Ex-deputy aquitted in killing of 2 in Pickup Truck

[pacodelahoya]

Jeff, not to get in a whistling contest with you, but I don't think that you can compare the actions of an on duty leo and the resultant trial to an armed civilian.

I see it as a big stretch that the trial results would be the same if the deputy had in fact been a ccw holder as apposed to a leo.

 

[Geister]

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.

He couldn't just GET OUT OF THE WAY first and then take a better shot at the driver?

Just because the police officer feared for his life doesn't mean he should throw proper judgment out of the wayside. To me, this is not much different than shooting a perp in a crowded area and then accidentally hitting a third-person. The ends doesn't really justify the means.

He felt immediate danger from the driver, not the passenger. So it doesn't justify him to kill the passenger even as an accident.

If you are going to start shooting, you better know what you are shooting at.

FourTeeFive, you have the right idea. It's over and done with but I don't think the cop is innocent of using poor judgment. After this he needs to go to another career.

 

[jimbob1911]

No

I don't think that his life was in immediate danger from the truck which is at a stop and then begins moving toward him...slowly. Two people lost their lives due to what I think everyone would now consider a "bad tactic" so maybe we should demand better training for the officers which hold our lives in their hands. I for one would hate to die because someone made a mistake. How do we know the kid wasnt trying to apply the parking break in the heat of the moment before he was killed? This one is just plain ugly...

 

[atomd]

This same scenario happens now and then. It happened in MA last year when a 16 year old driver was shot and killed for the same reason. I think police departments need to do more to clarify to the whole "vehicle is a deadly weapon" thing. Sure, a vehicle could easily kill someone but they need to clarify the rules and consider intent. For example, if someone takes an aimed high speed run at an officer on foot, sure... obviously that would be intent to harm/kill. Shooting into a vehicle that is barely moving if moving at all does not exactly prove the driver had intended to hurt anyone. It also isn't an effective way of stopping a vehicle in motion which didn't seem to have been mentioned. Shooting blindly into a vehicle like that is irresponsible. *coughrulenumberfourcough*.

The officer's intentions were most likely ok. He may have been scared but he showed very poor judgment. I'm sure deep down he knows that. There's no way they should let him back on job though. Juries have emotion and it appears they are willing to let things go sometimes as long as the person "didn't mean it". That doesn't mean his actions were right though. I wouldn't be surprised if a civil suit follows with the officer found at fault.

 

[atomd]

Here is a link to the one in MA. VERY similar. The car was at a stop and "lurched" forward. He was shot in the heart through the back of the driver's seat. Police found not at fault in this one also.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/01/12/questions_follow_fatal_police_shooting/

 

[Jeff White]

pacodelahoya said;

Jeff, not to get in a whistling contest with you, but I don't think that you can compare the actions of an on duty leo and the resultant trial to an armed civilian.

The issues in Forler's case and in a case of an armed civilian would be the same. Self defense. Forler did not state he shot at the truck to stop them from fleeing. He stated he shot at the truck when the truck moved toward him, placing him in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. While the circumstances may be different then an armed citizen might find himself in (not many private citizens engage in high speed chases or make vehicle stops for traffic violations) the legal issue in this case, if he acted in self defense is the same for both sworn officers and an armed civilian. Look past the poor judgment and bad tactic and look at the legal point of law that permits deadly force to be used when a person, any person, civilian or sworn to use deadly force when in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. The legal issue is the same for both and it's important for us to understand how Forler presented his case in court. Do you think for one minute that he would have prevailed without the expert testimony of his own accident re constructionist or use of force expert?

I see it as a big stretch that the trial results would be the same if the deputy had in fact been a ccw holder as apposed to a leo.

First off, as I have already alluded to, a CCW holder would not have been in the same position as the deputy, CCW holders don't make vehicle stops. But CCW holders and private citizens have been involved in situations where they have shot at opponents in automobiles. There is a similar situation involving a private citizen under discussion here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=269007

Geister said;

He couldn't just GET OUT OF THE WAY first and then take a better shot at the driver?

Just because the police officer feared for his life doesn't mean he should throw proper judgment out of the wayside. To me, this is not much different than shooting a perp in a crowded area and then accidentally hitting a third-person. The ends doesn't really justify the means.

Again, it's not up to the criminal court to decide that. The issue was if Forler's decision to shoot at the truck was a lawful use of deadly force. If he had had shot a suspect in a crowded area and accidentally hit a bystander and his shooting of the suspect was legal then there would probably be no criminal charges filed. Despite what many of us would like to see, I am unaware of any criminal statute outlawing poor marksmanship. The place where poor decision making, poor tactics and poor marksmanship is taken to task in in civil court. And I have no doubt that both Forler and the sheriffs department he worked for will find themselves defending those issues in civil court...Problem 2 part B.

Jeff

 

[JohnBT]

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

Okay, I would have been all over the experts and their testimony about the vehicle ROLLING back. I would have been pushing the officer's version that had the vehicle lurching back - in gear no doubt - and being braked to a slower speed before hitting the patrol car - minimizing the damage to both vehicles.

Ongoing rant: And I still say civilian police officers are civilians. They're not military police officers, they're civilians and subject to civil law. I know, the majority insist they aren't civilians, but when they get charged it's in civil court, not military.

John

 

[pacodelahoya]

Jeff, you are making my point for me. You can't take a whole scenario then break it down to"the car was rolling towards him".

You have to look at every thing as a whole. No civilian would have gotten off because they did not have the authority to make the stop, blocking in a non violent traffic offender then placing themselves between the vehicles with weapon drawn.

I am not making any judgements against the leo. I'm just saying that there is no way you can compare this scenario to a person with a ccw and have a jury find the civilian not guilty. No one was ever threatened with harm until the leo left his car. A civilian would have been in the wrong from the beginning since he would'nt have had the authority to make the stop in the first place.

As far as I know, at least here in Pa, the police frown on civilians making armed traffic stops.

If you are going to use this scene as a scenario for whatever the point is you are trying to make, you might as well have left out the part about the guy being a leo and said" a car is rolling towards you what do you do?"

Once again, no civilian would have been found innocent if they did everything the leo did from the beginning to end of the situation.

That's like saying if I as a commercial driver, swerved to avoid a child that ran out into the street while driving a tractor trailer and hit an oncoming car and killed someone in the car but was found not guilty at trial because no matter what I did, I would have hit someone, if someone else that didn"t have a cdl was driving a tractor trailer, that they would be found not guilty too.

I just don't see the comparison between the two situations.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

The issue was if Forler's decision to shoot at the truck was a lawful use of deadly force.

Again, my point is that the use of deadly force is to be a preventative measure. That must be taken into consideration as well.

The place where poor decision making, poor tactics and poor marksmanship is taken to task in in civil court.

Poor decision making, poor tactics and poor marksmanship are taken to task in a criminal court all the time. Look to El T's thread for example where his client was caught holding a pistol with a defaced serial number. El T states that the people in the car played "hot potato" with it. It seems to me that poor decision making is the only reason that dude is in front of a judge right now, yes? Also, there are a gazillion cases where the defendant was hung out to dry because he placed himself in the position of having to kill someone.

Now, my question is why does the law permit deadly force to be used when a person is in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm? To me, it's just not good enough that the law authorizes it -- the REASON behind the authorization of deadly force must be examined and in this case, I find it lacking.

My perhaps poor analogy is that let's say I'm chasing a bad guy in a forest and he dodges around a tree that a logger was going to cut down. The BG pushes against the tree, causing it to fall on me. Now, I've got three to five seconds before being crushed by the tree. I suppose I could shoot the guy while letting the tree mangle me, because, after all, the law says I can legally shoot him now.

 

[Crunker1337]

He drew his weapon before there was any reason for him to think he was in danger. That shows to me that he was looking for an excuse to kill someone.

 

[pacodelahoya]

Crunker, I would disagree as it is pretty much standard procedure to have a drawn weapon anytime there is the possibilty of a confrontation.(just going by what news reports and videos etc I have seen. Hence all the negligent discharges by cops. )

Perhaps I should have said that it is my perception that it is standard procedure?

 

[jaholder1971]

I can't believe there's even debate here...

Drinking and driving, underage drinkers, eluding police and unable to control their vehicle as it rolls toward an armed police officer attempting a felony traffic stop.

Excuse me while I not feel any sorrow for the offenders and hope the cop gets his job back soon with back pay.

 

[Orthonym]

Teasley's BAC numbers (AKA sloppy drunk) may have had something to do with intending an action and failing to perform it, or doing something else entirely. Having a big vehicle come at you when yer already justifiably nervous could affect your perceptions, maybe.

P.s. Back when I was young and dumb, I was in the back seat of a car whose driver almost decided to run down the cop in front of him, because the cop was in the process of drawing his gun. The cop was reacting to my actions, which the driver was unaware of. That was an expensive traffic cone, and I didn't get to keep it, either.

 

[Orthonym]

Had I been there (either as, say, homeowner accosting trespasser, or Peace Officer) I think my first idea would be to jump aside, bring pistol to bear and start yelling something which ended with "or else!"

 

[Orthonym]

Maybe, the deputy should have thought "wow, this guy is obviously super-drunk, so I should take appropriate precautions, because he could kill me without even meaning to do so?"

Maybe the jury cut him some slack because some of them had had bad drunk experiences.

 

[Jeff White]

JohnBT said;

Okay, I would have been all over the experts and their testimony about the vehicle ROLLING back. I would have been pushing the officer's version that had the vehicle lurching back - in gear no doubt - and being braked to a slower speed before hitting the patrol car - minimizing the damage to both vehicles.

The point of the thread was discussion of how those experts were used to make the case, not if you believed them or not. THIS THREAD WA STARTED SO WE COULD USE IT TO STIMULATE DISCUSSION OF PROBLEM 2!

Ongoing rant: And I still say civilian police officers are civilians. They're not military police officers, they're civilians and subject to civil law. I know, the majority insist they aren't civilians, but when they get charged it's in civil court, not military.

Ongoing counter rant, from the American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition pp 277:

ci-vil-ian (si-vil'yan) n, 1 A person following the pursuits of civil life as distinguished from one serving in a police, fire-fighting or military force. 2 A student or specialist in Roman or civil law. --adj. Of or pertaining to civilian or civil life; nonmilitary.

Civilian is not an insult. I don't understand why so many of you feel it is. It is just a convenient way to differentiate between those people who are serving in the police, fire-fighting or military professions and those who aren't.

pacodelahoya said;

Jeff, you are making my point for me. You can't take a whole scenario then break it down to"the car was rolling towards him".

No I'm not making your point for you. You are misunderstanding the purpose of this thread. The purpose of the thread is to discuss problem 2, the legal aftermath of the use of deadly force. While the exact circumstances don't figure into many situations a civilian would find him/herself in (although I did link you to a thread of a similar situation involving an armed citizen), the presentation of the case is applicable to almost any deadly force situation.

What I wanted to focus on was the preparation of the defense, the use of expert witnesses and consultants to educate the jury. We spend way to much time here discussing how to shoot and when to shoot, but we run away like scared little children when it gets to be time to discuss; How do we present our side of the story in such a manner that we can win in court? I know that's not a fun thing to talk about, but it's really one of the topics that we created the legal and political forum for. The circumstances are immaterial. I picked this story because it was available, it had been discussed here when it happened and it was a good example of a successful criminal defense.

Sage of Seattle said;

Poor decision making, poor tactics and poor marksmanship are taken to task in a criminal court all the time. Look to El T's thread for example where his client was caught holding a pistol with a defaced serial number. El T states that the people in the car played "hot potato" with it. It seems to me that poor decision making is the only reason that dude is in front of a judge right now, yes? Also, there are a gazillion cases where the defendant was hung out to dry because he placed himself in the position of having to kill someone.

I will agree that poor decision making gets people arrested. I don't believe for a minute that El T's poor client and his friends played hot potato with a firearm while the police were stopping them. Sorry, I've just seen too many weapons and baggies full of controlled substances shoved between seat cushions, under seats or thrown out of the car so that no particular occupant could be charged with possession of them. In the case under discussion, the former deputy was charged with involuntary manslaughter, not negligent homicide. I haven't read the Missouri statutes to see how they define the two charges, but it is apparent that the issue before the court was if the former deputy was justified in using deadly force, not that he killed someone besides the driver or that he should have stepped out of the way.

Now, my question is why does the law permit deadly force to be used when a person is in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm? To me, it's just not good enough that the law authorizes it -- the REASON behind the authorization of deadly force must be examined and in this case, I find it lacking.

What standard would you have the law apply? I suppose that you are totally against the castle doctrine and stand your ground laws currently being pushed by the NRA. After all, according to their proponents they legally authorize you to use deadly force when the person is just standing there looking at you with the deer in the headlights look, after all, if that person didn't intend to kill or maim you, he/she wouldn't be there.

My perhaps poor analogy is that let's say I'm chasing a bad guy in a forest and he dodges around a tree that a logger was going to cut down. The BG pushes against the tree, causing it to fall on me. Now, I've got three to five seconds before being crushed by the tree. I suppose I could shoot the guy while letting the tree mangle me, because, after all, the law says I can legally shoot him now.

Don't you think it might be a better idea to shoot him before he tips the tree past the balance point and save your life? What about shooting him after you moved away to keep him from running to the next tree and trying to push it onto you? Acceptable?

I know a retired state trooper who killed a man in a fight over her weapon. She had stopped a motorcyclist and he was seated in the sqad car next to her when she wrote the ticket. The man was wanted and when the alert tone came over the radio, he was savvy enough to know what that meant. He lunged across the console and grabbed her 9mm auto and in the struggle, shot her 3 times. Fortunately her body armor stopped the rounds. As he rolled out of the squad car a deputy arrived to back her up, the "hit" and her location having been dispatched on the emergency channel. The suspect shot the deputy. Around this time, the trooper recovered her wind, tackled the suspect, regained control of her weapon and killed him. She was sued for excessive force resulting in the suspect's death. The plaintiffs contended that the fight was over when she regained control of her weapon. She prevailed in civil court but the process went on for a couple years. If I understand you right, you would say that she should have lost the suit. Is that correct?

Jeff

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i hate to say this but i'n coming to believe that my best interests would be served by my being silent till i get an experienced lawyer. an innocous comment from me or worse yet a flippant one could haunt me

 

[Len S]

I think what saved himwas the expert witness that explained the police mindset at the time of the incident. The officer was so focused that the resulting actions were the only ones possible at that time. In times of stress the point of focus for most people tend to narrow. Can anyone say tunnel vision. It happens to cops, doctors, medics,in short most anyone can be affected. It does not really matter, as the jury showed,if the car lurched, rolled fast, slow or farted. The officer felt threatened. A threat with a truck is likley to cause death or great bodily harm so deadly force is justified. The mind set of the officer having to deal with a truck that has been "fleeing and eluding" and attempted to hide is also going to put the officer on a higher levelof stress. Why is the guy hiding. We know he was drunk and STUPID. The officer did not, he could have been dealing with anything. It all comes down to perception of the officer at the time. In a civillian shooting it would be just as inportant to stress the trainning one had which results in what kind of mindset and the resulting actions at the time of the incident.

len

 

[pacodelahoya]

although I did link you to a thread of a similar situation involving an armed citizen)

Who was found guilty because as a civilian, he helped to escalate the situation by kicking the car and brandishing his firearm before hand.

I still can't see where this is germaine to the aveage ccw holder.

 

[ilbob]

My guess:

He had the money to buy expert witnesses that sounded better to the jury than the state put on.

IMO, it is a crap shoot when you go to court and have to relay on expert witnesses on either side. The jury is generally not stupid enough to believe either sides witnesses do not have a stake in the outcome. They will probably believe the "experts" that they feel better about because the courts do not allow the jury members to do any research on their own, and anyone who might have any expertise would not have been allowed on the jury in the first place.

 

[TallPine]

I dunno how one can discuss a legal defense without knowing what the specific situation was ...???

 

[TCB in TN]

I would like to hear from someone present what they thought of the DAs prosecution of the case. Did he/she do a good job and aggressively prosecute the case, or was this a reluctant prosecution?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

I wouldn't have voted to convict, either. But I disagree that the PD's need to train to keep their officers out of harm's way. That's an impossible assignment. You make it sound like it was the officer's fault for putting himself "in harm's way."

The responsibility lies, IMHO, entirely with the driver of the vehicle, who was driving drunk and speeding, and who elected to try to evade apprehension rather than stop when caught by a patrol unit. If the driver had stopped at the side of the road when signalled to do so, there would have been no need for the officer to be standing behind the truck as he approached it. YMMV but it is entirely clear to me where the responsibility lies in this case.

 

[ilbob]

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.

I am curious how long it took him to come up with that perception and who talked to him before he reported that perception. That might well have made a big difference in my perception as a juror.

If that was he stated immediately after the incident, it is more believable. If it took him and his lawyers several days to come up with it, it is suspect.

 

[SalTx]

Having pulled over many beat up cars and trucks driven mostly by Mexican citizens, who ain't exactly great drivers, I've had those same vehicles "just take off" "I left it in gear" whatever...If I was on the jury, I wouldn't have believed that he had reasonable cause to fear for his life and to use deadly force against unknown targets. Seems he just can't handle stress.