Cop convicted after shooting fleeing suspect in back

[WildBill]

I wonder if any of the science relating to how quickly a fleeing suspect can turn and shoot, or the physiological and perceptual changes experienced while under adrenalin, or similar data were presented by the defense. The studies conducted by the Force Science Institute are fascinating and have helped to explain and justify many self defense incidents, as well as have assisted in numerous police acquittals.

Sometimes this type of evidence can be compelling, but most jurors are not "scientific". Each side could probably find expert witnesses to contradict each other.
Even DNA evidence isn't always a "slam dunk".

[texanjoker]

Sounds to me this guy was sunk by the other officers testimony. He is closer to the action in the pursuit, he is actively using less lethal devices, and he didn't see a weapon. If the prosecutor asked this officer the obvious question, "Did you fear for your life?" and the officer said "no", the trial would pretty much be done at that point.
It's one thing for an untrained bystander to testify that an officer didn't need to shoot, it's a whole different ball game if the jury felt that this officer didn't believe the shoot was justified.
IF (that's a big if) that's the way the trial went, I don't know how anyone could expect a jury to do anything other than what they did.

Nothing about this case, but in general we all see things different, including officers. While one officer may not view something as being justified from his point of view or perception, another officer may see a weapon or some other threat from his view and react. Training and experience comes into play as well as all the psychological functions effected by stress. Some people just cannot overcome it when the psychological factors kick in and freeze, ect. That is why I always say one will never know until they squeeze the trigger at a person if they can do it or not. This happens in police shootings because one officer will fire and save the day and the other officer never even saw the threat. When I was a training officer this happens as well because a trainee doesn't have a clue about police work, yet they think they know it all because they graduated from an academy. They can easily miss a threat that any experienced officer should see. I have seen and experienced this first hand. (not being prosecuted, but being in critical incidents where one or more leo saw the threat different.)

[texanjoker]

I wonder if any of the science relating to how quickly a fleeing suspect can turn and shoot, or the physiological and perceptual changes experienced while under adrenalin, or similar data were presented by the defense. The studies conducted by the Force Science Institute are fascinating and have helped to explain and justify many self defense incidents, as well as have assisted in numerous police acquittals.

Sometimes this type of evidence can be compelling, but most jurors are not "scientific". Each side could probably find expert witnesses to contradict each other.
Even DNA evidence isn't always a "slam dunk".

The jury spoke and that is our system. I do wonder what kind of defense they put on and what experience this attorney had? Those of us that have been to court enough know its a game. The person with the best show often wins, and OJ and the GZ trials were good examples of that. I also wonder why the one juror refused to vote vs a yay or nay? In some cases like the SAPD rapist I have no sympathy at all and justice will be served. But in a case like this I feel for the guy. We all get up, put our gear on and hit the field. A split second decision and your life is altered forever. Some of us endure the stress of the OIS investigation and move on. Others are prosecuted like this leo. I know I am terrified of ever going through an OIS again. It was very stressful. I will be interested in seeing his appeal. I know I would be fighting for my freedom until the very end.

[extremist]

I am not a “Cop apologists” if you read a few of my other posts, you would know I am as critical of bad cops as anyone on this board. I have probably made a few LEO enemies on this forum because of my criticism.

I can’t know for sure, but it seems the big difference between you and I is that I don’t label a whole group and hate that group because of the actions of a few.

Okay too broad of a brush for you - I apologize.

And don't take my comments to think that I'm labeling all cops bad. I just cannot abide by the attitude cops take that their kind can do nothing wrong and don't criticize them.

There ARE good cops. There ARE bad cops. Fact. I don't believe in labeling ANY group based on the actions of few. Don't misunderstand or misquote me.

Peace, we are good and on the same side.

Jams

[Jason K]

One thing I'd like to know.....was the officer able to tell that his fellow officer was deploying a taser and not his sidearm? The Taser Company seems to design the things to look like a sidearm.

A few more cases like these, and I expect to see a lot of PD's mandate that the taser be carried in the sidearm's location and the sidearm be carried in a locked holster elsewhere....

[VoiceofReason]

I am not a “Cop apologists” if you read a few of my other posts, you would know I am as critical of bad cops as anyone on this board. I have probably made a few LEO enemies on this forum because of my criticism.

I can’t know for sure, but it seems the big difference between you and I is that I don’t label a whole group and hate that group because of the actions of a few.

Okay too broad of a brush for you - I apologize.

And don't take my comments to think that I'm labeling all cops bad. I just cannot abide by the attitude cops take that their kind can do nothing wrong and don't criticize them.

There ARE good cops. There ARE bad cops. Fact. I don't believe in labeling ANY group based on the actions of few. Don't misunderstand or misquote me.

Peace, we are good and on the same side.

Jams

We are good.

[VMI77]

Well, it seems to be clearly tainted by politics. I can see both sides, though the shot while running away part is problematic. I think I'd have to have been on the jury to know where to come down on this one. One troubling aspect is that this case isn't even close to being as questionable a shooting as numerous others for which cops either haven't been charged or got acquitted. I doubt there would even have been charges if not for the politics, so in the scheme of things, it looks like the officer got railroaded. When I saw the title, I thought it was the case of an officer shooting a guy walking down the street whittling in the back....I don't think there were charges in that one, and this shoot was way cleaner than that one.

So, I'm not in agreement with the verdict and don't accept it without question or reservation. I also think that if the cop was guilty of doing what the prosecution claimed, they should have charged him with murder, not manslaughter. To me, manslaughter in a case like this means the officer made a mistake in judgement, not that he intended to injure or kill out of animosity. So to me it looks like they knew they couldn't sell a murder charge, so they went for something easier to get a conviction, and I think that stinks, and makes the case entirely political.

Wow - I have to agree with the politics being involved. This is an officers worst nightmare. He didn't go to work and plan on shooting somebody. However, he was tried and convicted, all over a drug dealer . The war on drugs is a joke and the bodies pile up on all sides. Only the officer knows what he perceived as a threat, but in this case the jury made their decision based on whatever was presented to them. While I don't always agree with a jury, that is our system, and it should be left alone. But then to be a joker, didn't the same people call for a change to the system after GZ got acquitted - for the haters out there, THAT IS A JOKE.

I agree with Chas as well. I read some of the comments. Personally I do agree with the officer appealing because that is his right. Pretty much everybody appeals their conviction and he should not loose his rights just because he is a leo. However I do not agree with the rest of the comments, but then this is the net where it's easy to talk behind a keyboard.

This is a good reminder for anybody that carries because we often read about people getting shot by a chl holder or a leo running away for this or that. Best to let them go.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the system be changed, just that the trial has the appearance of being politically motivated. I think the way to address that kind of problem is to investigate the DA, not to repudiate the decision of a jury. If there is found to be a basis for believing the DA has done something unethical, it should result in punishment for the DA, and be included as part of an appeal.

I also think there may be times when shooting a fleeing suspect is justified even if he's unarmed (a moral justification, not justification under current law). As an extreme example, say an officer has just witnessed someone shoot at a group of people, hitting several, dropping his empty gun, and fleeing. I think that the likelihood such a person will use deadly force again before being apprehended justifies using deadly force to prevent his escape.

[n5wd]

Oklahoma seems to come down with these strange verdicts. The pharmacist that shot and killed a druggy that was robbing the store. They put the pharmacist in jail. Who knows how anyone will react in the heat of passion. If I were on the jury though from the little that has been posted the cop would have walked free. A police officer versus a druggy. No way the police officer would be convicted by me.

Two points: 1. "heat of passion". That's the difference between murder and manslaughter: premeditation. And, it's the difference between the recommended four years and a life term in prison.

2. "A police officer versus a druggy. No way the police officer would be convicted by me." That's why jurors are asked, before the trial begins, to swear that they will be objective and listen to the testimony before making up their minds as to guilt or innocence, according to the law. And, why if you're ever brought before the law, you'd better pray that there's not someone on the jury that's prejudiced against you beforehand.