ACQUITTALS: THE BEST CHRISTMAS PRESENTS
Having worked in the criminal justice system for more than three and a half decades, I always get warm and fuzzy when a jury confirms my faith in that system. It happened twice this week.
In New England, a police officer was charged with manslaughter arising out of a shooting in which he and another LEO came under attack by two young suspects in a vehicle the lawmen were approaching on foot. He saw one readying a semiautomatic pistol, and the driver began to head his vehicle toward the other policeman. The cop opened fire, killing the one he’d perceived to have the gun and wounding the driver, who was captured later. The dead guy’s gun was never recovered.
Retired FBI firearms instructor Urey Patrick, speaking eloquently for the defense, explained to the jury why the cop was correct in firing when he did. The jurors agreed, and this week they found the officer not guilty.
Down South, a young man was leaving a party that was getting rough when his vehicle was surrounded by four heavily-drinking twenty-somethings. He perceived objects smashing against his vehicle (a broken bottle and a bat were later found at the scene) and then the driver’s door window next to his head exploded in on him. He reflexively came up with a .38 and fired twice, killing a man who had punched through the tempered safety glass window with his bare fist. The man who fired panicked and fled the scene. He was arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder. After two years in jail (no bond on murder one in that jurisdiction) he got his day in court this week. A few hours ago, late Friday afternoon, his ordeal ended when the jury found him not guilty of anything but discharging a firearm from a vehicle. (The latter isn’t as poultry-fecal as it sounds. The scared kid had fired a third shot upward as a warning not to chase him as he fled, and jurors have been known to frown on that sort of thing.)
It is hard for a family to accept that their loved one may have done something that caused his death, and love and misplaced loyalty lead them to blame the person who was forced to pull the trigger. We can understand their unhappiness. But I have to feel joy for the families of two wrongfully accused men who will have them at home for Christmas. Neither, in my opinion, should ever have been criminally charged. One, 19 at the time of the shooting, has lost almost a tenth of his life so far in jail waiting for justice. When THEIR families celebrate with extra joy this Christmas…well, I’ll understand that too.
December 12th, 2009 at 4:34 am
I’ve read more than once in your columns of shooters in a justified shooting going into panic mode and leaving the scene and winding up behind bars. This young man was truly lucky or he really got a jury of his peers, people that understood how scared and confused you will be if it happens to you. It’s good to see the good guy win once in a while
December 12th, 2009 at 9:13 am
The second case is one of many reasons I am glad Texas has passed a version of the Castle Law. Under the version passed in Texas, the young man would not have been charged with murder (someone breaking into your vehicle while you are in it is a situation where deadly force is allowed), nor could the family of the person who was shot sue the young man.
As to faith in our Criminal Justice system, living near Dallas, TX my faith has been shaken and renewed at the same time. We have had over 25 men’s convictions overturned due to DNA evidence. For me, this shows that it truly does matter whether the person in charge of the DA’s office wants convictions or justice.
December 12th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Spot on Mas…Folks should hear about the positives that ARE coming out of the justice system. Thanks for all you do!
I still have the first bullet proof vest you sold me at a huge discount in 1984. I never could have afforded it otherwise. A fellow officer and myself drove from Keene to Concord, for them. He has retired, but we speak of it still. Jack
December 12th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
sad that they were unduly charged to begin with
December 14th, 2009 at 11:20 am
As you drilled into our heads only go away if you must for safety and then only as far as you have to to be reasonably safe and ALWAYS make the 911 call or have it made on your behalf. The first one to call gets the role of victim assigned to them initially and that can and does influence the responding and investigating LEOs. Fleeing always implies guilt. Good lesson here. For the umpteenth time!
December 14th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Even better will be the day when cops who arrive on scene are better able to discern a justifyable or excusable situation and stop putting citizens who are truly defending themselves through unecessary trials and jail time. There is only 1 Massad Ayoob, but there are thousands of other cops out there who are not familiar enough with deadly force issues to make “good calls” at the scene. Granted the second subject could have saved himself some trouble had he reported this incident asap, but others who follow the letter of the law are still being put throught the wringer unecessarily. Let’s hope that both Cops and citizens continue their lethal force education and we all have a better understanding.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Something wrong here!
He saw one readying a semiautomatic pistol, and the driver began to head his vehicle toward the other policeman.
The cop opened fire, killing the one he’d ‘perceived’ to have the gun and wounding the driver, who was captured later.
“The dead guy’s gun was never recovered.’ ??
No gun?
Cop ‘thought’ he had a gun?
So he shots and kills him and no gun is found??
Something serious wrong with this!
December 15th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Appearance and reality can be two different things, Phil.
Note that the driver was captured later…ample opportunity to ditch an accomplice’s gun.
What I didn’t get into in the blog entry was the fact that the deceased was identified as a perpetrator in a previous armed crime, a fact which the trial judge never allowed the jury to hear when they deliberated upon the officer’s actions.
Finally, please remember that the standard is, what would a reasonable and prudent person have done in the same situation, knowing what the defendant knew or reasonably perceived?
Thanks for contributing,
Mas
January 1st, 2010 at 10:39 pm
“Down South, a young man was leaving a party that was getting rough when his vehicle was surrounded by four heavily-drinking twenty-somethings. He perceived objects smashing against his vehicle (a broken bottle and a bat were later found at the scene) and then the driver’s door window next to his head exploded in on him.”
I was in a similar situation when I was in elementary school. My family lives in Panama City, Fl, and lived for a while in Panama City Beach. My dad was driving us kids through the drive-thru at Burger King when this huge group of (I assume) drunk teenagers surrounded our minivan. Dad told us (my little sister, toddler brother, and myself) to lay down on the seats/floor. The jerks started shaking the van, really hard, to the point where it literally felt like they were going to flip the car onto it’s side. They were also banging hard on the windows, most with glass bottles, and yelling. I don’t know what Dad said to them (if anything), but I do know that they left us alone after a minute or two.
It was so SCARY. To this day I don’t know why they would do that to a stranger, much less a stranger with three kids in the car.
January 1st, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Oh, and this was not at night or a bad neighborhood. I believe it was around lunchtime, right on the beach. Admittedly, most locals avoid the beach during Spring Break but that is more because of the inconvenience/stupidity than any violence.