home

Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned

By TChris, Section Misconduct
Posted on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:43:28 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

As the linked article points out, videos don't always tell the entire story. Yet the story apparently told by a video recorded by a Chino resident on Sunday is tragic.

[T]he video appears to show a deputy ordering 21-year-old Elio Carrion to his feet, then shooting him as he tries to stand. Carrion, an Air Force policeman who recently returned from Iraq, underwent surgery for wounds to his chest, ribs and leg and was listed in good condition Wednesday at the hospital.

Carrion was a passenger in a Corvette, which crashed following a brief chase that ended when the car crashed into a wall, authorities said. Authorities said no weapons were found on Carrion or the driver, Luis Escobedo. ... Escobedo said he and Carrion were trying to cooperate with the deputy.

"We were trying to explain to him, we were not armed," he told reporters. "Elio had nothing to do with this."

The FBI is investigating the incident. Experts who have viewed the video are disturbed by the officer's decision to fire multiple times at an unarmed man who posed no obvious threat.

"It's a criminal act," said Roger Clark, a former Los Angeles County sheriff's lieutenant who routinely testifies in court as an expert in police tactics. Clark has worked both for police officers and for citizens who have sued the police. "He shot an unarmed man who was complying with his orders," Clark said.

David Klinger, a use-of-force expert who teaches at the University of Missouri, St. Louis, and wrote a book titled "Into The Kill Zone: A Cop's Eye View of Deadly Force," said the recording was "the screwiest thing I've ever seen. It makes no sense."

"What I saw was totally incongruous with standard police doctrine," said Klinger, a professor of criminology and onetime LAPD officer.

< RAR: Republicans Against Reform | Thursday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned | 27 comments (27 topical)
    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#1)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:01:33 AM EST
    The first print stories I saw on this warned me not to take what I saw on the videotape "out of context." I haven't seen any stories about what that "context" might be.

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:02:50 AM EST
    Well that was just one botched arrest. Luckily the passenger wasn't killed. As for charges: it's obvious that the sheriff panicked. Most likely he didn't feel like he was in control of the situation. This goes to the sheriff's competence, and the quality of the training he received, but I just don't see a basis for charging him (unless some evidence of malice turns up). Suspended/retrained, yes; fired, maybe; indicted, no way.

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#3)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:20:44 AM EST
    So a cop shoots an unarmed man that was complying with his orders and wasn't the one responsible for the chase, the response is " it's obvious that the sheriff panicked." No, it's obvious he was enraged and not in control of himself. "Suspended/retrained, yes; fired, maybe; indicted, no way." The twists some folks go thru to justify any action on behalf of cops! If I shoot an unarmed man I get put in jail, this cop shot an unarmed man and gets a paid vacation. I seem to remember some on this site claiming cops aren't above the law and don't have any special priveleges. Doesn't quite square with reality, eh?

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#4)
    by peacrevol on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:42:33 AM EST
    I just don't see a basis for charging him (unless some evidence of malice turns up). Suspended/retrained, yes; fired, maybe; indicted, no way.
    The tape of him shooting a guy while he was trying to get up after having been ordered to get up is not enough evidence of malice? Wow. So our military officers...even fly boys...get back from defending our nation after spending up to 18 months dodging bullets and busting heads only to be needlessly gunned down by one of Chino's "finest". This is absurd. Lock this guy up and throw away the key. While your at it, give the AF captain the congressional medal of honor for taking one for the team, so to speak, and helping to uncover the incompetance that some in this nation call police work.

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#5)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:50:37 AM EST
    "but I just don't see a basis for charging him"
    What, what, what!!?! He shoots and unarmed man who is following his every command and you don't see a basis? If I were to shoot an unarmed man in the street, even if he was attacking me, I would be charged and tried, and rightly so. Why should this joker be held to a different (ridiculous) standard? His use of force was nowhere commensurate.

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#6)
    by zak822 on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:05:16 AM EST
    It should be clear by now, folks. To many, it's OK if a police officer shoots you. At most, it's a firing offence. But an officer should not be legally responsible for this sort of act. He was just badly trained. Personal responsibility, anyone?

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#7)
    by Patrick on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:34:57 AM EST
    I seem to remember some on this site claiming cops aren't above the law and don't have any special priveleges. Doesn't quite square with reality, eh?
    How's that? There's an investigation no? I'd venture to say if you shot someone under the same circumstances, you'd be exactly where that officer is now.

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#8)
    by peacrevol on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:44:20 AM EST
    Zak comments:
    At most, it's a firing offence. But an officer should not be legally responsible for this sort of act. He was just badly trained. Personal responsibility, anyone?
    Surely, sir, you jest. At most it's a firing offense? Are you serious? Enough firing has been done already...at an unarmed man. A badge doesnt give cops the right to open fire on an unarmed man obeying orders. It's outrageous that anyone thinks that it's at best a firing offense. Perhaps he was poorly trained. But...common sense tells you that you dont shoot someone obeying orders, whether in charge of the situation or not. AND...I doubt there is any way in hell the sherf didnt at least get a book listing his ROEs and when he has the right to fire his weapon at someone. Those sorts of things are drilled into your head non stop in miliary training and I would assume that the same goes for police training. If not we have a much much much bigger problem than just one air man having been shot needlessly.

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#9)
    by Johnny on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 12:45:19 PM EST
    How's that? There's an investigation no? I'd venture to say if you shot someone under the same circumstances, you'd be exactly where that officer is now.
    What? On a paid vacation? Not likely...

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#10)
    by Patrick on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 01:43:07 PM EST
    What? On a paid vacation? Not likely...
    Ummm, yeah, it's the law.

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#11)
    by Johnny on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 02:34:31 PM EST
    The question remains: Do you have a link that works?

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 02:39:10 PM EST
    Driver of the car was released without charges. That is weird. Victim was a veteran just home from Iraq. Officer had been acquitted of not stopping other officers from using excessive force. I am sure this will be on all the news stations just after the dead blond of the day stories.

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:28:06 PM EST
    Hi Patrick, nice to hear from you, I hoped you would comment on this thread. I'm not sure what your point was when you wrote:
    How's that? There's an investigation no? I'd venture to say if you shot someone under the same circumstances, you'd be exactly where that officer is now.
    The officer is on paid leave, (in my job 'paid leave' is called 'a vacation'), and if I'd shot an unarmed man I would be in jail. I must have missed something, could you clarify your point for me?

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#14)
    by Johnny on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 04:23:40 PM EST
    Patrick's link does not work, and I am waiting until he fixes it or offers an alternative before I make further comment. FWIW, I believe if I had shot a man, as a non-cop, I would be incarcerated, if only temporarily. In addition, my company has a policy that states "any employee who commits a felony (non DUI) while employed is subject to termination." While I do not agree with that policy (how can my outside of work criminal behavior influence my work performance), I cannot argue with it. Nowhere does it say "shoot a man, take a month off, with pay."

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 05:18:21 AM EST
    This is exactly 100% typical of California law enforcement procedures. Go back and look at how many people of been shot, killed and, in my opinion, murdered by cops in California. With no repercussions. This has been a problem in southern CA since the 40s. No DA or politician in that state has balls to prosecute or call for the prosecution of these guys. This guy should, without a doubt end up in a CA prison cell.

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#16)
    by Patrick on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 01:32:56 PM EST
    I cannot explain why the link didn't work, except that is was possibly the result of the page being accessed through a site search engine. So if you're really interested to know why California cops get paid while on administrative leave you can look up Sections 3300-3313 of the California Government Code, also known as the Peace Officer's Bill of Rights. I usually use, leginfo.ca .gov. It's not in URL format so it doesn't skew the site.

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 04:06:51 PM EST
    Patrick, thanks for the link, but as far as I can tell it proves my point that cops are treated differently than other citizens. Kill an unarmed man, I get put in jail, they get a vacation. That said, I've known you to endorse prosecuting bad cops, do you think this cop did the right thing?

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#18)
    by Patrick on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:18:25 PM EST
    Kill an unarmed man, I get put in jail, they get a vacation.
    There are many cases out there where citizens have used deadly force against unarmed persons and not gone to jail. The difference being cops are hired for a job that includes that possibility in the course and scope of their employment. So in that vein, yes there is a difference in treatment.
    That said, I've known you to endorse prosecuting bad cops, do you think this cop did the right thing?
    I don't know, it really depends on what he's said to investigators, and I fully expect that will become public. Based on what I've seen it certainly appears to be a bad shooting, so unless there was something the video missed,(I haven't seen it) I'd imagine criminal charges could be a possibility. However, to prove a murder you'd have to prove intent, a sometimes difficult endeavor. In this case I'm kinda leaning toward some horrific misunderstanding.

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#19)
    by Patrick on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:41:35 PM EST
    Telly, And your point? Oh I see, that comparison is somehow analogous. I get it. Thanks for the laugh... Nite!

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#20)
    by Patrick on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:36:45 AM EST
    Ummm, I could have sworn I was replying to a poster named "Telly kastor" last night on this very thread??? Man I must have been more tired than I thought.. Calling Dr Dawes, Dr Fred Dawes....

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 12:06:19 PM EST
    Patrick, I thought you had made a new imaginary friend! I've checked the comments and the archives and I can't find this 'telly' person you keep talking to. Perhaps a meds adjustment is in order?*




    * Just pulling your leg;-) Telly was a previously banned commenter trying to slip back under the fence into our shining beacon of blogtopia (y, wksctp!). TL vaporized him.

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 12:38:22 PM EST
    Telly, aka Charlie, thinks he has been unfairly banned. Do any of you want to weigh in?

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 12:55:03 PM EST
    TL, Are we talking the former charliedontsurf? Or another Charlie?

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 01:23:11 PM EST
    TL, I didn't read Telly's posts. My opinion; if it's 'Charlie', he was just a troll. If it's charliedontsurf10, he usually had salient points, he just couldn't seem to stop w/ the personal attacks. One part of me thinks if he can conform to the guidelines, welcome back. Another part thinks coming back under an assumed name after being banned is a reason to keep him banned. OTOH, you've let people back in after being banned and they now contribute to the discourse. I'm not a lot of help, am I;-)

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 04:43:19 AM EST
    I had just completed reading of the article and some comments here on the blog and it troubles me that the police get certain privileges the ordinary citizen does not. After seeing the tape on the news when it first happened, based on what was seen and heard in the tape I would say that officer should be charge with aggravated felony assault. He should not be given a paid administrative leave... which to me is the same as a vacation. After the Rodeny King riots I can't really see this officer getting away with it. Cali can't afford another riot based on the use of excessive force by police. However, they should have placed him under arrest immediately. The Judge could have released him on his recog until a preliminary hearing took place.

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    deleted for advocating violence, commenter banned.

    Re: Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 05:42:34 PM EST
    I am from the UK, most guns are prohibited by law. Our police force uses armed officers in limited instances and are deployed from specialist teams. Most police carry non-lethal weapons. I have many documentaries on police training, both in the UK and US, is the strict control an officer will take when using a firearm. A series of instructions are thrown at a suspect and failure to comply could result in being shot - its to protect the officer. To gain total control over a suspect's movements. The last thing anyone should be weary of is being shot whilst complying with an officer's instructions. He told him to get up, and the USAF guy complied. Then the officer shoots him three times. Three! Mistakes can and do happen. But when firearms are involved the results are always tragic. So you should only put your very best people in front of such weapons. What are the standards required to be a Cop? The level of education? Are there systems in place to train officers to be racially aware? Lord Acton said "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely" I can find no power more final and devastating than a firearm. Police men and women should stand as examples to society, rising above crime and the mysery it creates to provide saftey for the civilians they are charged to protect. A shooting like this does nothing for police/community relations. Has any action been taken against the policeman?

    Police Shooting of Unarmed Man Questioned | 27 comments (27 topical)