home

Following Up When the Police Shoot an Unarmed Suspect

by TChris

As TalkLeft reported here, a videotape captured a police officer's shooting of Elio Carrion as the unarmed Carrion, an Air Force policeman who recently returned from Iraq, tried to comply with the officer's orders. Carl Jeffers writes about the follow up -- or lack thereof -- in cases like Carrion's.

The Carrion family is outraged that Officer Webb himself has not been arrested and criminally prosecuted for his actions. As for the San Bernardino County Sheriff's department, they have accorded Webb the same prerogatives that are always accorded police officers in these situations - and that's the first problem I have with this event. I never agree with any of these prerogatives. Officer Webb has been placed on paid administrative leave, and he was given the standard 48 to sometimes 72 hours to relax, collect himself, and get his story together for his written report. And when there is a video tape involved, the Department spokesmen and top officers immediately hold press conferences to assert that the officer was acting fully within Department guidelines, was responding to an immediate threat, and then warn that what we see on the tape doesn't show the entire picture and cannot be relied on to portray the actual events. BULL! ...

Secondly, and this is the area where I have always been the most outraged - I do not believe that officers should get two to three days to get their story together - and this is particularly relevant when, as often is the case, several officers are involved. In normal criminal cases, even in car accidents, all parties and the authorities want the statements and facts recounted as quickly as possible, not as delayed as possible. Why? Because memory recall is best relied upon the closer it is to the actual event. Unless it is an opportunity for several participants to get together and coordinate their stories.

< America for Sale | A Disastrous Idea >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Following Up When the Police Shoot an Unarmed (none / 0) (#1)
    by roy on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 03:53:01 PM EST
    I saw a police "training expert" on CNN, watching the video with one of their on-air personalities. He argued that "get up, get up, get up" should be interpreted as "don't get up, don't get up, don't get up" because the cop may have been confused. Most disgusting piece of ar*e-covering I've ever seen.

    Re: Following Up When the Police Shoot an Unarmed (none / 0) (#2)
    by mpower1952 on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:08:12 PM EST
    Why is it that nobody will take responsibility for their actions anymore? I truly believe that if that policeman had just admitted what he did and explained what actually happened (he was confused, he was upset, whatever) most people would want to give him the benefit of the doubt. By that I don't mean that he would get off scott free. Most people want to believe the police are acting in good faith and I believe that most are. We all know that accidents happen, mistakes are made, fear causes disasterous consequences sometimes and we realize the pressure and danger the police work under. I guess there's just no trust left in any of us. It's very sad.

    Re: Following Up When the Police Shoot an Unarmed (none / 0) (#3)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:43:33 PM EST
    Why is it that nobody will take responsibility for their actions anymore?
    Obviously it was because in the past a prez got a BJ. It couldn't have anything to do with starting a war on bogus intelligence; kidnapping, torturing and killing innocent civilians; outing CIA covert agents; lying about propaganda in the US and ME, appointing incompetent syncophants to national security positions; political appointees suppressing science; subverting and perverting the 4th amendment to spy on Americans, locking people up for free speech ... etc. Nah, I'm sure the officer just 'misstated' every bullet he fired.

    Re: Following Up When the Police Shoot an Unarmed (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:33:11 AM EST
    Murder...or at least manslaughter. Just think, if Carrion "accidentally" killed the cop, he'd end up on death row. This is equality under the law?

    Re: Following Up When the Police Shoot an Unarmed (none / 0) (#5)
    by Johnny on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 09:04:48 PM EST
    kdog, Years ago, I was at a bar with some friends. They (being a couple of fish) had some words and went outside to settle it. They being drunk and likely to hurt each other, I followed them to break it up. Fighting is for sober people. In any event, I collared them both and started pulling them apart when the cops came, threatened charging me with A&B, and generally displayed a level of ignorance I never expected from the "good guys". As I lay pinned under under the one officers boot, one thought kept going through my mind... "Anyone with half a brain could have seen I was intervening on behalf of a couple of friends who had too much to drink." Never did I think that those two would receive their walking papers and I would be left with a boot-print on my face and a stern lecture about violence and alcohol. In retrospect, I feel exceedingly lucky that I had seen them coming, because if they had grabbed me from behind, at least one cop would have been extremely seriously injured, to the tune of at least a broken nose, cheekbone, arm and groin and I would be as dead as a doornail. What is it about this country that a man can shoot another man and millions will jump to his defense, but if a man hits another man with a car, he will more often than not be charged with some kind of crime? Regardless of circumstance? The police in this country have a serious attitude. Unfortunately, I have had more than my fair share of run-ins with the cops, and you can almost see them calculating which way to best screw you. They are becoming terrifying. The gangs and the mafia figured it out long ago-they take care of their own problems. In no way am I advocating or condoning vigilante justice, but the cops are too unreliable. Period. That they can shoot and kill a man, and the most outrage that is exhibited is on a blog, frightens me.

    Re: Following Up When the Police Shoot an Unarmed (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 06:29:26 AM EST
    No need to tell me Johnny. I've managed to avoid a beating from the police, but I've been harassed and had my rights violated more times than I can remember. Had a friend who hasn't been so lucky, he got his face introduced to the squad car hood to the tune of 25 stitches for asking a question. He got charged with assaulting an officer for his trouble. Who knew a question was a form of assault? I feel safer when they (the police) aren't around.

    What is the confusion? Murderers occur in every walk of life - and police work is no exception. Give some people a gun, and they feel compelled to use it to kill something eventually. This officer had a previous history of violence - and I believe he was just working his way up to murder, lacking only a plausible set of circumstances (such as being tackled by a person who was flat on the ground) to use the institutional prejudices to get away with cold blooded murder for fun. Special circumstances murder - or the attempt thereof - should warrant the death penalty. How much more special does it have to get than someone submitting in good faith to a peace officer who just wants to kill somthing and has a tax paid gun to do it with?

    along the same lines, people take notice of California Penal Code 148.5 (e) which states that knowingly falsified reports of crime (which can be used as probable cause for search warrants) CANNOT BE PROSECUTED as a crime. Yes, a law that protects acknowledged crime from prosecution so long as the crime benefits police agencies. I went looking for America, but all I found was more and more United States, and less America by the day...