Jury Awards $5.7 Million to Gangbanger Paralyzed in Police Shooting
A major U.S. Supreme Court case governing police officers’ use of force is the 1989 case of Graham v. Connor, in which the court held that “[t]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.”
While pursuing Contreras, Officers Flores and Benavides knew that a shooting had occurred, and they were directed by witnesses to a van fleeing the area. No one would argue that the officers were anything less than reasonable in pursuing the van, and they were no less reasonable in pursuing the occupants who ran from it. And while they may not have had specific knowledge that Contreras was a gang member, they surely knew, as indeed every police officer working that area at that time knew, that two local gangs had for some time been engaged in a war that had seen several shootings carried out by each side.
So here were the two police officers pursuing Contreras on foot in the quite reasonable belief that he was an armed gang member who had moments before engaged in a shooting. Furthermore, the officers said they had seen Contreras holding a gun as he ran from the van.
News reports of the jury award made mention of the fact that no gun was found in the area despite an extensive search. This does not mean that Contreras did not have a gun at some time before he was shot. Contreras reportedly told people he had had a gun but that he threw it as he ran, a tactic quite common among those who find sport in shooting their rivals on street corners. Contreras ran some distance down streets and alleys before he was shot, and in the dark of night he may well have discarded the gun without it being seen by the officers. As for the failure to find the gun during the search, again, this is not uncommon. Handguns are small, and it’s possible that the searching officers overlooked it, or that it landed somewhere inaccessible to those trying to find it. It is also possible that the gun landed in a place where someone sympathetic to Contreras could, in the confusion of the moment, pick it up and carry it away. These things happen.
But even if the officers had not seen Contreras with a gun, even if he had merely been the driver of the van and never had a gun that night, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the officers, under those circumstances, to believe he was armed, and when he made a gesture threatening to the officers it was equally reasonable for them to shoot him.
There is an old saying in police work: It’s better to be tried by twelve (or eight, as the case may be) than carried by six. The officer who waits too long before defending himself, the one who is slow to react when the threat is presented, he is the one who one day does not come home.
Consider the tragic case of Kyle Dinkheller, a deputy with the Laurens County, Ga., Sheriff’s Office, who in 1998 was shot and killed by a man he had stopped for speeding. Deputy Dinkheller was working alone and made the stop in an isolated area. The man he had stopped, Andrew Brannan, got out of his car and was acting bizarrely before arming himself with a rifle and opening fire. The incident was captured on video by the dashboard camera in Deputy Dinkheller’s patrol car, and it’s just as disturbing to watch it today, for perhaps the hundredth time, as it was when I first saw it years ago.
To watch the video and know how it ends is excruciating, but Deputy Dinkheller told Brannan to drop his gun five times over the course of about thirty seconds before Brannan opened fire. Legally, he needn’t have told him even once. Many rounds were then exchanged, with Deputy Dinkheller hit several times, the final, fatal round striking him in the head. He and his wife had a 22-month-old daughter, and she was pregnant with the son who was born months later.
(Andrew Brannan was struck in the abdomen by one of Deputy Dinkheller’s rounds. He fled but was arrested the next day. When asked why he had killed the deputy, he said, “Because he let me.” He was convicted of the murder and sentenced to death, yet he lives on.)
It’s difficult to convey to a jury in the controlled environment of the courtroom the fear one feels when confronting someone you believe will kill you if you do not quickly do something to stop him. Perhaps there was some weakness in the defense to Robert Contreras’s lawsuit, a witness who was unpersuasive or a piece of evidence that wasn’t emphasized enough. Or perhaps the jurors, seven women and one man, felt sorry enough for Contreras, sitting there forlornly in his wheelchair, to tip the scales in his favor. We’ll never know.
But we do know that Robert Contreras made some bad decisions that night back in 2005. He got in a van with some fellow gangsters and set off to shoot some people. He carried out the shooting and then tried to get away when the police chased him. And finally he made a movement that put the officers in fear for their lives, prompting them to shoot him. He could have changed the course of his life by making a different choice at any point along that timeline. That he is paralyzed now is unfortunate, but only for him. That he has been enriched for his troubles is unfortunate for everyone else.
A worthwhile article. Thanks.
One quibble with the sub-headline, “Jury fails to hear….”. The failure is not with the jury, but with the judge.
Keep up the good work.
I am surprised that anyone is surprised that the verdict went the way it did.
In fact, in a society where all victims should be treated the same, but minority ones are held up as more worthy of ‘justice’, this is the exact result that one should expect. Its been years in the making, but sped up on steroids under the reign of Obama.
Moreover, in Obama’s America, where there is no such thing as personal accountability, and the yardstick of reasonableness is tossed aside, there is a culture of victim hood, regardless who sits on the bench. It’s in the judicial air too.
And, under the thuggish reign of the Radical/Racialist-in-Chief, all manner of injustice is ratcheted up – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/30/the-racialist-potus-seeks-transformation-via-raced-based-classroom-edicts-say-it-aint-so-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
Welcome to Obama’s America!!
– why wasn’t Prop. 213 invoked?!
Prop. 213 is part of California state law, which holds that no person can recover damages if his injuries were incurred in the commission of a felony or flight therefrom. It does not apply in federal court, where this case was heard.
Then the police can appeal on the grounds that this case was outside the Federal court’s jurisdiction. Let’s see what the 9th Circuit says.
Hey, it’s California. The U.C. system just paid out 6 million to some thirty students (and a quarter million to the ACLU lawyers) who got pepper sprayed for failure to disburse while protesting the fee increases caused by the fiscal crisis of the state (also known as Jerry Brown is running out of other people’s money to spend for a free college education). Of course, the U.C system and its professors, not to mention the trial lawyers, were all for the student’s protests over state budget cuts to the U.C. system–cuts that come at the expense of those U.C. administrators and professors. The university cops were just pawns in the Jerry Brown/U.C. system game of charades for shaking down the taxpayer for imagined violations of civil rights using an approved riot control chemical. In short, once again the taxpayer gets pepper sprayed, the student fees still go up, and the professors still got their tenure and pensions–in their youth they, too, were protestors ritualistically hollering “Off the pigs!” Once again life is good in the academic neighborhood where truth and justice reign after the successful completion of an approved shake down ritual for those oppressed elite students enjoying free condoms and needle exchanges. They really are not much different from gang bangers.
“[G]ot pepper sprayed for failure to disburse”? Seriously? They got pepper sprayed for not paying fees?
They didn’t want to disburse, so they refused to disperse.
Geez, that works out to $200,000 a piece! Let me know when they have their next demonstration & I’ll show up bright & early. A bit of eye irritation = a new Bentley.
Maybe he’ll take his first payment and overdose on heroin.
This is why the victims of the criminals should sue as well. It will take away the incentive by the criminal to cash in since they will have to pay any gains to the many others they have wronged. Perhaps one of his attempted murder victims could have been encouraged to join the lawsuit. Yes probably gang members themselves, but the point really is to eliminate the incentive of the law breaker to sue to begin with.
There are still taxpayers in California?
The gang life is seductive to tough young kids, and those that wannabe tough.
They know what can happen — death, prison, paralysis. As combat medicine gets better and better you see more and more young men in wheel chairs looking out from the porches of halfway houses. The state takes is forced to care for them when they are abandoned by their homies and even their families. It is a lot of work taking care of a paraplegic.
LA gangsters get a tattoo that they call “Smile Now, Cry Later”. There is also a song by the same name by “Sunny Ozuna and the Sunliners”. The idea is that you gang life is fun early on, but does not end well.
It is hard to put their mentality into words. It is like they are in a cult. All those wrecked lives over a myth. It is incredibly sad.
Yet the cycle continues. Only massive moral educacation can turn it around.
Right….the police are always right…
You know the different between a teacher and a cop? While both rips off the taxpayer gleefully, fighting any attempt at meaningful reform or oversight, only one of them threatens violence if they don’t get their way. We need a police force the size of the LAPD as much as we need a department of homeland security.
Excuse me if I don’t hero worship a paramilitary group that routinely steps on the rights of law abiding Americans.
As per the scum, once again, if we would simply do the smart thing and allow law abiding citizen to conceal carry, the problem takes care of itself.
LA is not over policed — look at the numbers.
If LAPD routinely violated citizen rights, the ACLU would be all over it.
Concealed carry is great, but it would not allow me to take on diabolical transnational gangsters from Florencia 13 or 18th Street. For that we need a professional police force with both brains and brawn.
I have been pulled over by LAPD many times and they have never violated my rights.
Police routinely violate constitutional rights when they stop a driver for no reason at all.
That is not my experience and I look like someone they would pull over.
You “look like someone they would pull over”? Being pulled over because of the way you look is just the sort of thing I have in mind when I speak of a violation of your constitutional rights.
“By law, police officers must observe a legitimate traffic violation in order to stop an automobile. Police officers, however, have come under fire from individuals who charge that police officers stop their automobiles based on race [or age] rather than any supposed traffic violation. . . . While allowing police officers discretion in whom they stop and ticket may be common and legal, this power may also be abused, especially when the police officer allows race [or age] to help determine whom he will or will not stop for a traffic violation.”
Erik,
Law abiding citizens have EVERY RIGHT and often enact upon conceal carry.
However, those possessing a C C doesn’t necessarily bequeath those with nerve to brandish AND use said weapon in an appropriate, accurate manner.
Not to mention those being shot at from a moving van in South Central L.A. at a late-hour such as the above op-ed are oof the law abiding nature as well.
Inexperienced C C citizens is not the answer. Many trained, CC carriers would respond like the trained, late-Deputy Dinkheller.
The LAPD uniformed officers are grossly undermanned. If the LAPD indeed had the needed manning power, Central-So Cal would be far safer.
The Robert Contreras’ of the U.S. are a product of poor parenting, the parent(s) indifference to their child(ren)’s shortcomings has grave results.
The police need the support of the courts and society in general. LA needs to get rid of the rabble rousers, community organizers, etc causing the problems. Not going to happen as those people also pay off politicians and get out the votes.
Ever do a ride-along, Rev? (Assuming you can do one, that is….you don’t have active warrants or an extensive criminal history, right?)
Why don’t you go on a couple? Or are you afraid that some of your cherished beliefs might just be…..wrong? And that there are actually scary people who would do you harm in a heartbeat without a second thought (and they aren’t necessarily the guys and girls with badges)?
Yeah, I am double dog daring you to do it. Bet you won’t, it’s far easier to sit in mama’s basement and watch PMSNBC.
Ho…ho…ho…
Pretty funny friend. You can attempt to warp what I said to fulfill whatever your preconceived notions, but that does nothing to change the simple fact that unions need to be destroyed. They are parasites on this nation.
Let me ask you this…if unions are SO GREAT for the police, than why don’t we unionize the military?
I’ll tell you why, because they would cripple the US fighting ability. I am surprised that Obama fanatics like yourself having started demanding that in the streets.
Get off your high horse and love affair of all things big government. The police would be better run without unions and without the government directly controlling it.
Typical progressive answer. Attack a point that I didn’t even make (where the hell did I say ANYTHING regarding public sector unions in that post?) to avoid answering the question I actually asked.
Then accuse me of being a *cough* Obama voter because I dared ask a question that hit too close to home.
So, truly…..why can’t you do a ride-along? Criminal record, perhaps? Inability to lay off the ganja for 24 hours so you can look sober enough to ride in the front seat and not the back seat? “I WUV RON PAUL” tattooed across your forehead?
If we ever do restore a legitimate government, crazy-ass sociopaths with authority problems who style themselves “true conservatives” or libertarians will be harder to eliminate from the res publica than the communists. At least in the past the communists have shown that they know how to keep their heads down and their mouths shut.
Six years of active duty, USN. Call me when you hit your third combat tour…then you can question me.
The US police system is glutted with ineffective, unionized, goverment employees. I don’t give a rat’s behind that some gang banger got hurt other than he should have been kiilled.
All that said, there is ZERO chance of reform until the various police unions are smashed. This isn’t a conservative or (for some reason in your mind) a liberal position. Its common sense.
But yeah…keep accusing me of using drugs.
@ Rev Walker – Sounds like you couldn’t pass the psych eval or the physical, maybe couldn’t piss in the bottle. You have some issues.
I am not sure if I agree or not, but unlike some you are internally consistent. If you are going to limit what the cops can do by the number of officers or the restraints on what they can do, self help in the form of concealed carry is the option. Or perhaps if things get crazy enough simple carry will become popular. Of course you could fire all the cops and go back to some form of vigilantism or law of the feud. That is close to where we are at in some ghettos anyway.
Trials like this can really not be fair when you have a paralyzed kid in a wheel chair. Since, the case is really about if the police were authorized to use deadly force in the situation, and only that, it would have probably been a different outcome if the jurors were only able to read the arguments. In fact, why isn’t that ever done? When a case has no basis for character issues they should let the jury mull over the facts on paper.
Well, there are these little problems with the Constitutional guarantee that you can confront, examine or cross-examine, your accusers.
The real problem is that lay juries simply don’t know enough about the arcane laws involved to make a rational decision so a jury trial becomes a trial to see which advocate can put on the best show and be most evocative. I’ve done discrimination cases before reputable professional labor arbitrators and have them get totally taken in by the union’s emotional appeal – and the more I tried to object to the irrelevance, hearsay, and plain BS, the more of an a**hole I was in the arbitrator’s eyes, so I just accepted that I was going to lose and went into damage control mode. Stuff happens!
When are conservatives going to realize that police are part of the big government they supposedly dislike so much?
Want to get rid of drug gangs and related violence? End prohibition…that’s what got rid of all the bootleggers.
Actually you make an excellent point. Legalize it, tax it, and the drive by shootings over market shares will move to the courts for peaceful conflict resolutions over trade name violations and selling bogus product or bunk. Curious how it originally took a constitutional amendment to institute federal prohibition in all the states during the progressive era–when progressives were racists and into race based abortions–but it sure got repealed after a decade of “state rights” violence at the local level. For federal drug prohibition to be forced on all the states in the sixties, it simply took a congressional law, doubtless backed by too big to fail corporate producers of other legal mind altering substances. As I recall, the Supreme Court has basically signed off on that new federal public health responsibility in the constitution over altered states of consciousness in all fifty states, which of course was extended to Roe V. Wade. In the meantime, the cops are stuck enforcing it and dealing with the consequences.
July of this year a three police officers in Florida were looking for a criminal It was 1 am in the morning and they found the suspects motorcycle. They went to the nearest apartment, took out their guns and banged on the door. They did not identify themselves but pointed their guns at the door and waited for someone to open it. Their logic was “we wanted the tactical advantage”. Now the owner comes to a door with a gun in his hand, opens the door, bang, the police shot and killed him. Initially, the police said their officers had identified themselves, then the story changed to they don’t have to identify themselves.
Who is right or wrong? The individual sitting in his home at 1 am and someone banging on his door has no right to suspect it might be a criminal so goes to the door with a gun? Or the officer(s) that think everyone is a suspect and should be treated like that.
At the end of the day, this young man did not have to die. The police were careless and inept. Would they have done the same thing to their own homes? Why not just surround the home (3 police officers), bang on the door and announce themselves as the police?
Whose life is more important? A police officer or an innocent civilian?
So where was this guy supposed to get his future “earnings” it seems that to date he never earned anything other than scorn! Gangsters do not earn they take and steal. He should have instead earned a long time in prison for all the trouble he caused during his life as a gangster!
let ca go bankrupt, they are all left wing loons.
There’s a lot of things we don’t know here. First, how did it get to federal rather than state court? The assumption would be that it became a federal question as a civil rights violation which means it had administrative underpinnings under Section 1983, violation of civil rights under color of office, or some other federal civil rights act, e.g., Title 7 of the ’64 Act. In which case the question would not be whether it was a good shoot under use of force rules but rather whether the shoot was motivated by the object’s race, which would account for leaving out all the evidence about his NOLO and such.
This really is a filthy business, especially when one of both governments are controlled by Democrats. I have to wonder why the City couldn’t make a civil rights violation the officers’ problem rather than its problem. We used to rather pointedly tell our employees that we had the training and processes in place to make sure that civil rights issues were their problem, not the State’s. Civil rights complaints are often nothing more than shakedowns or money laudering operations in which the state or city government is complicit. Some “victim” files a complaint, the administrative agency gives them the right to sue, often with a finding against the employer,12 morons with drivers’ licenses find against the evil white employer, and damages are awarded in huge sums, a little of which goes to the “victim” and the rest goes to Democrat lawyers and Democrat front groups.
I can’t imagine what the city government was thinking; I know I would pay a LOT of money to avoid facing 12 (or 8) morons with drivers’ licenses. Maybe somebody wasn’t getting a big enough cut in the original settlement.
I haven’t a clue how that smiley face, a symbol I detest, got there. I was trying to parenthetically say “or 8″ as was the jury in this case apparently.
Typing the number 8 followed by the right-hand parenthesis produces that particular smilie.
how much money do you think that womans family in Chula Vista Ca going to get for her fatal shooting? Under cover border agent pulls a gun and she hits the gas pedal, maybe she thought he was going to carjack her, maybe she didn’t see him in the middle of the street until he pulled his gun. if i shot everyone that almost ran me over because they weren’t paying attention, i’d be the worlds worst mass murderer. either way she’s dead and the agency is spinning. if he was serving a warrant were was the rest of them?
where were the rest of them
why was he in the street, and it’s a residential street. how fast was she speeding 20 25 mph
what would it take for a man to not sustain any injuries from getting hit by a car full on where he was on the hood. how fast was she going?
Recently was excused from a civil suit jury pool after telling the judge that I didn’t think 1) pain and suffering should be treated as commodities that could be bought and sold in court, and 2) But if they were, then courts should establish a “per unit” price on P&S that would apply to all cases, and 3) finally, any money awarded for pain and suffering should go not to the plaintiff but to a community fund that would be used to provide taxpayers rebates, and without one-third going to the plaintiff’s attorney.
Pain and suffering are inventions of trial lawyers to sate the greed of their profession at the rate of 30% of money awarded plaintiffs.
If this doesn’t get you removed from the jury, you can’t say they weren’t warned.
The lesson people intend to teach, and the lesson that is actually taught, may be two different things. The lesson the trial lawyers in this case wanted to teach is: Next time be more careful before you shoot. But the lesson actually taught may be: Next time aim more carefully when you shoot. The problem would never have arisen if the perpetrator were dead.
Similarly, the controversy over the North Hollywood shootout would not have occurred if the SWAT officer had not just incapacitated one of the bank robbers by shooting him in the leg, but had also shot him in the head. After all, he had been shooting a fully automatic rifle in all directions.
And the LA riot would not have occurred, and 53 people would still be alive, if the LAPD had arrived 30 seconds later, and the CHP officer had shot Rodney King, as she would have had to do if he continued to advance on her as she pointed her pistol at him.
Be careful what lessons you teach. Some people are good students.
This is nothing new for an LA court (jury or judge). It’s ridiculous that a gang member would only serve two years for an attempted murder in a shooting! Two years! Then, after he pleads GUILTY (no contest) to the crime; when said gang member gets out of custody, he is awarded millions from the tax payers in a kangaroo court that either had a clueless judge or a very astute attorney representing his interests.
Common sense isn’t common!
People that bring guns to kill other people should not be awarded damages from the City when they are shot by the police. That is what some would call, the price of admission for the job that Contreras chose to do that night. Gangsters shoot people and get shot; it’s what they do and it’s how they live and die. To reward Contreras for being a gangster and purposely excluding evidence for a jury is the epitome of stupid and what makes our justice system an oxymoron.
A thug on an errand to kill someone that ran from the police does not, and will not, receive my sympathy, compassion, or hopefully any of my tax money. Hope the appeal works and he gets nothing, because he deserves nothing.
Sympathy lawsuits involving street scum arise only when a suspect shooting victim lives and is paralyzed, had this young thug been “planted” by the officer(s) at the time of the shooting there probably would not have been a lawsuit, at least not to the extent that is presented here.
I don’t mean to be harsh or unsympathetic to gangbangers (lord knows they, too, have to make a living)) but much like feeding a stray dog, you’re only asking for trouble when you encourage them by rewarding them for their injuries. As for those misguided sorts who harbor deep-seated resentment for the police for whatever imagined and unfair ill has befallen them, don’t call 911 when a gangbanger decides you and your family would make a good target of opportunity, take care of the problem yourself and while you’re at it incur all the after-action heat that usually comes with taking the law into your own hands.
Given the information the jury got, I would have voted the same way they did.
Given the information in this article, I would STILL have voted the way they did.
The only relevant facts are that the police gunned down a fleeing suspect who was not visibly armed or actively threatening. Yeah, they had reason to believe he could be armed – and that is nowhere near enough to justify lethal force. Yeah, the ganger had participated in crimes that night, violent, deadly ones – but that does not excuse the police violating their rules of engagement.
Police must be held to a higher standard. And when they violate that standard, they must be punished, and the victim – even a criminal, a gangbanger, a murderer or worse – given generous recompense. Because otherwise all we get is thugs with badges, not police.
That is either incredibly naive or astoundingly dumb. The fleeing suspect was involved in a drive by shooting of people just standing around on the street. The officers said that when he exited the van and took foot bail they saw he was carrying a weapon, not that they “had reason to believe he was armed”. What would you have them do when he stopped running and turned toward them, wait for him to fire the first shot? What were the rules of engagement that they violated? I think that the rules are simple, be able go home at end of watch.
You want the police held to a higher standard, what would that be, let the suspect take the first shot and then shoot the gun out of their hand?
I’ll give you a couple of clues, cops don’t go to work looking to engage in gunfights, criminals don’t deserve “generous recompense” for injuries they sustained because of actions that they initiated. In this instance the doorstop chose to go out and do bad to someone, he chose to run, and he chose to turn and confront his pursuers. Any gangbanger in L.A. knows how to surrender, down into a felony prone position. If you don’t know what that is, he sure as hell does.
“Given the information in this article, I would STILL have voted the way they did.” Did you not read this article carefully? The point you apparently missed by a mile was that the jury was egregiously misled: there was evidence the suspect was armed with a gun when the footchase began, which evidence corroborated the police officers’ belief that when this member of a notoriously violent gang, bent that night on gun violence, turned and confronted police with an object in his hand, he was armed—and the court was extremely dishonest and biased to keep such crucial information from the jury.
Yes, I got that.
The problem is that he WASN’T when the police opened fire.
If the officers could have honestly said they saw a gun, carried or prepared, when they shot this guy, I would have no problem. If he had made an aggressive move towards them, after they had previously seen a gun, then lethal force would have been justified.
The problem here is not the police. Let me be quite clear: while I do believe they made a mistake, it was not a severe one, and is quite unerstandable. They deserve no opprobrium for their actions.
But they were still in the wrong. And the person shot thereby deserves compensation for the damage he received.
In this case, it was a slimy gangbanger. But bad stuff happens to good people, too, and when this mistake happens again – and, with all the goodwill and seeking to prevent it that I am sure the police involved will bring to preventing it, it will, sooner or later – I want the victim THAT time, who could be me or you, or some innocent other, to have the appropriate precedent when his or her day in court comes.
Lethal force was justified; no criminal charges were filed on the officers despite many critical levels of review; mostly independent.
Kevin, nothing aggregious here was committed, nor was there malice. The police responded to a call for help and chased down gang bangers with guns. Eventually they shot one of them; whom they reasonably beleived to be armed. This decision was made in the blink of eye. A guilty, armed felon was shot that night. Nothing more.
Actually, I agree with you about much of this, I.M., this was neither egregious nor extreme, and I also see no evidence of malice. If there was, then I would be calling for those police to be disciplined, and I believe the reviewers of the case would have done so.
But that doesn’t change the fact that they broke the rules. They were up against possibly armed suspects, they had good reason to believe they would be. So keeping weapons drawn and ready, appropriate caution, preparedness to use lethal force – all of these are appropriate and justified.
Firing on a retreating suspect with no obvious weapon, is not.
If someone draws a gun on a police officer, the only result I’m happy with is said idiot leaving in a body bag. I have absolutely no problem with lethal force in any circumstance where the police officer is in actual danger. I have considerable problem with lethal force being applied when the officer merely suspects the other person is armed.
And no, Mr. Cooper. A guilty UNarmed felon was shot that night.
Thank you, Kevin and I understand your point, as well. Your reasonableness is refreshing! The last issue I wanted to bring up was that when police officers are in pursuit of drive-by shooting suspects, they have the obligation the expectation that the suspects are armed. That, combined with the crime of attempted murder that just occurred. along with the fact that uninvolved community members pointed the van Contreras was riding in was the shooting vehicle constitutes probable cause (grounds to arrest).
To prevent the escape of a violent fleeing felon when there is probable cause to believe the escape will pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others if apprehension is delayed; deadly force is an appropriate option for the officer. Is it reasonable for the police to believe that stopping Contrearas at that point was essential? Allowing a shooting suspect to run down the driveway of a house, or possibly break into a stranger’s residence or into another yard (perhaps gatherings/parties) is something that certainly weighed on the minds of those officers.
It’s a tough issue for us to debate here. Imagine what it was like for those involved that dark night in South Los Angeles when you factor in fear, confusion, poor communication, darkness, and danger!
You are certainly right there. I do believe the police made a mistake, but it was a mistake anyone could make and a very understandable one. Indeed, this whole debate is “monday morning quarterbacking”, as far as the police officer’s actions go.
And for what it’s worth, I do find the gangbanger a repulsive caricature of a human beng. But, by the law, and the findings of a jury, he gets compensation for the injuries he suffered, and the law applies to all – even repulsive gangbangers.
Next time hopefully they will hit the “10″ ring and there will be no trial for some POS like this guy is….I guess sometimes a life of crime does pay.