More here. I don’t presume to know what the woman was thinking. She made bad choices and broke some laws. But her actions do not make any police response reasonable. Good police respond professionally to unreasonable people in the community.
The police officer who fired at the van was probably aiming for the rear tires. Still, under the circumstances, seems like an unjustified use of deadly force. An impartial review is needed.
From Fox News:
Surveillance video showing a Dallas police officer shooting a mentally ill man standing still about 20 feet away contradicts the assertion of an officer that the man threatened his safety by lunging at him with a knife.
Bobby Gerald Bennett remains hospitalized after being shot in the stomach Monday. The officer who shot him, Cardan Spencer, is on indefinite administrative leave pending a criminal investigation after a neighbor released surveillance video that captured the incident.
Los Angeles Sheriff Deputies burst into Eugene Mallory’s home expecting to find a meth lab, but turns out there was no meth.
Police say that the 80-year-old Mallory, who was in bed, reached for one of his handguns. That’s when the police shot him six times, killing him.
Mallory’s wife is now bringing a wrongful death lawsuit against the police department.
Where did the police get the idea that there might be a meth lab in this home? According to the news account, an officer had been in the area and could smell the types of chemicals that are used to make meth. Hmm. Perhaps enough to conduct further investigation–watching the premises, for example.
Shouldn’t be enough for raiding someone’s home.
From the New York Times:
The shooting on Saturday night immediately raised questions about the police’s use of deadly force, especially in a crowded area where bystanders were in the line of fire. On Sunday, police officials, including the commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, refused to say if the shooting appeared justified, saying that the circumstances were being investigated.
Department guidelines say officers may not fire their weapons unless they believe they or other people are in imminent danger of death or serious injury, or if doing so will “unnecessarily endanger innocent persons.” Nonetheless, the courts and the Police Department generally give officers great leeway in deciding when to fire their weapons….
The two officers were placed on administrative duty pending the department’s internal investigation, as officers typically are after a shooting. The review process can result in retraining for the officer or more serious disciplinary action, including the rarely employed option of dismissal from the force. (That occurred for one officer after the 2006 killing of Sean Bell, who was unarmed. Three others were forced to resign; one was exonerated in a departmental hearing.)
From the Washington Post:
When the time came to move 107-year-old Monroe Isadore to a new home, police say he resisted and barricaded himself inside. Authorities tried using a camera to monitor him, along with negotiating tactics, and finally gas to get him to come out.
None of it worked.
So, a SWAT team went inside and was greeted by gunfire, authorities say. The team fired back, and Isadore died.
The weekend confrontation raised a flurry of questions Monday as residents struggled to make sense of how someone known as a pleasant, churchgoing man who was hard of hearing and sometimes carried a cane had died in an explosive confrontation. Did authorities know how old he was? Did they follow proper procedure? Could they have done anything differently?
“It’s just a big puzzle,” said Ivory Perry, who has known Isadore for decades.
From a Washington Post editorial:
The report by Mr. Plowman, the county’s top prosecutor, presents the results of a serious and substantive investigation into the May 29 shooting. It includes statements from shoppers and store employees who were witnesses, and from the officers, as well as images from store security cameras and photos of the knife and scissors.
All that is useful, as is the speed with which the report was produced. Still, some critical questions remain unanswered, including the central one: Why couldn’t the officers — five of them, including three who had drawn their Tasers — subdue Ms. Scott short of using lethal force? Would better training have yielded a different outcome?
According to Mr. Plowman’s report, just one of three officers who drew his Taser fired it. The device hit Ms. Scott but apparently malfunctioned. Rather than delivering an incapacitating five-second jolt, which the report says is the norm, the electrical burst lasted just one second, and Ms. Scott was unaffected.
Why? The report is vague, saying it is unclear whether human error or equipment malfunction is to blame. (The Taser in question has been sent to the manufacturer for “more thorough examination,” the report says.) And why didn’t the other two officers who had drawn their Tasers use them? …
[P]olice must be prepared to deal with psychotic, disturbed and aggressive people; that’s part of the job description. Did the deputies in Loudoun receive adequate training for such an encounter? On that question, the report is silent.
From the Pensacola News Journal:
Middleton, 60, of the 200 block of Shadow Lawn Lane in Warrington, was shot in the leg about 2:42 a.m. Saturday while trying to retrieve a cigarette from his mother’s car in the driveway of their home.
A neighbor saw someone reaching into the car and called 911. While he was looking into the vehicle, deputies arrived in response to the burglary call.
Middleton said he was bent over in the car searching the interior for a loose cigarette when he heard a voice order him to, “Get your hands where I can see them.”
He said he initially thought it was a neighbor joking with him, but when he turned his head he saw deputies standing halfway down his driveway.
He said he backed out of the vehicle with his hands raised, but when he turned to face the deputies, they immediately opened fire.
“It was like a firing squad,” he said. “Bullets were flying everywhere.”
A total of 16 bullets hit Theoharis in February 2012, when a King County sheriff’s deputy and a DOC officer opened fire on him while serving a search warrant at the Auburn home where he lived.
He wasn’t the man they were after, but officers claimed he reached for what they thought was a gun.
“Without a warrant, you shoot an unarmed man while he’s in his bed 16 times,” said Heipt. “I don’t know how you could possibly conclude that to be a justified shooting.”
That was one of the questions members of the King County Council had as they reviewed a critical report on the aftermath of the shooting.
The report was put together by Merrick Bobb, who is also overseeing reforms in the Seattle Police Department.
“I knew from the outset of this incident there needed to be a deeper review,” said Charles Gaither, the civilian overseer for the sheriff’s office. Gaither said there were several problems in how the investigation was handled.
The officers involved were not immediately interviewed, physical evidence was overlooked and moved, and the first responding supervisor, also a union representaive, acted more as an advocate for officers and less as an investigator.