TX DPS Helicopter Shooting

[The King]

I was being facetious playing the part of the typical ignorant redneck.

I know, and personally I don't have any opinion pro or con on whether this particular shooting was justified, whether or not the suspects were illegal immigrants. I'll leave that up to the professional judgement of legal experts and LEOs.

[Mach1]

professional judgement of legal experts and LEOs.

makes me laff!!!

[ThreeFingerPete]

That's not the way it works. Fewer people get killed by fleeing suspects than by people changing their radio station and crashing. Cops don't get to shoot people suspected of committing crimes.

I'm pretty sure that's the main reason cops are allowed to shoot people.

You must have been a great cop.

Cops are allowed to shoot people when confronted with a threat of deadly force.

The cop would be shooting a suspect.

I said the main reason cops can shoot people is because they are suspected of a crime. They don't generally shoot people who are not suspects.

The MAIN reason that cops shoot people is supposed to be an imminent threat. See below for documentation.

Do you not understand the difference between "suspected of" and "in the process of committing"?

Do you not understand that they are suspects when they commit the crime even on view/in the process of committing?

Regardless of whether or not someone is actually suspected of a crime prior to the instant that a person presents a deadly threat, only then would they be suspects. You know, like if a cop kicked down your door and you shot at him.

A cop cannot shoot a murder suspect if the suspect is non-violent when approached for arrest. There is a difference between suspected of a crime and a real, immediate deadly threat.

Yes. How does that make the people that they do generally shoot, not suspects? It does not.

Even citizens with a CHL can legally use lethal force to stop someone who is endangering someone else's life. How would this be any different for a law officer? They were driving recklessly, fleeing from the police and endangering everyone else on the road as well as their passengers. It's not like a spike strip or ramming the vehicle would have done anything more to protect anyone involved.

So how many people were endangered during this incident? Speculation much?

[ThreeFingerPete]

Let's look at a few sources for the use of force.

http://www.laaw.com/uodfs.htm

Objective Reasonableness Test:

Before we look at the different use-of-deadly-force standards we must look to the overriding standard of Graham v. Conner(4). In Graham, the United States Supreme Court stated that the proper measure to determine whether a law enforcement officer's use of force is excessive, is the "objective reasonableness" test under the Fourth Amendment. The Court stated that the Graham analysis applies to all alleged law enforcement excessive force claims - deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen. Therefore, regardless of which use-of-deadly-force standard an agency adopts, the use of force must meet the Graham Fourth Amendment "objective reasonableness" requirement of seizures.

Now let's look at six major use-of-deadly-force standards. The lowest, least restrictive, use-of-deadly-force standard is the standard enumerated by the United States Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner. The Garner standard, which is also referred to as the "fleeing felon standard," allows for the limited use of deadly force against fleeing felons under three restrictive criteria. Under the Garner "fleeing felon standard," a law enforcement officer can use deadly force against a fleeing felon if: (1) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the felon's escape, (2) the fleeing felon has threatened the officer with a weapon or the officer has probable cause to believe that the felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, AND (3) the officer gives the felon some warning of the imminent use of deadly force - if feasible.

Some jurisdictions which do allow the use of deadly force under the Garner standard do not include all three Garner requirements in their use-of-deadly-force statute. Remember, since a law enforcement officer's use of force is subject to the requirements of the United States Constitution, and because of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, a state, or lower government subdivision, cannot create a use-of-force standard that is less restrictive than the standard defined by U.S. Supreme Court and federal case law as it pertains to individual jurisdictions. A law enforcement agency which adopts the "fleeing felon" standard (assuming the agency is in a jurisdiction that allows the use of deadly force under the "fleeing felon standard") must be sure to include Garner's three requirements - even if these requirements are not enumerated in the state statutes. Therefore, if an agency is in a jurisdiction which allows the use of deadly force under the "fleeing felon standard", the lowest standard that could be adopted must meet the Garner and Graham requirements. It is important to note that some jurisdictions (such as Alaska) do not allow the use of deadly force against a "fleeing felon" as defined by Garner.

...
The next, gradually becoming more restrictive, standard is the "Deadly-Force- Defense Standard." Under the "Deadly-Force-Defense Standard" a law enforcement officer may intentionally use deadly force against an individual only if the officer objectively reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the individual from inflicting imminent death or great bodily harm on the officer or others. The "deadly-force-defense standard" is the standard that most closely approximates most self-defense statutes.

...
Moving up the restrictiveness ladder, the next standard is the "defense of life standard." Often called the "CALEA(7) defense of life standard," the standard requires that, "an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer's own life, or in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury."(8) CALEA expressly prohibits the use of deadly force under the Garner "fleeing felon standard" and the Model Penal Code Standard.(9)

The CALEA "defense of life standard" contains a glaring ambiguity. The standard states that, "an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer's own life," and then the standard goes on to say that an officer can also use deadly force "in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury." The ambiguity arises in that the standard could be construed to mean that an officer can only use deadly force if the officer's life is in jeopardy and not if the officer is in immediate danger of serious physical harm. However, the officer can use deadly force in defense of "any person" in immediate danger of serious physical harm. So the question becomes, is the officer included in the term "any person" under the language of the standard? If the officer is included under "any person" then why is the officer delineated earlier in the standard, where the standard says "including the officer's own life?" If the officer is included in the term "any person" then this standard is identical to the "deadly force defense standard."

The most restrictive (intentionally used) deadly-force standard is the "preservation of life standard" as adopted by the Dallas (Texas) Police Department (among others). The "preservation of life standard" states that, "[r]egardless of the nature of the crime or the justification for firing at a suspect, officers must remember that their basic responsibility is to protect life. Officers shall not fire under conditions that would unnecessarily subject bystanders or hostages to death or possible injury, except to preserve life or to prevent serious bodily injury. Deadly force is an act of last resort and will be used only when other reasonable alternatives are impracticable or fail.(10)" [Emphasis added.] Further, the "preservation of life standard" requires that, "[o]fficers will plan ahead and consider alternatives which will reduce the possibility of needing to use deadly force(11)." [Emphasis added.]

While the "preservation of life standard" is the most restrictive policy that is (usually) intentionally promulgated, there are many policies that place even more restrictive use-of-deadly-force standards on officers. Some agencies, such as the Los Angeles Police Department, state that officers should use only the "minimum force that is necessary."(12) Other policies state that officers will exhaust all alternatives before resorting to deadly force. Many officers might think that these more restrictive use-of-deadly-force standards may not come back to haunt them after a use-of-force incident. However, if you watched the trial of the Los Angeles Police Officers who were accused of using excessive force on Rodney King, you may have noticed that the prosecutor accused Officer Powell of violating departmental policy because even if Officer Powell's use of force was "reasonable", it was still in violation of departmental policy because it was not the "minimum force that [was] necessary."

One more time, please show me where a reason to employ deadly force is "because they're suspected of crimes" but not a felon, immediate threat to Police or other citizens.

[ThreeFingerPete]

Or here, apparently from the LAPD manual-

The LAPD Policy Manual Contains the Following Use-of-Deadly Force- Standards:

Deadly Force Defense Standard - "An officer is equipped with a firearm to protect himself or others against the immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury ..."(13)
Model Penal Code Standard - "An officer is equipped with a firearm ... to apprehend a fleeing felon who has committed a violent crime and whose escape presents a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to others."(14)
Model Penal Code Standard - "An officer is authorized the use of deadly force when it reasonably appears necessary ... To apprehend a fleeing felon for a crime involving serious bodily injury or the use of deadly force where there is a substantial risk that the person whose arrest is sought will cause death or serious bodily injury to others if apprehension is delayed.(15)
The Crystal Ball Approach (using deadly force to PREVENT a crime) - "An officer is authorized the use of deadly force when it reasonably appears necessary ... To prevent a crime where the suspect's actions place persons in jeopardy of death or serious bodily injury ..."(16)
The ANY DOUBT Standard - "... Nor should an officer fire at a `fleeing felon' if the officer has any doubt whether the person fired at is in fact the person against whom the use of deadly force is permitted under the policy."(17)
Unconstitutional Standard (does not specify "imminent" bodily harm - unless officers are supposed to read "imminent" into "reasonable and necessary") - "... Officers are permitted to use whatever force that is reasonable and necessary to protect others or themselves from bodily harm."(18)
The NOT LIKELY Standard - "Officers shall not use deadly force to protect themselves from assaults which are not likely to have serious results."(19)
The Exhaust Other Reasonable Alternatives Standard - "... [F]orce may not be resorted to unless other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or would clearly be ineffective under the particular circumstances..."(20)
The Minimum Force Necessary Standard - "... [I]n keeping with the philosophy that the minimum force that is necessary should be used ..."(21)
The Extreme Caution Standard - "This Department has always utilized extreme caution with respect to the use of deadly force against youthful offenders. Nothing in this policy is intended to reduce the degree of care required in such cases."(22)

Don't like that source? Try this one:

776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.

Connecticut

You asked what procedures Connecticut law requires to be followed when a law enforcement officer uses a deadly weapon that causes someone's death.

...
STATUTORY STANDARDS FOR USING DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE

The law authorizes law enforcement officers to use deadly physical force only when they reasonably believe it is necessary to:

1. defend themselves or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or

2. make an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom they reasonably believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and, where feasible, they have given warning of their intent to use deadly physical force (CGS § 53a-22 (c)).

The law defines “deadly physical force” as physical force that can be reasonably expected to cause death or serious physical injury (CGS § 53a-3(5)). It defines “serious physical injury” as physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ (CGS § 53a-3(4)).

The law specifies that a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which, if true, would constitute an offense. If the believed facts or circumstances would not constitute an offense, an erroneous though not unreasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not make the use of physical force justifiable to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody (CGS § 53a-22(a)).

Anywhere in there that it says that the use of force is justified simply because they are suspected of committing a crime? In each case, you'll note that the use of force revolves around the witnessed intent to do harm, or the apparent immediate threat that the suspect has caused. Want more? Like I said, it's a good thing that you're not a little piggy anymore. Apparently you didn't read that handbook too closely. Probably just like most other officers who were formerly sworn to protect and serve.

I can't find the Texas DPS "general manual" that's supposed to have official policy on the matter, but I'll bet that this goes down as a bad shoot.

[BradM]

I thought we cleared this up when you said that you obviously know that the person being shot is a suspect and I said that's my point? You are a special kind of know it all. And, yes I was a good cop, I just ran into one of my former coworkers this morning that was asking me to come back.

[ThreeFingerPete]

I thought we cleared this up when you said that you obviously know that the person being shot is a suspect and I said that's my point? You are a special kind of know it all. And, yes I was a good cop, I just ran into one of my former coworkers this morning that was asking me to come back.

I find it bothersome that you seemingly don't differentiate between being suspected of a crime and actively trying to kill someone. Are you related to the DPS shooter?

The defining factor in whether or not deadly force is allowed is not the glaringly fucking obvious fact that they're a suspect, but that they're a suspect who is an immediate threat. The fact that they are suspected of a crime is of little consequence if they're attacking an officer. That's my entire point. If it wasn't clear enough in the first response, it was elaborated plainly in the following.

[BradM]

I never said anything about shooting all suspects. You said cops shouldn't be able to shoot suspects. I said that generally all people who are shot by the police are suspects. You are having a really hard time with this aren't you.

[ThreeFingerPete]

I never said anything about shooting all suspects. You said cops shouldn't be able to shoot suspects. I said that generally all people who are shot by the police are suspects. You are having a really hard time with this aren't you.

No, i said that they shouldn't shoot people suspected of a crime. If they are trying to kill a cop, then they've obviously jumped past the point of being "suspected" of anything. If you still want to call them a "suspect", that's fine. It appears that you're incorrectly using "suspect" as a catch-all. The word perpetrator would more accurately be used if you're drawing a distinction between the instant that a person goes from normal citizen to an acting threat against law officers.

Are you able to draw the distinction between someone suspected of a crime and a person who is perpetrating a crime (including one that justifies deadly force)?

[mikec]

Holiday Inn Express. Or Motel 6, doesn't really matter...

[UserX]

So what's the latest on the story? Any news?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/31/guatemalan-immigrants-shot-texas-state-trooper-helicopter_n_2051215.html

The two people killed were in the bed of the truck, not causing a danger to anyone. The only person they had any reason to shoot was the driver, who was a 14 year old kid. Shooting anyone other than the driver, was out of line, IMO. Why not use spike strips, or other means to disable the truck?

Guatemalan Immigrants Shot By Texas State Trooper In Helicopter Gets Referred To Grand Jury

McALLEN, Texas — A grand jury will consider the case of two Guatemalan immigrants killed when a Texas state trooper in a helicopter opened fire to stop a tarp-covered truck that authorities thought was ferrying drugs near the Mexico border, a prosecutor said Wednesday.

Hidalgo County District Attorney Rene Guerra said after meeting with Texas Rangers that the case "will be taken to a grand jury, there's no doubt about that." He added that he asked the investigators to tell the state Department of Public Safety that shooting from helicopters should be suspended until policies are reviewed.

On Oct. 25, a DPS helicopter joined state game wardens near La Joya in pursuit of what they thought was a drug-laden truck barreling down a rural gravel road. Instead, the tarp concealed six passengers including the two Guatemalans who died. La Joya is about 250 miles south of San Antonio.

A trooper aboard the helicopter fired in an effort to disable the truck. Later it was discovered that there were no drugs in the truck, but rather nine Guatemalan immigrants in addition to the driver and another passenger.

The only charge Guerra would confirm was a felony evading arrest for the driver, whom he described as a boy about 14 years old. The boy was detained and later released to a grandmother, he said.

The boy did not show up Tuesday for a scheduled appearance before a judge and state game wardens were actively searching for him, said Texas Parks and Wildlife spokesman Mike Cox.

Asked about charges for the trooper who fired, Guerra said, "That's not even under consideration right now."

Grand juries are investigative bodies. While the district attorney guides them in their efforts and presents evidence, they can take the investigation in any direction they see fit.

"The only thing that we're discussing is an overview of the incident," Guerra said of his meeting with investigators. "They brought preliminary facts and we are redirecting some areas in the investigation."

The Texas Rangers, an elite arm of DPS that often investigates police-involved shootings, is leading the probe.

Guerra asked the investigators to relay to their bosses that the policy that allows shooting from the air should be reconsidered.

"They need to review that policy because of the high risk we have to the public and travelers on the roadways," Guerra said. He said they especially need to consider their policies in areas that transition from rural to more suburban. He said he expected the DPS director and an oversight committee to look into this incident.

Alba Caceres, Guatemala's consul in McAllen, said Tuesday that after interviewing the seven surviving immigrants, there was agreement that the helicopter had been 450 to 600 feet away when the shots were fired. She believes those aboard should have been able to see the truck was laden with people.

All of the immigrants said they had been able to see the helicopter at some point though she said the six in the bed of the truck were covered with a bed sheet. She said Wednesday she was still awaiting death certificates that would allow the repatriation of the bodies.

Killed in the incident were Jose Leonardo Coj Cumar, 32, and Marcos Antonio Castro Estrada, 29. Coj was a father of three who was traveling to the United States because his eldest son needed surgery to repair an arm injured cutting fire wood, Caceres said. Castro was a father of two whose wife is three months pregnant. Both men were from San Martin Jilotepeque, about an hour outside of the Guatemalan capital.

The American Civil Liberties Union and several community groups have scheduled a news conference and prayer vigil at the site Thursday.

[UserX]

No comments on the DPS opening fire on a truck driven by a 14 year old kid? How much danger could there have been running from the police in the middle of the desert? I can't see there being many people around if the police are able to open fire from a helicopter.

[CJ]

No comments on the DPS opening fire on a truck driven by a 14 year old kid? How much danger could there have been running from the police in the middle of the desert? I can't see there being many people around if the police are able to open fire from a helicopter.

It seems like a pretty reasonable answer. They were trying to disable the truck, not shoot the driver. He missed. They thought they were smuggling drugs, and they refused to stop. That's standard practice with the coast guard as well as the DPS as far as I'm aware.