Cop shot at motorcyclist, final decision

I received this in my inbox today. Sadly, I am not surprised.

I am curious though. Even if they are allowed to disregard passengers, what about anyone that may be in the bullets path who are just in the wrong place at the wrong time? Bullets travel a great distance.


===========================
Date: Oct 4, 2006 10:40 AM
Subject: Cop shot at motorcyclist, final decision

Fellow Motorcyclists,



Having felt sufficient time had passed since the June 11, 2006 officer-involved shooting on Hwy 80 in American Canyon (CHP officer shot one or several times – depending on which news article read – at approaching motorcyclist), I called Lieutenant Johnson at the Solano Area CHP office [(707) 428-2100] to find out what was determined regarding the reasonableness of the shooting.



Per Johnson, the officer was determined to have acted appropriately. Also, Johnson has fielded other inquires from the motoring public on this matter.



Further, Johnson informed me that the CHP has no duty to try to save passengers in motor vehicles operated by suspected criminals. That the CHP officer was within policy to take a shot or shots at an approaching motorcycle with the intent of killing the operator, and with no regard for the innocent passenger, rather than step off the freeway (Johnson said the officer was standing on the freeway at the time of the shooting). Johnson stated if the female passenger in this case was killed, it was entirely the fault of the motorcycle operator and not the CHP officer whose finger pulled the trigger.



Let me state this again: CHP officers have no duty to attempt to remove themselves from harm’s way versus attempting to kill a non-violent criminal with the anticipated additional result of killing an innocent passenger! CHP officers can, at their discretion, elect to immediately kill outright a non-violent offender and innocent bystander rather than track down the alleged offender later at home (as happened in this case, anyway, due only to the poor marksmanship of the cop).



One more time: the inconvenience of a CHP officer having to run off the freeway is sufficent to put an innocent life in mortal danger. One last time, completely distilled: a cop’s inconvenience trumps another’s life.



Very surprising. And, personally, very distasteful.



So much for “To Protect and To Serve.” Or, maybe this statement isn’t on CHP vehicles.

this should get interesting.....

Brian

Have you ever had a job where you needed to cary a weapon? Have you ever been in a situation where someone was trying to take your life or the lives of thoes around you?

It's the cops job to be in harms way so you don't have to be. Were cops to "remove themselves" from situations like this would you bitch that the cop didn't try to stop the person who was trying to run him (or others) down?

Uh... how about "don't get on the back of a bike driven by an asshole?"

Gald it's not my wave.

There's gonna be a lot of dead bodies sliding down the road from now on.

So, what's the deal? The original poster just wants officers to puss out and cower, rather than face the threat? And it's not just CHP who have no duty to retreat - it is all law enforcement officers. You don't back down from a deadly threat. The Army had a guy do that and knew how to deal with him - Private Slovik.

so what exactly did the guy on the bike do? details?

Originally posted by R6Chick
CHP officers can, at their discretion, elect to immediately kill outright a non-violent offender and innocent bystander

Click to expand...

No, they can't.

R6Chick said:

So much for “To Protect and To Serve.” Or, maybe this statement isn’t on CHP vehicles.

Click to expand...

CHP go by "Safety and Service", as in they'll give you speeding tickets to keep you safe, and they'll call a tow truck to get your bum ass off the road if you break down. There is no "protect", and there is no "serve"

it was about prolly 15 years ago that i stopped beleiving in that whole "protect and serve" crap; over the years, the laws that have been made and the way society has changed have only lead us further away from that idealistic phrase



as to the police officers actions.. very hard to blame him - ever tried to run away from a car that was trying to hit you? me neither, but from my experence driving a car, i can tell you and you must agree that hitting someone on foot would be EASY. the officer prolly has a a family and kid to go to and at very minimal a continuance of life to look forward to; so he's gotta do what he's gotta do, and if you have a known criminal acting in a violent manner, driving a vehicle at you - shit man, its time for the gun if you think that is what is the best choice for your own safety (rather than attempt to run away).

a cop SHOULD be able to stand their ground and fire at a vehicle that is attempting to hit them. if the passenger(s) in the vehcile were on the side of the "good guys", then they would have long ago taken control of the driver of the vehcile themselves, and gotten the vehicle stopped.

any passenger in a vehicle that is running from the police, is as much a criminal unless they are making an obvious attempt to twart the driver who is the cause of all of them to be fleeing "suspects".

As I recall, and I may be mistaken, two sportbikers, one with a passenger, were speeding west on I-80. A CHP patrolman heard on his radio about the CHP pursuit after he had stopped another motorist near the Columbus Parkway exit (or maybe up on the crest, near the rest stop). When one of the riders came speeding towards him, the CHP officer determined that the rider was attempting to hit him bodily. Lucky for him that he had the presence of mind to step out of the way. Don't know if he drew his weapon and fired before or after the rider passed him. But I was under the impression it was after he got out of the rider's way that he pulled out his handgun and fired at least two rounds.

The CHP officer was justified in firing at the sportbiker's back. Attempted murder of a LEO is still attempted murder and a crime. And it would have been the rider's fault for putting his passenger at risk had the passenger been struck. And a LEO who doesn't fire his weapon probably will hate him- or herself for not doing so.

Still ... ever hear of the name Sheila Detoy? About 10 years ago or so Sheila, 17, was a passenger in a Mustang being driven by a guy who was wanted on some criminal warrants. The SFPD had a stake out at his Merced Blvd. apt. When he drove into the parking lot, with Sheila and some other guy as passengers, and saw the cops, he tried to drive off. The cops fired their weapons, saying later the wanted man had gunned his car at them. (Heck, maybe they jumped in front of the car, shouting, Police! Stop!) One of the shots killed Sheila, who was in the back seat. The men were uninjured. The wanted guy was prosecuted for her death, even though he didn't shoot her. At the time and some years afterwards, I wanted the cop who killed her to go to prison. But he was found not to be at fault, criminally and, I believe, civilly.

"To protect and serve" is the motto on LAPD's cars. Just because it gets the most airtime from TV and movies doesn't mean it is a banner for the profession - it is just LAPD's patrol car logo, not CHP's or any other agency.

I alway think its "to serve and protect"...

is that an organization's motto?

Cops rock. tough job. some people are assholes, in every walk of life.

but you know that...

Re: Re: Cop shot at motorcyclist, final decision

SpeedyCorky said:

it was about prolly 15 years ago that i stopped beleiving in that whole "protect and serve" crap

Click to expand...

yet, even after this revelation, You still wanted to pursue a career in law enforcement. FASCINATING!!

masameet said:

The CHP officer was justified in firing at the sportbiker's back. Attempted murder of a LEO is still attempted murder and a crime.

Click to expand...

You are assuming that the rider attempted to hit the cop? Sure, he ran and probably endangered plenty, but I don't see any basis claiming attempted murder here.

Firing at the back of the rider is screwed up, unless perhaps it was Osama Bin Laden himself or that the rider for sure had committed some serious crimes and was wanted "dead or alive" or along those lines. While CPH might stick up for their guy, I really hope they might have some different communication and guidelines internally (don't do this).

I would actually like to see the actual communication between the liason officer and the guy who "told what he heard" from the officer.

Based upon the wording in the original post up top, I can say for certain, it has been colored and misquoted. I will bet alot of money on the fact that the CHP officer never once said....

"Johnson informed me that the CHP has no duty to try to save passengers in motor vehicles operated by suspected criminals."

"CHP officers have no duty to attempt to remove themselves from harm’s way versus attempting to kill a non-violent criminal with the anticipated additional result of killing an innocent passenger! CHP officers can, at their discretion, elect to immediately kill outright a non-violent offender and innocent bystander rather than track down the alleged offender later at home (as happened in this case, anyway, due only to the poor marksmanship of the cop)."

"One more time: the inconvenience of a CHP officer having to run off the freeway is sufficent to put an innocent life in mortal danger. One last time, completely distilled: a cop’s inconvenience trumps another’s life."

I can say for certain these words never left the mouth of "Johnson" in any way shape or form. No officer uses the word "kill" when referring to firearms in an official statement. "Stop the threat"...yes, thats very commonly used. Nothing in the penal code gives us the "right" to "kill" out of inconvenience.

Whoever told you this information R6chik is full of crap as to what was told to him. He's adding his own words and coloring the remarks with his own bias. I would carefully read what he told you and see the truth of that. It is very apparent that it is full of things that were never told to him, more so probably things he added out of his own emotions.

If you don't believe me, I would suggest you call the Officer he talked to and get the truth. I would also tell your friend to stop passing on bunk information and pass on what was actually said. I would bet money your friend has a hard-on for cops anyway and it is coloring his opinion.

I am not condoning anything that happened on the freeway that day, I wasn't there. But, sheesh, read between the lines and see what your friend is doing. He's upset over what he thinks should have happened and now is spewing some lies over the internet to his friends for a mad reaction. Stop believing everything you read and read between the lines and consider the source of your information.

brash

Here it is, all laid out for the world to read (PC 835a):

835a. Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that
the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use
reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to
overcome resistance.
A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not
retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or
threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such
officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by
the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape
or to overcome resistance.

My words: As long as the force being used is reasonable, we will not be deemed the agressor, and not lose the right to self defense, nor do we have a duty to retreat.

You gotta' be hitting the pipe long and hard if you actually believe that we can justifiably kill another human being because we are "inconvenienced". That is most certainly nowhere in my "Use of Force" Policy.

RolnCode3 said:

Here it is, all laid out for the world to read (PC 835a)...

Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thx RC3!

Why not let the public go through a B PAD simulator and try a scenario "Shoot or Don't Shoot" situation. Then, maybe then they will realize what LEOs have decide in a millionth of a second.

Oh and before that let them read the Use of Force policy

I think CHP should use "Making New Friends Everyday"

trekuk said:

You are assuming that the rider attempted to hit the cop? Sure, he ran and probably endangered plenty, but I don't see any basis claiming attempted murder here.

Firing at the back of the rider is screwed up, unless perhaps it was Osama Bin Laden himself or that the rider for sure had committed some serious crimes and was wanted "dead or alive" or along those lines. While CPH might stick up for their guy, I really hope they might have some different communication and guidelines internally (don't do this).

Click to expand...

You must have missed the initial story.

In a nutshell: Officers were chasing a speeding sportbike on the freeway. After pursuing officers lost sight of the m/c they were after, another officer downstream happened to get a similar sportbike stopped on an off-ramp. While he was dealing with that rider ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, on the freeway off-ramp, the officer heard on the radio that the chase was back on, they had visual and they were taking the very exit he was stopped on. He turned toward oncoming traffic and saw the fleeing m/c was coming toward him at high speed. The m/c (according to the officer and witnesses) quickly exited the roadway and crossed over the fog line, putting the officer directly into his path on the shoulder. The officer immediately drew his service pistol and fired at the m/c in self defense. The m/c veered away and continued past him, fleeing the scene, apparently unharmed.

Did the officer's quick actions save his life?
Was the m/c rider intentionally trying to threaten or unlawfully dissuade him with the force or threat of being struck by the m/c?
Were the actions of the m/c rider (who was already being intentionally reckless and fleeing officers, in violation of the law) actually intended to cause the officer to fear for his safety and/or the safety of the innocent rider he had stopped?

Despite the claimed intent of the reckless rider, the officer reasonably asserted that he was in fear for his safety and/or the safety of others and he used the force available to him at the time, in an attempt to neutralize or deter the direct and deadly threat he perceived at the time.

Regardless of any coulda-woulda-shoulda's... If a rational officer with the same information, training and experience would have taken the same actions in the same situation (as it unfolded), then this officer cannot be held criminally liable for his actions, regardless of the outcome.

It is not a matter of inconvenience. We have a job to do. Dealing with people you don’t want to "deal with" and containing situations you don’t want to encounter is what we are paid to do. We don’t have to back down. People don’t expect us to back down and the law does not require us to back down or retreat. When faced with a threat, we are expected and empowered to take it on and use all reasonable means to meet that threat on an equal footing (or as equal a footing as we can, with the resources we have at the time).

This means deadly force is met with deadly force. Death is what makes life precious. You may consider it uncivilized. I don’t care. My plan is to make it home to my family at the end of each shift. If the bad guys raise the stakes to life-and-death, I am prepared, just like that officer was, to do what it takes to make it home alive.