has now been convicted of a criminal offence. Our thoughts are with the family of Mr Hughes."

Was this officer's accidental discharge a mistake?

What you have to take into account is the entirety of the situation - this isn't equal to you standing at the range and your gun going off - this officer was in a pursuit, which is one of the most stressful things an officer can do. Your pulse is racing. So basically - what you should do is run around the block a few times and then be confronted with potential life or death situations. It makes the process harder and more stressful, and incidents like accidental discharges are more prone to happen under those types of situations. People in Law Enforcement know this. They actually try to train for it too.

Quit talking about doctors, it has nothing to do with pointing a gun at an unarmed man, firing it, feebly attempting to cover it up, and then the guy dying. You are flailing and it is sad. It is all on video, no one is formulating their opinion on a headline or whatever you said earlier. We've watched the video and that cop deserves a trial. If he is innocent then it would be proven in court.

IMO, cops need federal oversight with federal investigators taking over in these cases. Enough of the local cover ups or hand waving it away.

 

[woolfe9998]

This, exactly. Shot was exactly what he deserved. Surviving was better than he deserved.

Ah, another interesting wrinkle to the thread. I can't agree with this in full. If the guy was a habitual DUIer (and likely alcoholic), then I would agree with your assessment. But suppose he hadn't done this before, but he and his wife went out, both got drunk, and both agreed that the one less drunk would drive. Which wouldn't make him blameless. He's still criminally and morally guilty. But a one off where both knew the risks isn't the same degree of moral culpability as being a habitual wet reckless driver. Then there's the fact that he lost his wife. Maybe that and a couple years prison is bad enough. Unless he really is a chronic reckless drunk, which is quite possible, and then I agree the earth would not mourn his passing, nor would I.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Enough already with the "few bad apples" crap. Every time you create a new thread about cops I know that phrase will appear in your post. The truth is, none of these cases proves a damn thing about what percentage of cops are bad. We have over 2 million cops in this country. No individual scenario, or even any 50 of them, proves anything about the overall composition of police in this country. Not a damn thing.

I'm not saying it's a "few bad apples." That's your phrase, not anyone else's. I'm just saying we can't tell one way or another from these news stories because they don't prove jack about anything except the people directly involved. It amazes me your arrogance in countering what is first of all a straw man argument, then failing to counter even that because your approach is illogical. It's like you believe that with every new story you post, you are progressively disproving "a few bad apples." I guess you failed in critical thinking or never took the course.

While news stories are interesting, statistics are pretty much the only thing you can use to prove the general point. From the statistics I've seen, the only thing I can verify is that cops do not get prosecuted very often. In only 3 cases our of 450 officer involved killings in 2015 was the cop charged with any crime. That actually proves something about the system. So far as how many of these killings are taking place, there are some numbers out there but we need something to compare them to, such as other countries, and data over time in this country to see if there's an upward trend. I suspect there is no upward trend in officer involved killings. They're just more public these days so it seems that way.

Either way, these stories, compelling as many of them are, prove nothing. You may as well post news stories about Muslims committing terrorist acts then claim this proves that Muslims are violent and radical in general, that it isn't just "a few bad apples." The logic of it is literally identical. Funny how you actually believe you can get away with making such a foolish argument so long as your target is police.

Hmm..touched a nerve didn't I? Perhaps it hit too close to home?

The fact is there is a systemic problem with racism in the police force, and also systemic physical abuse (beatings, shootings) and lack of accountability in the police force.

The data all shows this. These anecdotal incidents just show the reality of police abuse, something many people continue to deny, claiming "few bad apples", or "isolated incidents" when they are nothing of the sort.

You have data that supports you idea? Because I've posted plenty of statistical surveys from actual police surveys and police reports showing clear racial bias to blacks and other minorities, and also that cops admit they break the law and abuse people.

How many police dept's are under DOJ investigation or supervision for excessive force? Hint: if it wasn't a systemic problem, there would be no need for DOJ oversight.

Sorry you don't want to admit the facts, but they are facts.

 

[Dude111]

wow that is a pretty fucked up video. he probably shot him because he was just enraged with the whole incident.

Cops are very scary now!!!


THEY THINK THEY CAN TREAT PPL LIKE SCUM AND THEY DO!!!!!!!!!

The idiot should be charged and be taken off the force!

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

So many of you here are so damn clueless about police work and it's not worth the time or energy to explain how things are. But I will say this, no question in my mind that the officer had an accidental discharge.

It's the new cop apologist and bigot (great anti-gay post in the other thread, really shows your true colors. Another cop apologist that is a bigot, never seen that before).

Please explain how shooting a man that wasn't a threat isn't a crime.

Please explain why the cop lied and tried to cover up the shooting per the transcript between the officer and EMT's posted earlier.

Please explain how we have several other documented cases of police "accidentally" shooting someone and getting charged with manslaughter.How is this case different from all those other cases with the officer gets charged.

 

[werepossum]

The reason I know that this was an accidental shooting is simple. The cop actually hit the perp in one shot. If it was on purpose, the cop would have shot 30 times and hit the perp maybe 4 times. I don't think it is physically possible for a cop to hit a target on purpose with only one shot.

I know what the article says. But what you and many others do not understand is the stupid shit people constantly say when they are arrested or in trouble or in handcuffs or have been drinking. You would not understand it unless you had to deal with it constantly. Cops become immune to it. I believe the cop heard the guy saying he had been shot, and was only saying he had been shot because he heard the gun go off and the cop really didn't think he shot him. Once the cop realized it was probably true... then the "oh shit" sank in.

Remember Eric Garner and "I can't breathe!" - same situation.

And in both situations they were not charged. There is a reason why people that understand police work are the ones who decide to charge officers... and not public opinion.

Interesting viewpoint, thanks. I'll only add that if someone says he's been shot or can't breath, you damned well better not become immune to it, because your job is to serve and protect - and that includes, to a limited degree, criminals. That applies to a whole 'nother level of magnitude when a guy says he's been shot and you just fired a shot. Even a ricochet can kill. You always honor the threat, and if someone says he's been shot or can't breath, you must proceed as if that is true until you can reasonably establish that it is not.

Enough already with the "few bad apples" crap. Every time you create a new thread about cops I know that phrase will appear in your post. The truth is, none of these cases proves a damn thing about what percentage of cops are bad. We have over 2 million cops in this country. No individual scenario, or even any 50 of them, proves anything about the overall composition of police in this country. Not a damn thing.

I'm not saying it's a "few bad apples." That's your phrase, not anyone else's. I'm just saying we can't tell one way or another from these news stories because they don't prove jack about anything except the people directly involved. It amazes me your arrogance in countering what is first of all a straw man argument, then failing to counter even that because your approach is illogical. It's like you believe that with every new story you post, you are progressively disproving "a few bad apples." I guess you failed in critical thinking or never took the course.

While news stories are interesting, statistics are pretty much the only thing you can use to prove the general point. From the statistics I've seen, the only thing I can verify is that cops do not get prosecuted very often. In only 3 cases our of 450 officer involved killings in 2015 was the cop charged with any crime. That actually proves something about the system. So far as how many of these killings are taking place, there are some numbers out there but we need something to compare them to, such as other countries, and data over time in this country to see if there's an upward trend. I suspect there is no upward trend in officer involved killings. They're just more public these days so it seems that way.

Either way, these stories, compelling as many of them are, prove nothing. You may as well post news stories about Muslims committing terrorist acts then claim this proves that Muslims are violent and radical in general, that it isn't just "a few bad apples." The logic of it is literally identical. Funny how you actually believe you can get away with making such a foolish argument so long as your target is police.

Damned well said, sir.

As to why he was pointing a gun at the "suspect", that's because he was arresting him; it's kind of a requirement, especially for someone who has already run. I don't find that particularly mitigating though, as an essential part of being a cop has to be the ability to not accidentally shoot someone in situations like these where the camera can see no mitigating factors that might justify an accidental discharge. If there is no way to determine between a truly accidental discharge and an intentional discharge, then it's difficult to see how that accidental discharge could be anything other the negligence.

 

[Darwin333]

The reason I know that this was an accidental shooting is simple. The cop actually hit the perp in one shot. If it was on purpose, the cop would have shot 30 times and hit the perp maybe 4 times. I don't think it is physically possible for a cop to hit a target on purpose with only one shot.

I dunno, the cop who murdered the teen with a knife was able to empty his entire magazine into the kid without missing a single time. Granted 13 of the shots were while he was laying rather motionless on the ground but still.

 

[EOM]

I know what the article says. But what you and many others do not understand is the stupid shit people constantly say when they are arrested or in trouble or in handcuffs or have been drinking. You would not understand it unless you had to deal with it constantly. Cops become immune to it. I believe the cop heard the guy saying he had been shot, and was only saying he had been shot because he heard the gun go off and the cop really didn't think he shot him. Once the cop realized it was probably true... then the "oh shit" sank in.

Remember Eric Garner and "I can't breathe!" - same situation.

And in both situations they were not charged. There is a reason why people that understand police work are the ones who decide to charge officers... and not public opinion.

but how negligent do you have to be to not check it right away when he claims to have been shot? How long does it take to do a once over on the guy? It doesn't generally take a trained medical professional to recognize that the guy had an extra hole that shouldn't be there.....