Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

molson · 08-18-2014, 05:53 PM

I was talking about this Idaho case with someone the other day. It might be interesting in a discussion about lawful officer force, and there's a video.

This guy was chased for several miles by both county officers and tribal officers. Eventually they managed to stop the vehicle with a spike strip. The driver fired once out the window. The tribal police lit up the car with gunfire, the county police held their fire. Then the driver surrendered, and left the vehicle, without a weapon. He stood with his arms raised for about 3-5 seconds, and was then shot and killed by one of the tribal officers.

YouTube

The FBI investigated and declined to bring criminal charges. (they would have had jurisdiction because this involved tribal police, and took place on a reservation) The local county prosecutor charged the tribal officer with voluntary manslaughter. But the case didn't get past the preliminary hearing stage. The judge dismissed the case, ruling that the state failed to show probable cause.

Not the same facts as Brown, of course. The Brown facts could be better for the police, or worse, depending on who you believe. Clearly, the shooting by the tribal officer wasn't necessary, and none of the county officers there saw fit to fire any shots at all. But I think this goes to show how far second-guessing can get you in law enforcement force and self-defense cases sometimes. And that whether a shooting is necessary isn't the standard for criminal activity. These are situations that most of us will never experience. When it comes to criminal charges, and analyzing split-second decisions in stressful situations, courts can and should be careful, both with law enforcement officers, and with civilians exercising self-defense. I'm sure this officer will never be hired by a regular county police department, but I'm not positive he's a criminal either. If you're one of those people who believe its better than 100 guilty people go free than it is that 1 innocent person be imprisoned, you should really struggle with these kinds of cases. You can think someone broke policy or acted too recklessly, but whether someone's conduct fits a criminal statute, and whether we take away their freedom is heavy shit. But if we decide we want to imprison police officers even if we can't prove criminal intent, we should do the same for doctors, who kill tens of thousands every year with malpractice.

It would have been great to have a video like this in the Brown case. There probably would still be disagreement about whether the officer was justified, but things are so much smoother when everyone is on the same page with the facts.

08-18-2014, 05:53 PM	#562
molson General Manager Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Mountains	I was talking about this Idaho case with someone the other day. It might be interesting in a discussion about lawful officer force, and there's a video. This guy was chased for several miles by both county officers and tribal officers. Eventually they managed to stop the vehicle with a spike strip. The driver fired once out the window. The tribal police lit up the car with gunfire, the county police held their fire. Then the driver surrendered, and left the vehicle, without a weapon. He stood with his arms raised for about 3-5 seconds, and was then shot and killed by one of the tribal officers. YouTube The FBI investigated and declined to bring criminal charges. (they would have had jurisdiction because this involved tribal police, and took place on a reservation) The local county prosecutor charged the tribal officer with voluntary manslaughter. But the case didn't get past the preliminary hearing stage. The judge dismissed the case, ruling that the state failed to show probable cause. Not the same facts as Brown, of course. The Brown facts could be better for the police, or worse, depending on who you believe. Clearly, the shooting by the tribal officer wasn't necessary, and none of the county officers there saw fit to fire any shots at all. But I think this goes to show how far second-guessing can get you in law enforcement force and self-defense cases sometimes. And that whether a shooting is necessary isn't the standard for criminal activity. These are situations that most of us will never experience. When it comes to criminal charges, and analyzing split-second decisions in stressful situations, courts can and should be careful, both with law enforcement officers, and with civilians exercising self-defense. I'm sure this officer will never be hired by a regular county police department, but I'm not positive he's a criminal either. If you're one of those people who believe its better than 100 guilty people go free than it is that 1 innocent person be imprisoned, you should really struggle with these kinds of cases. You can think someone broke policy or acted too recklessly, but whether someone's conduct fits a criminal statute, and whether we take away their freedom is heavy shit. But if we decide we want to imprison police officers even if we can't prove criminal intent, we should do the same for doctors, who kill tens of thousands every year with malpractice. It would have been great to have a video like this in the Brown case. There probably would still be disagreement about whether the officer was justified, but things are so much smoother when everyone is on the same page with the facts. Last edited by molson : 08-18-2014 at 06:07 PM.