Cop convicted after shooting fleeing suspect in back

[mojo84]

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles ... h-of-teen/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What are your thoughts on this case? The cop was convicted by the "system". Question for those that expect us all to accept what the "system" determines and concludes, are you in agreement with this verdict? Do you accept it without question or reservation?

Notice the comments from mostly cops.

[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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I didn't see the evidence that came in at trial, so there's no way for me to form an opinion one way or the other. I do want to note that taking a furtive action often justifies the use of deadly force, when the overall circumstances support a reasonable belief that those actions constitute a deadly threat. It's more likely that a furtive action will be deemed a threat when the person is coming toward you or standing still in close proximity, than when they are running away. Obviously, the distance between you and the potential threat is important and possibly critical.

I suspect that a critical factor in the decision to prosecute and the jury's ultimate verdict was the statement by a fellow officer that he didn't see a weapon. This coupled with the fact that that officer used a Taser instead of a handgun furthers the argument that the suspect didn't pose a deadly threat. Also, the defendant fired four rounds with a fellow officer in front of him (the one with the Taser I presume). That didn't help the defendant in the least.

Another police officer was running about 10 to 15 feet behind Scott and had just shot him with a Taser when Harrison fired the fatal shot, according to an affidavit. The officer who used the Taser said he didn't see the teen with another weapon.

The posts in response to this article are very alarming and unfortunately indicative of the attitude of too many officers. They didn't hear the evidence anymore than did I, nor do they know anything beyond what is in the article. Yet attack the DA, jury, and anyone else who doesn't rubber stamp every action by every peace officer. Some clearly indicate they will not do their jobs due to a fear of prosecution. Fine, quit and do something else. The comments are more than a little scary, not because of the possibility of losing unfit officers, but because they even exist.

Chas.

[gigag04]

I didn't see the evidence that came in at trial, so there's no way for me to form an opinion one way or the other. I do want to note that taking a furtive action often justifies the use of deadly force, when the overall circumstances support a reasonable belief that those actions constitute a deadly threat. It's more likely that a furtive action will be deemed a threat when the person is coming toward you or standing still in close proximity, than when they are running away. Obviously, the distance between you and the potential threat is important and possibly critical.

I suspect that a critical factor in the decision to prosecute and the jury's ultimate verdict was the statement by a fellow officer that he didn't see a weapon. This coupled with the fact that that officer used a Taser instead of a handgun furthers the argument that the suspect didn't pose a deadly threat. Also, the defendant fired four rounds with a fellow officer in front of him (the one with the Taser I presume). That didn't help the defendant in the least.

Another police officer was running about 10 to 15 feet behind Scott and had just shot him with a Taser when Harrison fired the fatal shot, according to an affidavit. The officer who used the Taser said he didn't see the teen with another weapon.

The posts in response to this article are very alarming and unfortunately indicative of the attitude of too many officers. They didn't hear the evidence anymore than did I, nor do they know anything beyond what is in the article. Yet attack the DA, jury, and anyone else who doesn't rubber stamp every action by every peace officer. Some clearly indicate they will not do their jobs due to a fear of prosecution. Fine, quit and do something else. The comments are more than a little scary, not because of the possibility of losing unfit officers, but because they even exist.

Chas.

Agree 100%.

[texanjoker]

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.

[texanjoker]

I find this story interesting. It is about this same incident. Apparently one juror refused to vote so they put in an alternate. Is that normal or should this have been a mistrial? I honestly don't know the answer to that but maybe Chas or another attorney does.

We're going to immediately start working on the appeal," defense attorney Doug Friesen said.

One possible basis for appeal is that one juror who refused to cast a vote as to Harrison's guilt or innocence was replaced with an alternate during deliberation.

http://www.officer.com/news/11250936/ju ... S131121003" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[WildBill]

I find this story interesting. It is about this same incident. Apparently one juror refused to vote so they put in an alternate. Is that normal or should this have been a mistrial? I honestly don't know the answer to that but maybe Chas or another attorney does.

We're going to immediately start working on the appeal," defense attorney Doug Friesen said.

One possible basis for appeal is that one juror who refused to cast a vote as to Harrison's guilt or innocence was replaced with an alternate during deliberation.

http://www.officer.com/news/11250936/ju ... S131121003" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is why they have alternates.

I am not sure about Oklahoma law, but Texas § 62.020. ALTERNATE JURORS states that the a juror must be replaced prior to going into deliberation.

[VoiceofReason]

I didn't see the evidence that came in at trial, so there's no way for me to form an opinion one way or the other. I do want to note that taking a furtive action often justifies the use of deadly force, when the overall circumstances support a reasonable belief that those actions constitute a deadly threat. It's more likely that a furtive action will be deemed a threat when the person is coming toward you or standing still in close proximity, than when they are running away. Obviously, the distance between you and the potential threat is important and possibly critical.

I suspect that a critical factor in the decision to prosecute and the jury's ultimate verdict was the statement by a fellow officer that he didn't see a weapon. This coupled with the fact that that officer used a Taser instead of a handgun furthers the argument that the suspect didn't pose a deadly threat. Also, the defendant fired four rounds with a fellow officer in front of him (the one with the Taser I presume). That didn't help the defendant in the least.

Another police officer was running about 10 to 15 feet behind Scott and had just shot him with a Taser when Harrison fired the fatal shot, according to an affidavit. The officer who used the Taser said he didn't see the teen with another weapon.

The posts in response to this article are very alarming and unfortunately indicative of the attitude of too many officers. They didn't hear the evidence anymore than did I, nor do they know anything beyond what is in the article. Yet attack the DA, jury, and anyone else who doesn't rubber stamp every action by every peace officer. Some clearly indicate they will not do their jobs due to a fear of prosecution. Fine, quit and do something else. The comments are more than a little scary, not because of the possibility of losing unfit officers, but because they even exist.

Chas.

This is a very complex case. I believe it was stated that the officer had been threatened with a gun by this perp a very short time prior to this.

As to the comments by other officers, an officer can start off with all the right reasons for wearing the uniform and badge but depending on where he/she works and what he/she experiences on the job he/she can become very cynical very quickly. I am not defending or criticizing anyone. I am just saying that is one job a person can’t truly judge unless they have worked as a LEO.

I hope this turns out with justice for all concerned.

[extremist]

I am just saying that is one job a person can’t truly judge unless they have worked as a LEO.

You know, I get so tired of hearing this statement from all the Cop apologists

James

[03Lightningrocks]

I am just saying that is one job a person can’t truly judge unless they have worked as a LEO.

You know, I get so tired of hearing this statement from all the Cop apologists

James

Maybe you shouldn't read it if it gives you so much grief.

[VoiceofReason]

I am just saying that is one job a person can’t truly judge unless they have worked as a LEO.

You know, I get so tired of hearing this statement from all the Cop apologists

James

Did you read the sentence before that? “I am not defending or criticizing anyone.”

“You know, I get so tired of hearing this statement from all the Cop apologists

Now, whether you “get so tired of hearing this statement” or not, it is a true statement. It is the same as the soldier in Iraq, the soldier in Vietnam, the Nurse in the Emergency Room or numerous other jobs. The Cop can’t know how the soldier feels and the soldier can’t know how the Cop feels. Each job has its own unique situations.

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.

[texanjoker]

I am just saying that is one job a person can’t truly judge unless they have worked as a LEO.

You know, I get so tired of hearing this statement from all the Cop apologists

James

Did you read the sentence before that? “I am not defending or criticizing anyone.”

“You know, I get so tired of hearing this statement from all the Cop apologists

Now, whether you “get so tired of hearing this statement” or not, it is a true statement. It is the same as the soldier in Iraq, the soldier in Vietnam, the Nurse in the Emergency Room or numerous other jobs. The Cop can’t know how the soldier feels and the soldier can’t know how the Cop feels. Each job has its own unique situations.

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.

and well stated.

[rotor]

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.

[Jumping Frog]

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.

[jmra]

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.