Ex-deputy aquitted in killing of 2 in Pickup Truck

[Jeff White]

This incident created quite a stir here in Legal and Political last year. The verdict is in and the deputy has been acquitted. Instead of the usual rants about how the deputy is a murderer who walked (you know who you are, don't even bother to post in this thread, we all know how you feel already), let's look at the information we have from the view of anyone on THR being in court on a use of force case.

Note that there were two accident re constructionists that testified and an expert witness who is a behavior scientist who testified on how the deputy perceived the incident. Often that kind of testimony is what makes the difference between walking out of court a free man, or spending years in prison.

Jeff
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...F42C008349C746A1862572DF001525E7?OpenDocument

Ex-deputy is acquitted in killing of 2 in pickup
By Valerie Schremp Hahn
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
05/18/2007

COLUMBIA, MO. — A Boone County jury found a Lincoln County sheriff's deputy not guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the shooting deaths of two men in a pickup during a traffic stop in 2005.

At the heart of the case was whether former Sgt. Nic Forler feared for his life and fired in self-defense when the truck rolled backward toward him.

Forler took the stand Thursday and said there was "no doubt" in his mind that the truck backed up in an attempt to run him over and that he had to shoot to protect himself.

"The vehicle jumps, lunges, lurches, whatever word you want to use," he testified. "I was absolutely convinced that this vehicle was going to run me over. The only option I had to save my own life was to shoot my weapon."

Forler did shoot his pistol twice, killing the truck's driver, Tyler Teasley, 22, of Silex, and a passenger, Michael Brown, 23, of Troy. Forler was on trial this week in Columbia, where the trial was moved because of pretrial publicity.

Special prosecutor Kevin Zoellner said in closing arguments Thursday that the truck rolled back slowly on its own accord because it was in neutral.

"Shooting this car twice did nothing to save Mr. Forler's life," Zoellner said. "Getting out of the way is what saved Mr. Forler from being bumped by this vehicle."

Forler's attorney, Joe McCulloch, argued that the truck didn't simply roll — it lurched, and Forler reacted to that.

"He had no choice but to do what he did," McCulloch said.

Forler, 27, was fired from the department after he was charged.

Forler shot at the truck on the night of Oct. 23, 2005, after attempting to pull the truck over for speeding. Four passengers in the truck who survived the shooting testified that the group of friends had been drinking and were scared, so Teasley tried to elude Forler.

He pulled into a subdivision, turned off the ignition, put the truck in neutral and then coasted into a driveway with the lights off, they said.

Forler pulled up about 10 feet behind the truck at an angle, got out, and drew his weapon, he testified. He said he walked to the front of his patrol car to protect himself if the driver got out of the truck to shoot him and from the brunt of the truck's force if it rolled backward. He took a step forward, and that's when the truck lurched, he said.

"The vehicle was angling back as if it was coming straight at me," he testified. "There was no option for me to step out of the way."

The passengers testified that the truck rolled back slowly and that they barely noticed when it came to rest against the patrol car. An investigator testified earlier that Forler could have stepped aside to avoid the slow-moving truck and shouldn't have fired into the tinted back window because he couldn't see what he was shooting.

On cross-examination, Forler testified that he thinks one of the passengers put the truck in neutral to cover for Teasley.

"You didn't make any mistakes that night, did you?" Zoellner asked him.

"At the time everything was happening, I certainly thought I was doing everything to the best of my ability," Forler answered, adding that he didn't believe he made a mistake.

Zoellner then asked that whether Forler thought he made a mistake looking back on the situation and knowing what he knows now.

"Looking back, my mistake was to go to work that day," Forler said. "I wish I would have stayed home."

William Lewinski, a behavioral scientist specializing in police psychology, testified Thursday that even if the truck rolled slowly, Forler was so focused on it that he may have interpreted the movement as a threat.

"His gun went off as part of an instinctive reaction to a perceived threat," he said.

Also testifying for the defense was Jeff Kuehn, an engineer who specializes in accident reconstruction. He analyzed damage to the two vehicles because the truck eventually rolled back into the patrol car, causing slight damage to each bumper. Kuehn estimated the truck had to travel from 5.2 to 7.9 mph and the entire trip would have taken 3.1 to 5 seconds.

A Missouri Highway Patrol investigator testified Wednesday that the fastest Teasley's pickup could have rolled into Forler's car was 3.35 mph, slightly faster than a person's average walking speed. The maximum time it would take for the truck to roll into the car was 7.78 seconds, he said.

Forler testified that if the truck had rolled that slowly, he would have had time to step out of the way.

"If it had happened that way, we wouldn't be here today," he said.



[email protected] | 636-255-7211

 

[PotatoJudge]

let's look at the information we have from the view of anyone on THR being in court on a use of force case.

Anyone in that position not performing a duty as LEO might be seen as provoking or looking for a fight and would likely lead to a different verdict. Otherwise, yeah, it's an iffy case.

So, is it most important to prove that one thought they were in imminent danger rather than to prove they actually were in imminent danger? That standard leaves fidgety, paranoid, impulsive people with lots of leeway in what constitutes a "good shoot."

 

[WayneConrad]

Mever mind: Off topic

 

[Don Gwinn]

In most places, it seems it's less important what "you" thought of the situation, than what a hypothetical "reasonable man" would have thought. If the jury agrees that a reasonable person "in your shoes" might have acted the way you did, then you should be acquitted.

Of course, that leaves a lot of leeway, too--the question is, what does your jury think a "reasonable man" is?

 

[Jeff White]

The issue here is if the jury felt that Forler had reason believe he was in immanent danger of losing his life or suffering great bodily harm when he fired into the rear window of the pickup. While a civilian probably wouldn't have been in that position, there are many situations where the reason for the use of deadly force could be sufficiently unclear that there are things in this case that are applicable to all armed citizens. I think this case is a good one for us to look at because the issue is were the deputies actions self defense or were they the reckless use of deadly force? A civilian probably won't be confronting people on a traffic stop, but things happen very fast in a fight and it could easily appear that the person you just shot was retreating from you instead of continuing an attack as you believed. Anyone who contemplates the use of deadly force for self defense could easily find him/herself in court.

Here is an earlier article:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...C247196B4A8CA43C862572DE001290B6?OpenDocument

Deputy put himself in danger, investigator says
By Valerie Schremp Hahn
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
05/17/2007

COLUMBIA, MO. — A former Lincoln County sheriff's deputy told investigators he fired shots that killed two people in a pickup because he feared for his life when the truck "lunged" backward toward him.

But one investigator testified Wednesday that former Sgt. Nic Forler put himself in danger and could have simply stepped aside to avoid the truck. Another said the truck was traveling just faster than average walking speed.

Forler is on trial in Boone County Circuit Court in Columbia, Mo., facing two counts of involuntary manslaughter in the shooting deaths. The trial was moved because of pre-trial publicity in Troy, Mo. Testimony began after opening arguments Tuesday. Closing arguments are expected today.

Lincoln County fired Forler after he was charged.

The driver of the pickup, Tyler Teasley, 22, of Silex, and a passenger, Michael Brown, 23, of Troy, were killed in the shooting in Troy on Oct. 25, 2005.

Forler attempted to pull over the truck that night for speeding, but Teasley turned the truck into a subdivision and turned off its ignition and lights in an effort to hide, the prosecutor has said. He and his five passengers had been riding around that night drinking and were afraid of getting caught.

The passengers testified that Teasley had the truck in neutral and it rolled back on its own, but a man who lives near where the shootings happened testified Wednesday that he heard an engine revving before hearing gunshots. The truck came to a rest against Forler's patrol car.

The fastest Teasley's pickup could have rolled into Forler's car was 3.35 mph, slightly faster than a person's average walking speed of 2 to 3 mph, Missouri Highway Patrol investigator Sgt. Michael Mahon testified Wednesday. According to tests, the maximum time it would have taken for the truck to roll into the patrol car was 7.78 seconds, he said. The impact slightly damaged each bumper.

Forler's attorney, Joe McCulloch, questioned the human element involved in the test, since Mahon testified that he used a stopwatch he bought at a hardware store in Troy for timing.

Sgt. Sam Steward, who at the time worked as a Highway Patrol investigator, interviewed Forler about six weeks after the incident. He testified that Forler did some things right but also made several mistakes that night.

When the truck pulled into a driveway, Forler pulled in behind it at an angle with his driver's door facing away from the truck, a standard police procedure to provide cover, Steward said. He said Forler told him he walked to the front of his patrol car and then the truck "lunged" at him. Forler yelled for the truck to stop, fired once, yelled stop again and fired a second time, Steward testified.

Steward said Forler put himself in potential danger by walking in front of his patrol car, and he shouldn't have fired into the back window because it was darkly tinted and he didn't know what his target was. He could have called for backup or even taken a step to his left, Steward testified.

The jury was allowed to leave the courtroom and go to the courthouse grounds, where they inspected the truck and patrol car and listened while both engines were running.

St. Louis County toxicologist Christopher Long estimated that Teasley's blood-alcohol level at the time of the incident was between 0.17 and 0.19 percent, a little more than twice the legal limit of 0.08.

[email protected] | 636-255-7211

 

[ABBOBERG]

I have seen many motorists get off will little penalty after having injured pedestrians or bicyclists with their deadly-weapon vehicles. It is heartening to see, in this case, that when the pedestrian gets the better of the motorist, the pedestrian got off. Personally, I would not want to take on a moving vehicle with just a gun.

 

[Jeff White]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...2E5A8968A95699F3862572DD00106A3C?OpenDocument

Passengers testify in trial of former officer
By Valerie Schremp Hahn
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
05/16/2007

Four friends who were inside a red pickup say they barely noticed when the truck rolled slowly backward during a traffic stop toward a Lincoln County sheriff's deputy.

Then they heard the gunshots.

"All I remember is I could vaguely hear someone saying 'Stop,' and then we heard two pops," Julia Yerke, a passenger in the truck, testified Tuesday at Sgt. Nic Forler's trial on two counts of involuntary manslaughter. "And then I looked over and saw Michael with blood running out of his mouth."

Forler shot and killed Michael Brown, 23, of Troy, Mo., and Tyler Teasley, 22, of Silex, after he pulled Teasley's truck over on a speeding charge on Oct. 23, 2005. The four others in the car were not injured. Forler, 27, has told investigators the truck backed up quickly after he pulled behind it and that he feared for his life when he fired through its back window.

Forler's trial is being held this week in Boone County Circuit Court in Columbia — moved there because of pretrial publicity.

About 75 people filled the courtroom benches Tuesday, including family and friends of the victims, the defendant, and several members of the Lincoln County Sheriff's Department. Forler was fired from the department after he was charged in February 2006.

On Monday, jurors heard testimony from the passengers in the truck, medical examiners, the couple who were awakened that night by the scene in their driveway, a sheriff's deputy who arrived at the scene after Forler and Missouri Highway Patrol investigators.

Forler's attorney, Joe McCulloch, declined to give an opening statement. Special Prosecutor Kevin Zoellner used his opening to tell jurors that yes, all the people in Teasley's truck were drinking that night. And yes, Teasley pulled into a subdivision and turned off the engine and lights on his pickup and then coasted into a driveway next to another pickup in an effort to hide from Forler.

"Sgt. Forler is close enough behind and smart enough to see what he is doing," Zoellner said.

But, Zoellner said, the fastest the truck ever rolled into the driveway was 3.9 mph, and it would have taken almost eight seconds to roll backward 15 to 20 feet and hit the patrol car. The impact of the truck put a "little bitty dent" on the front metal grill of the patrol car, Zoellner said.

According to the passengers' testimony, Yerke, Judah Potthoff and Sarah Hayes started out the evening together celebrating Potthoff's 18th birthday. They called Teasley to have him pick them up to ride around. They drove around and picked up their friends Adam Walton and Brown, stopping at gas stations along the way to buy alcohol. As they headed west on Highway 47 in Troy, they noticed the patrol car's lights behind them.

"Everybody was trying to hide the beer," Walton testified. Teasley didn't pull over on the highway, but instead drove about a mile more to the entrance of the subdivision, where he shut the truck off, put it in neutral, and coasted into a driveway, Walton said.

Teasley started to turn around in his seat, asking if anybody was sober enough to trade seats with him, the friends testified. They noticed the truck began to roll backwards.

"I said, 'Tyler, we're rolling backwards,'" Potthoff testified. "I believe he was reaching for his emergency brake towards the floor. I saw him reach."

That's when she heard the gunshots, she said.

Because he got shot, Teasley was never able to put on the brake, Hayes testified. The passengers started screaming and crying, she said, and then she looked back and saw Forler standing behind the driver's door to his patrol car.

"He was not behind the truck or nothing," Hayes said.

[email protected] | 636-255-7211

 

[Lucky]

How about shoot/no shoot policies? Are those fair to discuss? If a passenger is in a vehicle which is deemed a threat, is the passenger a fair target if he is between the shooter and the driver? Rule #4 sort of thing.

 

[kellyj00]

I hate that this happened. It's just a bad deal.

I wouldn't convict him either. The police departments need to train to keep their officer's out of harms way in case this happens again.

If he wouldn't have been in the rolling path of the truck, he wouldn't have percieved such an immediate threat.

The jury did the right thing. I wasn't there, but after reading the articles, I would vote to acquit as well.

 

[foob]

Also testifying for the defense was Jeff Kuehn, an engineer who specializes in accident reconstruction. He analyzed damage to the two vehicles because the truck eventually rolled back into the patrol car, causing slight damage to each bumper. Kuehn estimated the truck had to travel from 5.2 to 7.9 mph and the entire trip would have taken 3.1 to 5 seconds.

A Missouri Highway Patrol investigator testified Wednesday that the fastest Teasley's pickup could have rolled into Forler's car was 3.35 mph, slightly faster than a person's average walking speed. The maximum time it would take for the truck to roll into the car was 7.78 seconds, he said.

Jump forest jump.

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

REASONABLE BELIEF – What a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe based upon known facts surrounding the event as they existed at the time of the event. This is more than mere suspicion. (Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 1265)

"when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm”

 

[thrasher64]

No dash cam? ***? And how do you stop a rolling truck by shooting into the back window??

 

[Riktoven]

.

 

[Jeff White]

Lucky asked:

How about shoot/no shoot policies? Are those fair to discuss?

No, policy is not at issue in this trial. No civilian has to follow any department policy. We will use this case to discuss, expert witnesses, and how you present your case to the jury. This will not be turned into a cop bashing thread. I don't think I can be any clearer then that.

Thrasher64 said;

No dash cam? ***? And how do you stop a rolling truck by shooting into the back window??

Contrary to popular belief around THR, there is not a dash cam in every squad car in the US. You don't stop any moving vehicle with a handgun. Again that's not the issue and the focus of this thread. This thread is about how Forler made the jury believe he acted reasonably.

Jeff

 

[foob]

This thread is about how Forler made the jury believe he acted reasonably.

He wore a badge.

Snarky remark aside, there was reasonable doubt. Personally he's really close to beyond a reasonable doubt, but since there's no video evidence and no other witnesses outside the truck, there will always exist reasonable doubt. The only witnesses against him are friends of the dead.

Also it doesn't matter what the investigators felt the time or speed of the truck was. What mattered was whether it was reasonable for him to think the truck lurched and seemed like they were going to run him down. Truck could have been going 1 mph and would take 20 seconds to hit, doesn't matter much.

Finally, he may not have made the jury believe he acted reasonably. He just needs to make the jury not believe it is beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[pacodelahoya]

Instead of the usual rants about how the deputy is a murderer who walked (you know who you are, don't even bother to post in this thread, we all know how you feel already), let's look at the information we have from the view of anyone on THR being in court on a use of force case.

Then put it in strategies and tactics where it belongs.

 

[Jeff White]

pacodelahoya said;

Then put it in strategies and tactics where it belongs.

Legal and Political isn't code word for the cop bashing forum. If you don't like it, I would suggest that there are probably other places on the internet where you'd be happier. If you can't follow the rules, then we can help you find a new online home....Understood?

Jeff

 

[pacodelahoya]

ok, then who paid for his defense if that is a question that is allowed?

If you feel the need to ban me, go ahead.

 

[Jeff White]

pacodelahoya asked;

ok, then who paid for his defense if that is a question that is allowed?

I have no idea, but I doubt the taxpayers did since he was fired when he was criminally charged. I would guess that the taxpayers may be on the hook for his defense in any civil proceedings, I'm sure they will sue the sheriffs department and the county anyway since they have the deeper pockets, but unless his union had some kind of defense fund, he probably paid for his own defense.

Jeff

 

[PotatoJudge]

Then put it in strategies and tactics where it belongs.

If the thread was about how the cop could have acted differently, that'd be the place for it.

This thread is about what to do legally afterwards, which is to instill doubt that what you did was illegal (and hopefully other ideas soon to be discussed).

ok, then who paid for his defense if that is a question that is allowed?

Followed by: "How would you (or I) pay for our defense?

 

[Elza]

Conflicting testimony from witnesses and experts would make it a tough call. Glad I wasn’t on the jury.

(This is NOT cop bashing just an observation.) One distinct advantage is that juries tend to believe anything a cop says. In a similar circumstance I doubt that a citizen would fare as well. Add to that the number of people that are suspicious of ANY CHL shooting, the average citizen had best make DAMN sure of what s/he is doing when using a gun to defend themselves.

 

[foob]

Conflicting testimony from witnesses and experts would make it a tough call. Glad I wasn’t on the jury.

I thought all the dead guys' friends had the same testimony, and both experts supported their testimony.

It seemed like a clear cut case that he wouldn't have been killed (even the defense expert said there was at least 3 seconds), and had ample time to move. But just because he can escape, doesn't mean he has to (kind of like castle doctrine laws). Also he thought (which does not seem to be what happened) that they were going to ram him (truck looked to have lurched), so he fired. The jury agreed that was a reasonable belief, or (more likely) that there wasn't enough evidence to show otherwise, so they acquited him.

(This is NOT cop bashing just an observation.) One distinct advantage is that juries tend to believe anything a cop says. In a similar circumstance I doubt that a citizen would fare as well. Add to that the number of people that are suspicious of ANY CHL shooting, the average citizen had best make DAMN sure of what s/he is doing when using a gun to defend themselves.

For some people, just the slightest negative remark about cops will bring about the 'cop bashing' accusations.

 

[Jeff White]

Elza,
Everyone should make sure that their actions are legally correct. But there are often conflicting stories and perceptions of what happened by both the participants and the witnesses. There are plenty of people who end up having to prove that the action that seemed so clearly right at the time actually was. Experts in the use of force are available to civilians too. Everyone, even if they are 100% in the right needs to be ready for problem 2 after they solve problem 1.

Jeff

 

[Sage of Seattle]

And how do you stop a rolling truck by shooting into the back window??

This is my question as well, which, had I been on the jury, I might very well have convicted him. In this case, I just can't understand how immediately shooting targets which everyone admits he couldn't see prevented his injury and/or death by being pinned between the two vehicles. If the driver "revved the engine" -- in my mind, meaning "start rapidly accelerating" -- then again: how could his firing his pistol have prevented his being injured?

I don't know anything about this case, and this thread is the first I've heard of it, but that's what I would ask the defense if I would have been on the jury.

Oh, and I also find it hard to believe that any of the passengers would have had the presence of mind to surruptitiously shift the car into neutral to... what... cover for the dead friend?

 

[Jeff White]

Sage of Seattle said;

This is my question as well, which, had I been on the jury, I might very well have convicted him. In this case, I just can't understand how immediately shooting targets which everyone admits he couldn't see prevented his injury and/or death by being pinned between the two vehicles. If the driver "revved the engine" -- in my mind, meaning "start rapidly accelerating" -- then again: how could his firing his pistol have prevented his being injured?

The issue isn't if the deputy stood a reasonable chance of stopping the truck by shooting into the rear window. The issue is if the deputy's perception of the truck backing towards him was sufficient to make him perceive he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, justifying his use of deadly force.

I don't think that anyone would argue that it was a poor tactic and that he stood little chance of stopping the truck.

Jeff