Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, Dec. 31, 2010 | 2 a.m.
Chris Collins
Sheriff Doug Gillespie
Steve Sisolak
Sun archives
- Coroner IDs man who died after police used Taser (12-13-10)
- Man dies after police use stun gun during arrest (12-11-10)
- County Commission OKs changes to coroner’s inquest process (12-7-2010)
- Commissioners outline concerns of proposed inquest changes (11-16-2010)
- County commission to hear board’s suggestions for inquest changes (11-16-2010)
- Coroner’s inquest review panel proposes changes (11-8-2010)
- Coroner’s inquest review panel weighs scrapping jury, verdict (11-2-2010)
- Inquest panel considers removing verdict from process (10-25-2010)
- Public critical of inquest process at review panel’s first meeting (10-19-2010)
- Group to propose changes to coroner’s inquest process (10-5-2010)
- Police officers found justified in Erik Scott shooting; family plans lawsuit (9-28-2010)
- Vegas police study policy after drug raid slaying (8-4-10)
In the first test of the county’s new rules for reviewing police-involved deaths, officers connected with the Dec. 11 death of a suspect who was shot with a Taser are refusing to cooperate with investigators.
Their refusal to make voluntary statements to Metro’s Force Investigation Team is on the advice of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, said Chris Collins, president of the officers union. From Collins’ standpoint, not only is the officers’ refusal to cooperate the right thing to do, it marks the beginning of the end of the coroner’s inquest system.
The system, in use for 40 years, has come under fire in the wake of controversial shootings involving Metro officers, prompting Clark County commissioners to undertake a revision of the ordinance that lays the ground rules for the courtlike hearings.
“We believe the process to examine (the inquest system) and change the ordinance was the first nail in the coffin,” Collins said. “And I’m going to finish nailing it shut.”
Sheriff Doug Gillespie called Collins’ statements premature.
Although the officers involved in the incident that ended in the death of 44-year-old Anthony Jones refused to talk to Metro’s investigators, Gillespie said they did cooperate in other ways: They gave statements to their supervisors, which can be used in an inquest; they also go through an administrative examination of the incident, which cannot be used in the inquest.
County commissioners are expected to consider and possibly finalize additional changes to the inquest process at their meeting Monday. The key change being considered is the process of selecting the ombudsman, who acts as the representative at the inquest for victim’s family.
“That’s going to be critical, ultimately, to the success of the inquest process changes,” Gillespie said.
He noted that the police union’s objections to the inquest process aren’t new. It has long had concerns about officers giving voluntary statements to homicide investigators, similar to those raised by Collins and the officers involved in the Dec. 11 incident.
“In other cities, too, sometimes they don’t get voluntary statements, but they get the administrative and they are able to determine what happens. And the criminal investigation goes its path and the administrative goes its path.”
Complaints about the inquest system came to a head after two controversial shootings this year involving Erik Scott, a West Point graduate, at Costco in Summerlin, and Trevon Cole, who was unarmed when police shot and killed him at his home.
After those shootings, Commissioner Steve Sisolak pushed for creation of a committee to look at changes in the way the shootings are reviewed. Before the commission voted to accept many of the reforms this month, Collins warned commissioners that he would advise union members not to participate in the criminal investigations.
Officers’ refusal to participate was “my concern that I expressed over and over again,” Sisolak said. “They’re just following through with what they said they would do.”
On Monday, commissioners will consider requiring payment of the attorney/ombudsman and that the attorney not be involved in police use-of-force lawsuits five years before or after the inquest.
Other reforms agreed to by commissioners include:
• Allowing police officers to have a union attorney at inquests.
• Replacing juries with “inquest panels” and not giving them the option of reaching verdicts of justified, excusable or criminal.
• Letting attorneys for families and officers meet twice with a judge and prosecutor before an inquest.
Collins said he wants officers to avoid being questioned four times about the same incident — during the criminal investigation, at the inquest, and then, if there is a civil suit, a deposition, and at a trial.
To paint a picture of the problems that might arise, Collins gave a fictional example: After shooting a suspect, an officer tells homicide investigators he was 6 feet away when he shot; during the inquest, the ombudsman grills him and gets him to say it was “6 or 7 feet”; then a civil suit is filed and the officer has to go into a deposition and answer again; then he answers one more time during the civil trial.
Even though by the time the inquest is held, the district attorney has typically decided not to charge the officer, Collins said going through the questions four times is onerous.
“Now we’re saying ‘screw it’ — you only have to answer twice instead of four times: Answer in the deposition and the federal case and skip the homicide investigation and skip the inquest,” Collins said.
By skipping the inquest, officers will avoid the potentially embarrassing and uncomfortable situation of sitting in the witness chair and pleading the Fifth Amendment to every question, Collins said. He thinks officers will merely have to inform officials beforehand that they won’t answer questions, negating the need to show up to the inquest.
But that’s not how attorney Allen Lichtenstein, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, sees it. An officer who is subpoenaed “has to show up,” he said.
Lichtenstein added that even though officers involved in deaths may plead the Fifth, officers who are bystanders don’t have that right. And in agreement with the sheriff, he doesn’t see how the inquest reforms should change whether officers feel compelled to cooperate. For one, he said, few police-involved deaths result in civil suits. Even those that do can be quashed before they get to court.
“So there’s nothing really new, coroner’s inquests have always taken time and officers have always testified,” he said. “The only difference is that instead of being limited to questions by a friendly district attorney, they will now face someone who will ask questions that are tougher ... The union is just saying, ‘we don’t want to be asked tough questions.’ ”
Everyone knows being a police officer is a very rough job given the circumstance. We are all human. We all make decisions. Making critical decisions in split seconds of life and death take a very special person. When a police officer takes the pistol out of the holster there decision is half way down. The other half of that decision is to pull the trigger. The training a police officer on when to shoot or don't shoot kicks in.
Now since the hearing's will be adversarial the police unions are telling there members don't say anything and plead the 5th. I say as a citizen say yes I agree to that. It is there right to do so under the Constitution of the United States. Do I agree with the police union telling there members not to cooperate with detectives or district attorneys office, well that's up to every union member.
Last time I visited LV, the police pulled me over in a rental car because it had a temporary plate. He made me stand behind my car on I15 with their headlights lights on me, with my hands on my head while they checked things out.
I'm an attractive woman with a clean license, no criminal record and I was traveling alone in the early evening and no I dont drink.
I stood on the side of the road with my hands on my head as the traffic flew by me. When the officer finally said something, I lowered my hands a bit and the cop screamed dont move and reached towards his gun! I thought I was going to die?
Are the cops in LV insane or terrified? Why does the public stand for this kind of abuse from the police. dept.http://nymag.com/news/articles/reasonstoloveny/2010/70079/
So, in essence, the PPA wants to call the shots.
If they don't like the rules, they won't play ball.
What they are saying with their silence is, "we had a system that gave us a 100% guarantee of exoneration, and we liked that system."
I agree this is probably the end of the "Coroner's Inquest" system as we've known it, which is good.
It's been a colossal waste of time and money to render a verdict that is preordained.
The bad news for the PPA is that ANY SYSTEM that is different than the one we've had will put more of an onus on the Officers involved. They will buck those changes.
For the good of Metro and the citizens of Las Vegas, we need to throw out this antiquated & flawed Dog & Pony Show and replace it with something that will help to re-instill some measure of trust between the community and it's policing agency.
To my way of thinking, that would involve having an OUTSIDE AGENCY investigate Officer Involved Shootings...
There is NO WAY that Metro retains the power to investigate their own and the community is satisfied that justice is being served. Impartiality is what is important to folks.
Or, at least the appearance of such.
i dont care wat people are saying the police do a hell of a job in this city and for those few law breakers out there you fight the law the law will always win and thats why people are being tazed because they cant behave like adults thats why are youth is so disrespectful because of the poor adult influences out there.
Perhaps you can replace your file picture of Mr. Collins with one that does not evidence such smugness.
The Officers are also not complying with Department policy. Start documenting the non-compliance, written warnings and next time fire them. Regardless, of their union, Nevada employment law is "at will".
who will police the police? The police? yeah, right.
Three words. Civilian Review Board
"Officers' refusal to participate was "my concern that I expressed over and over again," Sisolak said. "They're just following through with what they said they would do.""
Yeah, threats and intimidation by those employed to protect us.
Collins and Sisolak, in kind, should not expect any help from the public during police investigations, perhaps we'll say....'screw it'. How pathetic that it's come down to this.
Any officer who refuses to cooperate in an inquest should immediately be dismissed, loosing any acquired benefits. Can you imagine if we, the public, told our employers that we refuse to do an important part of our job..."Heck boss, I already did that three other times, I won't do it again". We'd be in the unemployment line.
It's time for a Citizens Police Review Board.
I'm wondering how does one taser an old man with a heart condition to get him to go to the hospital, resulting in death, and it not be murder?
Why should they be any different than us civilians? Police officers grill us 3 and 4 times, we have to answer questions presented to us and if we have 4-5 suits against us, then we have to answer 4-5 times..and they are supposed to represent the law. This makes them look like they are their own possie, jury and judge !!
Collins looks like a real sweetheart doesn't he?
It's really amusing seeing the calls for a "citizen review board"...good luck with that. Metro will continue on its merry way, why shouldn't they? Anyone who is complaining about the police on this board should remain silent and enjoy your wonderful sheriff, who was voted in with over 2/3rds of the vote. Enjoy!
don't ya love cops venting on people who " lawyer up " but when the %##$# hits the fan first thing they do is find a lawyer .
same union people banging on the bar about thos wall st bankers ... just as corrupt just not the same $$$$$ amount
When a police officers actions result in a citizen's death that officer has denied that citizen due process. A violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. However, when forced to justify those actions, officers hide behind the same amendment they couldn't care less about when they killed a citizen.
Just issue murder/manslaughter charges to these terrorists and begin the water-boarding proceedings.
FACT:
There is no single group in your community which violates more laws, terrorizes, brutalizes and kills more citizens as a matter of routine than those employed by Metro.
: {
The controversial officers involved shootings <multiple entry wounds in the back> in the Costco parking lot arguably was the crescendo in the approximately 20+ shootings this year under the color of the law.
With the union encouraging the rank and file not to cooperate, the streets of Las Vegas will continue to be dangerous place for the ordinary citizen to navigate.
2011 no doubt will become another year of killings that will occur and subsequent failed findings of over reach.
Let us reign in another gun'smoke year.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Am I crazy or why can't someone call the Department of Justice and let them look into these police shootings. It could lead into some very interesting findings and lead to some real change.
[[In the first test of the county's new rules for reviewing police-involved deaths, officers connected with the Dec. 11 death of a suspect who was shot with a Taser are refusing to cooperate with investigators.]]
++++++
Who do they think they are? The Gestapo?
All hail the new Dictator-Chris Collins. And the thing that Dictator Collins is afraid of is one of the things cops always use to trip up criminals, their changing stories about the events of the case. Cops always ask suspects over and over and over, "tell me what happened"? Now Dictator Collins says "nope", cops aren't going to play that game. Why? I thought the truth was the truth and why be afraid if the truth is on your side. I mean isn't that what the cops always tell us?
Every day police here violate our Constitutional rights with impunity -- rights each officer swore an oath to protect.
Now the shoe's on the other foot. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." - Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
If officers refuse to cooperate with investigators because of the changes made to the inquest, then the police department must change the policy and make procedures clear when using deadly and less than lethal force. The must come up with strict guidelines that clearly show when an officer violate the deadly and less than lethal use of force.
The inquest system is totally ubsurd. The inquest process is a clear violation of the officers due process rights. The officers have no obligation to give up their rights and participate in this kangaroo court. It's about time the union does something about this issue.
The police union has every right and obligation to stand up for the officers rights. It has nothing to do with them trying to "call the shots".
Here we go again.... Another "journalist" on the side of Erik Scott. When describing Erik Scott, why does the description "a West Point graduate" have to be in there? Does that make him sound better since he was shown to be the exact opposite of what you would expect from a "a West Point graduate"? Give me a break, Joe.
This all started over a traffic stop. Speeder stopped, then got stupid. Anyone with half of a brain knows..NEVER RUN FROM THE POLICE. Than again you have a CHOICE, make the wrong choice and YOU WILL LOSE. Every time a loser runs and gets caught, why does it fall on the police shoulders. The police didn't tell the speeder to run, he (the speeder) made a choice. This city or any other city couldn't pay me enough to to SERVE AND PROTECT them. Damned if you do and Dead if the officer dosen't make the right choice.
Yes, it is way past time to bring in the feds to investigate Metro Gestapo police tactics. And it is way past time to have a citizen's police review board.
And it is way past time to fire all Metro officers, do away with the police union, and rehire only those willing to work without a union and at a reasonable pay and benefits level.
Metro is even more of an embarrassment now than ever before. Maybe when an innocent tourist on The Strip is killed by an out-of-control, bully-boy Metro officer, creating international headlines about our rogue police department, something will be done. I don't know exactly what can be done to stop Metro's craziness, but something, somehow has to stop it.
We need a Sheriff with the courage to get help from outside agencies to investigate all these killings. For example, in Washoe County, there is a task force composed of detectives from Reno Police, Sparks Police, and Washoe County Sheriff's Office that investigates police killings. Perhaps because of knowing they might face an actual investigation instead of the dog and pony shows we have seen here, officers in Washoe County kill far fewer people. Unfortunately, we just re-elected our spineless Sheriff.
We need a District Attorney with the courage to charge officers criminally when it is obvious they have done wrong (Cole, Scott et al). Unfortunately, we just re-elected our spineless District Attorney.
Gillespie and Roger should do the right thing and resign. But doing the right thing has never been a priority for either of them. Shame on them.
Thanks Commissioner Steve Sisolak. Now there is LESS justice for those murdered byt Metro.
Yes, the police have incredibly dangerous jobs and yes, like firefighters, they put their lives on the line for the public. That being said, Metro seems out of control and dangerously autonomous. We charge these mostly men with the responsiblility of life and death. They are allowed to carry deadly weapons, have totally super charged cars and are generally very physically fit and strong human beings. The public should respect and support the police force. That doesn't mean that they get a pass on everything they do in the capacity of being a law enforcer. We should not fear our police. Something has run amok inside Metro.
Easy fix. Terminate them for cause. Revoke their pensions and all deferred compensation.
Maybe instead of investigating police involved shootings or deaths we should ask ourselves if it is worth losing a few innocent lives a year in order to keep local crime manageable. If nothing else I certainly hope LVMPD knows the truth about this incident in order to keep it from happening again. It looks bad for Las Vegas and it looks unprofessional as far as police work.
I don't want to prejudge Mr. Collins or his superiors. The dead man may have had an unknown condition or disease and I'm sure when an altercation occurs, the officers responding don't have time to ask that question before deploying arrest tactics.
Taser has a habit of suing coroners that implicate their product in the cause of someone's death, so the actual percentage of deaths (or serious injury) caused by Taser cannot be accurate. If we are conservative and assume 5% of people shot with a Taser (by Law Enforcement) either die or are seriously injured then that is infinitely better than the statistics of being shot by a firearm. This indicates to me that Chris Collins did not intend to kill.
That is generally the tactic of criminal gangs as well, like the old "hole in the wall gang" - don't answer questions.
That's how Martha Stewart got into trouble.
@dukeofdeath....
"Maybe instead of investigating police involved shootings or deaths we should ask ourselves if it is worth losing a few innocent lives a year in order to keep local crime manageable."
Are you insane???
The Sheriff and the DA are elected officials who answer to you, the voter.
If you don't agree with the way those departments are managed elect someone different.
This doesn't change the fact the inquest system is a kangaroo court with no basis in American Constitutional Law.
Metro needs to understand that they are public employees and not a fraternity. Refusing to answer questions at an inquest raises all sorts of red flags. In that instance, if I were the district attorney, I would file charges against the officers. That would force them to go before a judge in an actual trial. Then we would see how pompous they would be.
This is a frightening state of affairs that is no help to our struggling city. Who would want to move somewhere where people are killed regularly by a local police force that thinks it's above the law? The more they continue to behave like this the more fearful people will become of them. The result will be people running from police officers, which will no doubt result in more deaths. Furthermore people will be hesitant to report crimes and criminal activity will continue to rise. How many times have any of you passed someone pulled over at the side of the road with three police cars and six or more officers on the scene? Is this necessary? Isn't this a brute display of force? And when someone gets smart or makes a "furtive move" aren't the other five going to jump in and "help" their buddy? And then won't they all decide to keep their mouths shut when things go wrong?
There are a lot of difficult and highly stressful jobs in the world that put a person's life at risk every day. If you can't handle it then you don't belong in the profession. Murder is murder and manslaughter is manslaughter. The police are not to be acting as judge, jury and executioner. Anyone who defends this sort of behavior is living under a rock. Just because you're white, middle class and have a clean record doesn't mean this kind of thing can't happen to you.
As a Metro Officer, I have disagreed with the "coroners' inquest" for some time (of which I have never partaken). Our Founding Fathers created a simple solution that should take precedent. Its called the Grand Jury, and its in the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution (of which I took an Oath to serve and protect). Yes, its closed door and secretive, which really drives the criminal defense attorneys @ the ACLU crazy, which is exactly why the Founding Fathers set it up that way!
From reading all the complaints, you would think that the majority of Las Vegans cant stand the LVMPD. Yet our Sheriff was over-whemingly re-elected, and opinion polls consistently show a vast majority of the folks appreciate what we do.
I know there are officers on this department who have no business wearing a badge, but I can tell you they are few and far between. A police badge in Southern Nevada is hard to get and easy to lose, and I've seen quite a few come and go in my 12 years.
So to all the haters who never have anything positive to say about me or my team members, best of luck to you. If you ever need our help, just call! You know my number, its 911!
-KOM674-
thank you officer. you have just spent more time, and displayed more sincerity than has been put forth by your sheriff in quite some time.
i for one would like to genuinely thank you!
i would ask one question. if you would concede that "some" bad officers do continue to wear a badge.
- can you please gather together the many good officers on your team, and help the "haters" exspell those who keep kicking mud all over the rest of the department?
they are really causing problems for everybody involved.
again, i truly thank you for taking the time to weigh in and show that there are humans in uniform who care.
john
I think many of you who believe that anyone who has questioned the inquest system is merely a police "hater" are missing the point. People are asking for a fair and impartial system to determine if the death of a citizen at the hands of a law enforcement officer was clearly justified. I don't think anyone in their right mind is asking for the crucifixion of an officer simply because he used lethal force. What such people do want to know is whether the officer followed procedure, used all necessary training and tactics to de-escalate a situation and ultimately had no other choice but to use lethal force.
The only reason our society works is because we have systems of checks and balances that shed light on problems in our systems of government and then we go about the work of trying fix them. That is called progress. When societies loose faith in those systems you will ultimately have a breakdown in them if nothing changes. Why? Because democratic systems of government needs its citizens to buy into and participate in them in order for them to work. Otherwise you end up with either anarchy or tyranny. Perhaps if the new inquest process does not bear fruit ...meaning, instill some perception of confidence in the general public regarding law enforcement's behavior when a citizen dies at it's hands, then we must go back to the drawing board and continue to hash things out. There must be a better way. But to merely have our public servants, paid with our tax dollars, simply refuse to cooperate with policy set forth by our commissioners smacks of a total breakdown in our democratic system. If a teacher hits a student, do they get to clam up? If a public official steals money from it's citizens, does he or she get to simply clam up and continue to keep his or her job? Many examples could be given to describe how this article just doesn't sit well with the general public to be sure.
continued....
...continued from above
When a candidate for the police force completes an application, completes the academy and dons a badge, there is an implicit and explicit understanding that they will be scrutinize and held accountable for their actions, for better or for worse, as any other public servant. It's just part of the job description and no one gets a blank check. But for the very reason that LEOs are catapulted into dangerous situations, there have been efforts at all levels of government to grant them certain affordances (that citizens do not have) when justifying their actions for that very reason. However, with those affordances comes great responsibility, and quite simply.... to clam up contaminates the idea. It also only serves to perpetuate any disdain citizens may have for a broken inquest system and further widens the rift between the public's respect for (or lack of it) police officers in general.
There must be some measure of accountability in cases of police use of excessive force and there must be an impartial, publicly accepted mechanism in place to determine if excessive force was in fact used. Anything short of that is totally unacceptable in a country that is supposed to be a shining example of what a democracy for-the- people is intended to be. Are we a nation of laws undergirded by a Constitution that guarantees our civil liberties or are we not? That is the troubling thing about all of this.
I sincerely hope this can somehow be resolved, but as it stands now, we aren't even close.
So if I shoot & kill someone and I refuse to participate in the investigative process, what happens to me? You better believe I'll be forced to give a statement, even if I shoot some loser who breaks into my house. And who would pay my legal costs, if any, even if police determine the death was justified? Not the taxpayers.
It appears the Police Union believes their membership is above some of the laws they're sworn to uphold. It's a bad joke. The former coroner's inquest process, as the Union would prefer it to remain, is another bad joke. Has any officer EVER been found in the wrong at any of those inquests? I think the answer is none. Really? How can that be? Statistically, if nothing else, it's nearly impossible to believe.
I've had my fill of Metro for a lot of reasons. The main one is that my wife and I have pretty much given up calling Metro when there's suspicious activity in our neighborhood or near our home. It takes an hour or more before a cruiser shows up and that's in the rare instances when one shows up at all.
For almost two years we tried to get Metro to pay attention to an obvious chop shop/crack house in our neighborhood but after repeated visits and Metro doing nothing, we gave up. Instead, Clark County Social Services got wind of the plight of the elderly mother who owned the property, a person who, sadly, was developing dementia and didn't realize she was being taken advantage of by her lousy, no good adult offspring. That's when things changed and, SURPRISE, Metro took an interest in doing something.
I used to be okay with voting for tax increases to fund more police but that ended several years ago. One of the reasons is the appalling waste of our tax dollars on unnecessary "bling" like multi-colored business cards for every officer. As if several colors isn't enough, each card has a shiny gold-colored embossed badge icon on it. Don't believe me? Next time you see a Metro officer, ask him or her for their biz card. Got any idea how much those cards cost the taxpayers? Far more more than can be justified. Multiply that by all the people working at Metro (not just street cops) and it's a big and wasteful cost. What, a simple black and white biz card won't cut it? Please. It's just ONE indicator of the ego, gall and indifference of Metro to the citizens it allegedly serves.
It's pretty sad when citizens no longer trust their own police force. That's how the people in my neighborhood feel about Metro. And one of them is a Metro officer.
"I don't think anyone in their right mind is asking for the crucifixion of an officer simply because he used lethal force."
whitelight, This is EXACTLY what many of the posters on this and the other media sites wanted of Officers, Mosher, Stark and Mendiola after the Erik Scott shooting, before, during and even after the inquest.
They didn't care that Scott was unlawfully carrying 2 guns, and that he was intoxicated to the point that his girlfriend had to hold him up and lead him around. The same girlfriend, who by the way, avoided service of her subpoena to appear at the inquest.
The officers were forced, by Scott's own actions, to use deadly force, and a lot of people that were not there, who have NEVER been in a situation like that, wanted them fired, called them murderers, and even made death threats against the officers.Even after it was showed that the officers followed policy, procedures and the law, there are those that continue to vilify them publicly.
That doesn't sound like a civilized, resonable bunch of folks does it?
The officers' decision to remain silent is fine by me. It shows the new system is working. The officers know they're facing a real investigation now.
@ John, thanks for the compliment, I appreciate it. To answer your question, I've personally come come across 2 "bad cops" in my 12 years. Both of which were fired within 2 years of being hired. By "bad" I mean they lied, stole and were "dirty". They completely violated their oaths. They were the kind of cops that create nightmare scenarios for police supervisors and fellow teammates, and hurt our reputation. There were others I didn't know who were also fired and even indicted. Are there "bad" cops on the force now? Probably, and they too will meet the same fate that all the others do.
There are officers who are lazy, young and inexperienced, apathetic, old and crotchety, irreverent, aggressive and excited, cool and calm, exhausted, energetic, and occasionally rude. I'm guilty of being all those at one time or the other. But 99.999% of the time, the majority of officers, myself included are 100% professional. We're human beings, not robots. Sometimes we have bad days.
As you can see from some of the above comments, we're never going to make everyone happy. Just look at the whining from citizenandvoter! His complaint? Business cards! Give me a break. If thats all he has to bit*h about, I keep on doing what I'm doing! And only supervisors get the fancy cards; I paid for mine with my own cash...
@ DevilDog, Very well said Sir....
We do need a good system that reviews all police shootings. And many other towns need the same thing. Nationally, we do not keep enough information about these.
However, there have been some comments like, "If I shot someone I would have to cooperate." Yes, but you are not in the same position as the officer. We give the police the "right" to shoot another person, we do not give you that right, except under very narrow cirsumstances. Therefore, if we are to second guess an officer's actions the process must be fair all the way around.
Imagine if we did not go the extra mile when investigating an claim against a teacher. If we just reacted without due process the students would soon learn they could make up a story against a teacher they did not like.
We give some professionals alot of responsibility and for the most part they handle it quite well. Lynch mobs never worked, and will not work now.
"If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear".
-LAPD, circa 1968. I remember this well...I learned to swim at the Elysian Park swimming pool while Dad qualified on the shooting range. This is the Police Academy that T.J. Hooker made famous on TV. Great Show, Great Pool, Great Food, Great Picnics, Great Scenery and lots of fun memories climbing in the hills.
Where is T.J. when we need him?
Officer KOM674,
Thank you for your service. Your points are clearly noted. I think the problem that many rationally minded folks were pointing to when all of this began was the apparent one-sided nature of the inquest. Let's take the Erik Scott case for example. Say someone was from out of town and had heard nothing about the case; knew nothing of the evidence that was "NOT" presented; knew nothing about how witnesses were picked; knew nothing more than the information presented at the Inquest itself..... and then had to make a decision. I would bet that 99% of such individuals would have also decided justified.
Here are my concerns about that though. While listeing to the entire Inquest: more time was spent trying to paint a picture of Mr Scott as having been "this kind of guy" or "that kind of guy" and less time was spent focusing specifically on police procedure surrounding the incident. You know as well as I do that officers typically do not know anything about the person that they are about to confront so attemtping to paint the "suspect" as certain way (such as a drug addict) is merely an effort to influence the jury: to get them to believe the person somehow deserved his fate. That is not the purpose of the inquest. The relevant issue is whether the officer(s) followed procedure and was deadly force inevitable under the curcumstances. Therefore, focus on the circumstances and nothing else. That request is neither pro- nor anti- police. It is a request for getting at the details relevant and necessary to address the officers' actions... period.
There were expert witnesses, which anyone who has had any experience inside of a court room understands must be querried six ways to Sunday becuase he or she may forget or ommitt important information that may refute their conclusions. For instance, in the Scott case, the so called "lethal" levels of morphine: most pain management experts understand that there is no hard and clear cutoff for making such a determination. What is more, antidepressants are often prescribed alongside pain medications as they somehow tend to render the pain management more effective. And further, if the levels were "lethal" why was he still alive? Anyway, most of the time this kind of thing is handled by the other side bringing in their own expert witness. Also, witnesses can be hand picked for one side based on police reports. If you are presenting a case that you want the jurors to favor, you will not present witnesses that do not support your mission. In every instance where a juror may have offered testimony that did not favor the DA's case (which is to clear the officers... and if that is not the real intent, it certainly comes across that way), aspects of that juror's credibility were brought into question.
continued...
...continued
Furthermore, any juror who presented evidence that supported the officers' story, did not have his or her credibility addressed. One of which was Mr Shai Liery, the Loss Prevention Supervisor, who I had later learned had an outstanding warrant in Alaska. Now is that impartial?
In reality, these are but a few of numerous instances where the whole Inquest process appeared one sided. In fact, a reasonable person could argue that the case itself doesn't matter; it's the process that stinks. You can contaminate a case that for all intents and purposes that is clearly justified simply by having a process that alludes to favoritism. That is why we have an adversarial system in the regular courts. I would even go so far as to say that the County itself is responsible for how all of this has unfolded by letting the Inquest system go on the way it did, for so long as it did, without changing it in some fashion.
You see, in many ways the Inquest system, as it had been run, gave good officers a bad name by association. Look, I want good cops to be rewarded. I want bad cops taken off of the streets. And I want good intentioned cops that make a mistake to be given the benefit of the doubt because it's a tough job. I want the bad guys to fear the police, and I want honest law abiding citizens to not fear the police. As it stands, I don't think this is the case right now. And what is more, I don't think the Inquest system as it had been practiced helped. And I don't think having the officers do what they are now proposing to do helps either. There's got to be a better way.
@devildog...I want to start off by saying that I agree with the justified finding in the Scott inquest. However, I found it wreckless, unecessary and negligent as well. I heard the testimony of the witnesses who dove for cover, not from a single bullet from Scott's gun, but from weapons I supplied police. Anytime innocent citizens are diving for cover as to not take a cop's bullet, you have to expect the public to have some difficulty with that.
Bad choices were made by all involved. From Scott's decision to even carry a firearm, to LP's reaction to seeing it, to Moesher's decision to let himself become so disgustingly out of shape that he couldn't physically restrain a man so intoxicated that "his girlfriend had to hold him up." (your quote). Perhaps this was the only way for police to respond; I don't know. But, justified or not, there has been no evidence presented that, had Metro never been called, Scott would have done anything other than buy some water, go hiking, and then return home to drift away in a drug stupor.
Considering Metro employs officers who are known to lie and who escalate peaceful situations to the point of force, how can you blame anyone for questioning Metro's actions that day?
This doesn't mean they want their heads. It means they want answers. Truthful answers from a less than forthcoming department and assurances that in the future, we aren't dodging police bullets, but rather absolute in the knowledge that police are there to protect us, and to both enforce and abide law. And the responsibility to ensure the public of this is Metro's and Metro's
alone.
@dukeofdeath... I sure hope that was you volunteering. Heck bring your whole family along. The judicial system is based (as far back as 1760) on the principle that it is better that 10 guilty men go free rather than one innocent suffer.
@whitelight_phantom...And don't forget that the DA's office knew that Officer Yant had out and out lied under oath about seeing things he never witnessed less than seven says before his inquest, yet the jury (who chose to accept Yant's word over physical evidence)never heard about that. With the information they received I can fully accept the justified finding, but what is that worth when everyone knows the jury didn't get the whole story. And, for this I don't blame police (however they should be held accountable as to why a criminal like Yant is still employed) I do however blame the DA's office.
Chunky says:
Criminals and the accused have the right to remain silent and so do the cops!
All the whining cop haters accomplished was killing any form of transparency that we may have had.
Law enforcement is a dirty and dangerous job; sometimes the carpet gets soiled in the process of taking out the "trash" that is stinking up the town.
We're way too soft on crime and criminals in the US, including Vegas. Gangs run wild in our streets and rule our prison yards. Kids grow up with few manners and even fewer consequences for their actions.
Then you get slime-buckets like the family and friends of Erik Scott and Mr. Scott himself who were / are in denial and dangerous, then they cry when the cops have to mop up what should have been a family matter and handled by the family years ago!
Chunky doesn't particularly trust the government or its caretakers but if you want to play quarterback cop try going down to the Strip tonight and help hauling some of the drunks in after they punch and puke on you. Better yet, go help them scrape someone's brains off their dashboard after a wreck.
Cops are the trash collectors of society and there's not a whole lot of recyclable material in the mix.
Happy New Year and lets hope we have a better 2011 than most!
That's what Chunky thinks!
"After those shootings, Commissioner Steve Sisolak pushed for creation of a committee to look at changes in the way the shootings are reviewed." Hmmmmm isn't Sisolak the same person that has been after the firefighters, and now he's after Metro. But yet the man won a 18 million dollar lawsuit against the county. Lets see what branch of the government he goes after next. Will it be the Courts, the Distract Attorneys office, well i guess we will have to wait and see.
Oh and one more thing everybody over a hundred and fifty police officers died in the line of duty in 2010 and about half of them were gunned down. So are they a little leary, let me think about that for a second, DAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. I was pulled over earlier this year on the way to an emergency call at work and do you know where my hands where when the police officer walked up, the same place they would have been if i was in Kearney, Nebraska, Marble Hill, Missouri, or even New York City. The same place that my father taught me on the stearing wheel. And when i talked to the officer i told him i had a knife on me and he asked me to step out and i did and lifted my shirt and pointed out my walet and he told me thank you for letting me know. That is the way to do it when talking to the police. End of discussion.
-KOM674-
Thank you for your service and thank you for protecting us.
And chunky i agree with you a hundred percent.
And by the way forgive me if i am wrong but wasn't Eric Scott under the influence of drug, prescription drugs, but drugs non the less when he was carrying a CW. Even a backwards state like Nebraska that is illegal to carry a concealed weapon under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
If he would have been straight he might be alive today and as far as the man tasered how were the officers to know he had heart trouble what are they suppose to do "Hey sir im about to teaser you do you have heart trouble or any other health issues?" Come on get real. did the scumbag that shot that officer earlier this year stop and ask the police officer if he had any health issues. I don't think so.
And yes the Constitution of the United States offers the right to remain silent. Is that just for the Scumbag punks and nobody else, the last time I checked police officers were covered under the constitution.
You will notice that Police organizations around this Country have been suing to eliminate Miranda Rights for the public while increasing arrest and pre-arrest Miranda Rights for themselves.
"If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear", unless of course, your attorney is incompetent.
I apologize for using the term "juror" several times in my last post when I obviously meant witness. But anyway, the point I was trying to get at is that we need to find a system that is fair for all sides. That is the only way we are going to be able to move forward with this. It's not an us-versus-them matter. It is an issue public policy. No one wants to tie the hands of police officers and make their work any more difficult, particularly in instances where their lives are on the line. But transparency in the process of evaluating the deaths of citizens at the hands of law enforcement is crucial, if the public is going to have confidence in it's police organization and it's actions. The current result, as outlined in this article, is not reflective of how organized governments operate. At least not ones that last very long. It appears to be more an example of a broken system. I know for a fact that we are all better than this kind of schoolyard tit for tat behavior (well at least those of us who give a damn). I honestly hope that the PPA, the commissioners and the committee can go back and continue their exploration into the Inquest process and try to come up with an amicable solution that everyone can live with. For all the officers who put their lives on the line every day and carry out their work with integrity, you are respected by most. Even when it sometimes doesn't seem that way.
they dont want to answer hard questions more than twice. since when are the facts of something, hard to answer. the truth should not be hard to answer nor should it change. And why do they feel they can ask civilians the same questions a dozen times. They are not so above everyone else that special rules should apply to them. The law is still the law. The police need to remember they are supposed to serve and protect the public not just themselves.
@ el_diablo_loco....That number is not entirely accurate. If you look at the Officer Down Memorial page, you will see that after removing deaths by heart attack, then only 128 state or local patrol cops were killed last year. Of those 42 were killed by gunfire. That leaves 67% of officer deaths as accidental deaths. The 42 remaining homicide deaths of officers is less than 8 deaths per 100,000. At last count the rate of citizens killed by cops in the US stands at about 18%. As a disclaimer these numbers do not include Federal Law Enforcement officers. Officers from American Territories or Officers from Native American Reservations. However, the number may also include off duty deaths as well. The number you have has been inflated by nearly 20 heart attack deaths and non local/non patrol officers. These numbers are still preliminary I admit, but so are yours. More complete numbers should be available mid-Jan.
KOM,
You're posting as an anonymous user, do you believe the Yant shooting was justified or not?
@el_diablo_loco:
I call bullship.
You said
"Oh and one more thing everybody over a hundred and fifty police officers died in the line of duty in 2010 and about half of them were gunned down."
Try and make an effort to get your facts right.
It was apx. 160 and firearms were involved in 59 of them. That is far from "about half."
What is "about half?" Seventy-three officers died in traffic incidents, a rise from the 51 killed in 2009. One of those 73 happened right here in Las Vegas, and it was determined the officer was at fault for driving at excessive speed with no emergency lights. Of course, that didn't stop GESTAPO 911 from trying to pin it on an innocent civilian.
2009's toll of 117 officers killed was a 50-year low. But this year's total is more the norm than an anomaly: The number of police deaths has topped 160 five times since 2000, including 240 in 2001. The annual toll routinely topped 200 in the 1970s and before that in the 1920s.
Still, police work doesn't even rate in the top ten of the most dangerous jobs, but they sure do milk it.
@KOM674:
"So to all the haters who never have anything positive to say about me or my team members, best of luck to you. If you ever need our help, just call! You know my number, its 911!"
Correct that: GESTAPO 911.
Gestapo:
"The Gestapo operated without civil restraints. It had the authority of "preventative arrest," and its actions were not subject to judicial appeal."
Encyclopedia Brittanica
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...
When they ask or order a officer not to talk they are trying clear him from his doing bad that is the way CHP,LAPD and it looks like METRO is on borad.
Bad worldwide publicity for world destination playground - LAS VEGAS
BREAKING NEWS;
-Officers in Las Vegas refuse to answer questions in death of man shot with Taser-
or how would this be viewed by residents of Las Vegas,
-Officers in Honolulu refuse to answer questions in death of man shot with Taser
@ KOM674: Singling out my comment about biz cards as "whining" misses the point that such cards are an indicator "species" of the excess and ego of Metro. It is an example of waste and a larger problem. An organization focused on service to the community would see expensive biz cards as a needless use of allegedly precious financial resources. (And the cost difference between simple B&W cards vs your multi-colored, embossed, gold-leaf cards is substantial. Multiply that by the number of officers and staff at Metro and it is real money.) Obviously Metro doesn't see it that way. But if you're going to attempt to steer my overall comments into a narrow corner, then allow me to do the same.
The excesses of Metro, both in behavior and costs, are becoming the stuff of legend. Does anyone think that any Metro staff can justify $200,000 or more in salary? Check it out (copy and paste this link into your browser):
http://www2.8newsnow.com/salaries/search...
I don't doubt that you may very well be one of the "good guys" on the force. But I've had plenty of experience with Metro over the last 5 years--as have my neighbors--in trying to get it to pay attention to what happens in our neighborhood. We are discouraged to say the least. We ALL feel like it's hardly worth calling Metro when something weird or suspicious is going on. Metro just doesn't seem interested.
Here's another example: We've had the occasional stolen and abandoned vehicle show up in our neighborhood. Some have been stripped. In the past one of us would call Metro and an officer would eventually show up. (No problem with the delay; it's abandoned so not going anywhere and we call 311 anyway.) The last time it happened, it was a Saturday. I called 311, the dispatcher took all my info and description of the vehicle plus tags and VIN # (which a person can see through the dash, as you know). After all of that, she then told me I needed to take care of it myself and call some other department at Clark County on Monday. Long story short, she changed her mind after I pointed out to her how that made no sense considering it was quite likely the vehicle was stolen. Sure, you could say that dispatcher was poorly trained. And I can tell you that my wife and other neighbors have had similar discouraging experiences calling Metro.
Anyway, I appreciate your service to the community but, sadly, Metro has a bad reputation that is only getting worse. And your Union makes things worse with the kinds of comments that come out of it's spokespersons and leadership.
I personally would not want to be a police officer. Once back a few lifetimes, I served as a Hospital Security Guard so my rescued wife and her 3 kids could get the best medical care we could afford. Being puked on and spat on and threatened - that's about the worst of it.
One guy who had missed his cancer treatment was highly indignant when told he had to let the other people go first and I had to take him out, first with my tearful and compassionate behavior and then finally with my phone call to the tiny little doctor who came out, greeted the patient and the two of them disappeared into a room.
The psych ward and ER kept us busy, but it's nothing like being a cop. Sure we faced HIV, and all kinds of blood-born pathogens, fires, baby snatchers (we had 500 babies a month and never lost one, though we had actual attempts and nailed them with our code pink), but I would not want the responsibility.
That said, the bargain does not include whatever seems convenient for an officer to handle problems. Carte blanche comes to mind. One friend of mine called the cops about another issue, and when she came back into the room where her gold coins had been kept, all six pounds were misssing, just 96 Krugerrand.
Protect and serve, huh?