Ex-deputy aquitted in killing of 2 in Pickup Truck

[obxned]

Without having heard ALL the evidence, we are just 'Monday Morning Quarterbacking'.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Thanks, Jeff, for the clarification. I must admit having a difficult time separating the two issues as you've stated them. Since I see the use of deadly force as a preventative measure, his using deadly force in this instance would not have prevented his own harm or death. Does that make sense?

Wow, I'm going to have to mull this one over.

 

[Zoogster]

I think that often these situation are officer created. That does not mean they should do something different per say in my opinion, but I think that is what should be discussed in these situations.

Officers chasing someone attempt to box people in with thier cars or bodies (standing in the only "escape" route of a suspects vehicle). A person in an attempt to get out of the box they have been put in is often going to go in the direction of the thing that just boxed them in as it will often be the only way out. This does not mean they are necessarily going to hit the officer or thier car, but attempting to go around it ( coming towards me defense) or going through it will give the green light to shoot. This is because any driving in thier general direction can be argued to have put them in danger because they do not know where he is actualy going to drive. Officers then fire on the person rather than let them get away because they have decided to bring the situation to a conclusion: give up, or get shot.

After seeing many such situations as well as the tactics used by officers in confronting vehicles this is my logical deduction. They use vehicles and thier bodies as baricades and then shoot people when they are treated as baricades or obstacles to go around. Is there a better policy? Should a person in a desperate state of mind be allowed to get back onto the streets with innocent people they may injure to avoid deadly force? Probably not. But these instances often ignore the fact that the deadly situation is intentionaly created by the officers as a matter of procedure.

When the procedure is to stick yourself in the path of a moving vehicle or in the only available path of one and shoot if it attempts to move you or even go around you (was coming in my direction defense) you have chosen to limit the end result to two options: A. Stop driving, B. get shot. The suspect did not choose to narrow themselves to those options (thier bad decision was to be foolish earlier creating the need to be captured) the officer(s) did.

This would be akin toa person coming home to find a burglar with thier belongings loaded in a vehicle getting ready to pull out and choosing to stand in driveway in the only path the vehicle can take to leave. Then shooting them if they try. That is illegal for a civilian even though you were really in imminent danger because you chose to be, but is okay for an officer because they are tasked with capturing them
The double standards are what bother me.

As far as an innocent passenger being shot while attempting to subdue a driver in general: Another reason to think twice about who you're a passenger of. If the decision has been made to stop a vehicle because it is deadly, then they are going to shoot the driver ASAP otherwise lethal force was not required. If they take the option of changing locations or shooting from another angle, then the mere fact they were able to do that shows that lethal force was not immediately necessary to stop the threat and will be a big obstacle in court. This means they will shoot from where they stand and if that is through you because your sitting behind the driver of the vehicle backing into them, bad luck.

 

[Harry Paget Flashman]

Nobody needed to die that night but for the confluence of a lot of bad decisions. From the articles I get that there was underage drinking, drinking and driving, possible DUI, evading police (driving an extra mile into the subdivision...turning off lights and engine and coasting into a driveway), failure to engage the parking brake(we may assume the driveway is sloped away from the house), desperation/panic by the truck occupants trying to hide the beer and trade seats. I don't feel the cop necessarily made the most correct decision either.

The tragedy is in the way some scared kids handled it and the way someone my age(58) might have. I wouldn't second guess the jury or the cop but I am glad the cop is in another line of work.

 

[Jeff White]

Zoogster, Harry Paget Flashman;
You guys are missing the point of this thread. We're not here to discuss police tactics, techniques and procedures. We're here to discuss how the case was presented to the jury. There is a lot that every armed citizen can learn about problem 2 in this case. That's why I started the thread.

Jeff

 

[Zoogster]

Well someone believing they are in danger plays an important role theoreticly. However it is something I think anyone educated, civlian or law enforcement officer, in the ways of the law is going to say. That tends to make it relatively unimportant in a case unless the jury can be made to think it is important by a lawyer. The actions taken to counter the actions of something else are what really matters. If they were just or not, appropriate or not.

But then it is a jury of random people. The fact that the pickup was listening to gangster rap and was a lowrider might matter in the end decision. Or that the cop was white and the person shot a minority might cause a minority on the jury to refuse to aquit the officer, leading either to a conviction or deadlock with those not willing to take the easy way out and agree so they can go home and back to work (yes many cases are decided by selfish jury members wanting to agree with the stubborn person and go home rather than take a stand). Perhaps the person has had a problem with the police themselves and will be inclined side against the officer. Perhaps they recently were victimized by someone the criminal reminds them of and will be inclined to side with an officer. None of these things are taken into account and none of us will know they made a difference. Many things come into play in a trial that should really have nothing to do with the outcome but do anyways. So basing future potential self defense situations on a case without many unique or decisive variables is kinda pointless in my opinion as it could easily have gone either way.

Vehicle that chose to evade police was blocked in, cop felt in danger and shot. The vehicle did go backwards and it did make contact although very slowly. Second guessing the officer when all the key components of danger were present is not right. Although I agree with Harry Paget that likely it was some kids that forgot to put the break on and never realized thier life was in immediate danger and were trying to keep from getting busted with drugs or alcohol or other contraband which was what was most important to them at the time. They probably never even realized lethal force was a possibility in that situation. People died that may have had no malicious intent whatsoever and that is tragic. I would still not second guess the officer following procedure.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Second guessing the officer when all the key components of danger were present is not right. ...I would still not second guess the officer following procedure.

But that is EXACTLY what we, as jurors (potential jurors at any rate), are expected to do. We, as jurors, must form an opinion based on whatever evidence makes it through the process, which is more often than not incomplete.

 

[Art Eatman]

The focus should on the officer's stated perception of being in danger.

Note that the articles say the officer followed procedure in his own parking, with his car as a barrier. The next part of his job is to find out who's in the truck. That's standard, SFAIK.

Now, per the article, the truck WAS stopped. Not moving when the officer got out. He approaches the unknown Bad Guy(s), gun in hand. Nothing unusual here, since there had already been a compounding error on top of the original effort to stop the truck; the driver had fled.

So: A tense officer facing the unknown, gun in hand. Anybody want to argue about "tense"? That is at issue as to the officer's state of mind, on which all this hinges.

The officer's stated perception was that the backward movement of the truck appeared to be deliberate. Further, in his mind, it was sudden. With that emotional condition of tenseness, with those perceptions, it was not unreasonable nor imprudent to shoot.

From the standpoint of evidence in a jury trial, I'd vote for acquittal. Separately, I'd be glad he's in a different line of work, because I don't really think he was really all that smart about tactics. But tactics weren't on trial.

Art

 

[TallPine]

We're here to discuss how the case was presented to the jury.

Well, I wasn't there to hear that, and I'm guessing very few THR members were there either.

Based on the information in your original post, I would have voted to convict. The jury thought otherwise so maybe (probably) the entire prosecution and defense presentation was somewhat different.

 

[Jeff]

The only nagging issue I would have, being on the jury, is how a man who thought his life was in immediate danger fired his pistol only twice, and killed both offenders in a moving vehicle.

There's certainly a good chance he is a fine shot, even while under considerable stress. And I don't see why he would have any other motive to shoot them, but to protect his life.

 

[foob]

The only nagging issue I would have, being on the jury, is how a man who thought his life was in immediate danger fired his pistol only twice, and killed both offenders.

I think he fired twice and got the hell out of the way. Which is why the witnesses say they found him behind his car out of harms way later.

And no he's not a fine shot, back window was tinted he didn't see the targets. Four people squeezed into a pickup, hard to miss really. But 1 shot 1 kill is pretty lucky (or unlucky).

 

[AZRickD]

If the focus is on the state of mind of the LEO, my first question is why shooting the passenger was deemed necessary?

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

A jury that wasn't dumbed down by vior dere purges might have wondered the same thing. Apparently that one slipped their collective minds.

Rick

 

[foob]

I think Jeff White gave up trying to moderate this thread.

 

[Geister]

Can someone explain to me how shooting and killing the passenger saved this police officer's life?

Also, can someone explain to me how two bullets are going to stop a two ton truck from moving in a particular direction? I mean, is the driver and passenger going to slam on the brakes after they are shot dead?

 

[gego]

I think the jury got this one wrong, but then OJ got off also with a lot more evidence against him.

 

[DKSuddeth]

my guess is that the union picked up this defense tab and it looks like it was well bought. The jury sided with the officer and thats ok, but it's dissapointing to see, yet again, that true justice is only a banknote away.

 

[BullfrogKen]

foob said: I think Jeff White gave up trying to moderate this thread.

No, he's currently at work. But the rest of the Staff watches threads, so simply because he's stepped away for awhile doesn't mean we won't watch it, too.

I already deleted one of your off topic comments, foob. Chill a bit.

Geister said: Also, can someone explain to me how two bullets are going to stop a two ton truck from moving in a particular direction?

It won't.

The truck was the tool. It appears the officer felt the driver was using it to kill him. With that thought in his head, he likely concluded stepping aside as someone was attempting to back over him wasn't sufficient to end the threat. Obviously, if a man tries to run an officer down with a vehicle, he can also turn the wheel and steer it back into his path as he attempts to step out of the way.

I can only speculate about what happened that day, but its more than just using a gun to stop a truck. He shot to stop the man.

 

[TCB in TN]

As for the entire discussion of the former Officer's defense, only one thought comes to mind...... It is better to free a hundred guilty men, than to have one innocent man behind bars. IMHO were I on the jury I very well may have voted to as they did, but from what is said here it would have left a very bad taste in my mouth. I too am glad this individual is in another profession.

 

[Geno]

There are so many issues, and way too much emotion here. Fortunately, I have very little time.

1) The officer was found "...not guilty". However, do not believe that he has not been punished. He was charged, fired, prosecuted and this even though in the end he was finally vindicated. He did not get off. He has existed (not lived) a year or more of Hades for this.

2) While the officer will not go to jail, don't be too quick to think there won't be further action against him or the department for wrongful death. There may be; there may not be. There are some crafty lawyers.

3) The fall-out for this, and other similar cases will be divisive for years. Such cases keep piling up across communities. That is not good. If the community has problems, trust me, the people will rise up. We have just done so here in our town…as I said last night, we voted to “fire” the county LEOs from patrolling our city. They are history babe...chao! Remember I posted about my neighbor, a county LEO, who I have on video persistently running the stop signs?? Well, say hello to evidence for the city toward justifying that vote.

What is the point of all this? Simple, and now I tie it together and close. The county LEOs we just gave notice were not criminal. Neither was this officer. All the same, our community has taken action, contractually, against these officers. This officer’s community, in spite of the fact that his actions were legal, may find that his actions were unacceptable and terminate him permanently. Final note, let the judgments be made by the local communities. Let’s keep THR here. Let each community rise up where needed, not us, and not here on THR.

 

[AZRickD]

Bullfrog said:

someone was attempting to back over him wasn't sufficient to end the threat.

Debateable on grounds of tactics and necessity. But I'm not going to argue that point. Others have.

However, that still leaves the passenger. What of him?

Rick

 

[Geister]

Obviously, if a man tries to run an officer down with a vehicle, he can also turn the wheel and steer it back into his path as he attempts to step out of the way.

I think the officer jumped to conclusions; a truck is not that easy to make a quick u-turn with, and if that was the driver's intent, the cop would have had a few seconds to respond to the threat and take the driver out. In order to even go into a u-turn, with a cop car parked behind, the guy would have had to shifted from reverse into drive.

And there's still the issue of why the passenger was shot and killed over the actions of the officer. I don't see how killing the passenger could have prevented the truck from driving backwards, then driving forwards and making a u-turn to hit the officer. We don't even know if that was the driver's intent.

Sorry, but just from the death of the passenger, this cop was trigger happy and probably got away with wrongful death.

 

[Jeff White]

The big issue here was the decision to use deadly force and if the deputy was justified in making that decision. As tragic as it is, the fact that a passenger was also killed doesn't figure into Forler's decision to shoot at the truck. the jury was asked to judge if the situation placed Forler in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, not his marksmanship.

The issues of Forler using poor judgment and tactics to place himself in that position and of him shooting blindly through tinted glass and killing a passenger are all things that will most likely be brought up in a civil action alleging wrongful death. It's not the criminal court's job to judge if his actions were prudent and within the best recommended practices. The criminal court only was judging if he was guilty of the crime of involuntary manslaughter for using deadly force when he wasn't reasonably in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

There will almost certainly be a civil action against Forler and the sheriffs department. All of the issues that so many of you have pointed out will most likely be brought up in that venue. Forler will most likely have a judgment against him that he will never be able to pay.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...556A0E24A6720A9E862572E000192558?OpenDocument

Opinion divided over ex-deputy's acquittal
By Valerie Schremp Hahn
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
05/19/2007


TROY, MO. — The acquittal of a former sheriff's deputy who fatally shot two men during a traffic stop was the talk of Lincoln County Friday.

From the courthouse to a local convenience store, opinion was divided on the verdict.

"I think it's a terrible tragedy, and I think he's guilty," De De Hoag of Troy said Friday as she ran an errand at the Lincoln County Courthouse.

"I don't think that he put a badge on to kill somebody," said Pat Williams, a retired Indiana police officer who lives in the subdivision where the shooting took place. "Any time a life is taken it's a tragedy. Was it a needless shooting? No, because he thought his life was in danger."

Former Sgt. Nic Forler, 27, was acquitted of two charges of involuntary manslaughter by a jury that deliberated just over three hours Thursday night. The trial was moved to Boone County Circuit Court in Columbia, Mo., because of pretrial publicity.

On the night of Oct. 23, 2005, Forler shot and killed Tyler Teasley, 22, of Silex, and Michael Brown, 23, of Troy. Teasley had been driving around in his truck with Brown and four other passengers. The group had been drinking, and Forler tried to pull the truck over for speeding. Teasley turned into a subdivision and in an effort to elude Forler, turned off his ignition and lights as he pulled into a driveway. Forler pulled up behind him, got out of his car and, he testified, the truck "lurched" back at him. He shot twice into the truck because he feared for his life, he said.

The passengers testified thatTeasley had put the truck in neutral and it rolled back slowly on its own.

Forler was fired from the department after he was charged.

Forler's attorney, Joe McCulloch, said Friday that Forler was relieved at the verdict, and he wasn't sure whether Forler would pursue his old job or a career in law enforcement.

"It's a tragic event," McCulloch said. "Make no mistake that it was set in motion by Tyler Teasley and Tyler Teasley is ultimately responsible."

Special prosecutor Kevin Zoellner said Thursday that he respected the jury's decision and did not have any further comment Friday.

Lincoln County Sheriff Dan Torres released a statement that expressed sympathy for the Brown and Teasley families and said the case had taken an emotional toll on the county. "I am confident the conclusion reached was fair and impartial," the statement said.

Members of the Brown and Teasley families cried after the verdict was read.

"It's pretty sad that we've allowed a murderer back on the street," said Brent Teasley, Tyler's father.

Brown's sister, Tara Brown, said, "There was too much evidence against him. We have two dead kids and no justice, and he walks scot-free."

Susan McGraugh, assistant clinical professor of law at St. Louis University, said Friday she was not surprised by the acquittal. In self-defense cases, it doesn't matter if the defendant misjudged the situation. The jury is instead instructed to determine whether the defendant truly believed his or her physical safety was in jeopardy, she said.

"Under all of the circumstances, this defendant really believed he was going to be run over. He made a point of testifying how afraid he was," she said.

George Kelly, who also lives in the subdivision where the shooting happened, said the verdict surprised him, adding he thought Forler could have handled the situation better.

"You walk by that driveway, and there's hardly any slope to it," he said. "I don't know how they could think the truck could go that fast."

Friday's St. Charles County edition of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which featured a front-page report about the verdict, sold out by noon at the Conoco gas station in Troy, said clerk Colleen Leach.

"One guy picked up a paper today and he said, 'I don't believe it. This is unreal,'" she said. "People just aren't happy."

[email protected] | 636-255-7211

As armed citizens we need to understand the issues involved and how they work in our legal system. Actions that are legal under the criminal statutes might not be looked at the same way in civil court.

As El Tejon is fond of saying, there is always problem 2. Forler solved problem 1, but he's only halfway through problem 2. Personally, I don't think he's going to prevail in the second half.

Jeff

 

[foob]

The jury is instead instructed to determine whether the defendant truly believed his or her physical safety was in jeopardy, she said

I thought it was what a reasonable person in his place who believe, not what he believes..... and she's a professor of law???

 

[FourTeeFive]

A jury trial has nothing to do with right and wrong

It has to do with convincing the jurors that you were not in the wrong (double negative intended). Attorneys purposefully pick jurors that are going to go with emotions and not logic.

In this case they bought the cop's story. Who knows what really happened. It doesn't really matter since this trial is over (I'm sure there will be a civil court trial).

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

in va

i feared for my life if remotly believable will suffice