Significant Case on Rule 2, 3, 4

[John Hearne]

Case link: http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.op...-1141P-01A.pdf

Force Science hasn't posted the article to their web site yet.

From Force Science #306:
"Indeed, the team confronted him in a hallway, roused from bed and startled at what was happening. He immediately complied with orders to lie face down on the floor, hands above his head. An operator was told to watch him while others canvassed the premises.

The officer did so by pointing a loaded M-4 carbine, "with the safety off and his finger on the trigger," at the old man's head, according to the court's recap of the incident.

"At some point," the court recounted, the operator "pulled the trigger of his rifle and shot" the detainee. The single round fatally pierced the man's head, neck, and chest.

The officer claimed the rifle unintentionally discharged when he lost his balance and fell back while trying to handcuff the victim. Everyone acknowledged that he had "no intention of shooting"; the shot "was an accident.""

[Chuck Haggard]

If the facts of the case are exaclty as presented I'd think a solid case for negligent homicide would be easy to prove.

[Duces Tecum]

Thus sayeth the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit:

SNIP For the reasons stated above, we affirm the denial of the defendants' motion for entry of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Costs are awarded to the plaintiffs SNIP

He's toast.

[Wayne Dobbs]

And he should be criminal toast. His negligence was hideous. We've only known the Four Rules for ~40 years and the involuntary contraction/finger on trigger issues for ~30 years. When do you think we should get EVERYBODY on board with that stuff?

[Dagga Boy]

I have been told that safety rules don't apply to SWAT folks because they are "special" and "operators". Weird how we have a set of four things that we absolutely know work to ensure that the wrong folks don't get hurt or killed...and total embrace of those rules are still fought, changed, ignored and often ridiculed or simply paid lip service to.

[TheRoland]

This case was local to me when it happened. There's an interesting dynamic on this one where the police department and the officer involved are still well-liked and the whole town really wanted this to just go away... And it pretty much did. The DA declined to prosecute long ago.

This is why I'm personally quite apprehensive of small-town "SWAT" teams that don't get the level of training one might hope for.

[Wayne Dobbs]

This case was local to me when it happened. There's an interesting dynamic on this one where the police department and the officer involved are still well-liked and the whole town really wanted this to just go away... And it pretty much did. The DA declined to prosecute long ago.

This is why I'm personally quite apprehensive of small-town "SWAT" teams that don't get the level of training one might hope for.

Are you saying the officer kept his job with the PD after this????

[TheRoland]

Are you saying the officer kept his job with the PD after this????

He did. Really explaining would involve a discussion of suburban politics, which might be a big digression for this forum.

It would probably have gone differently in a bigger city or a place with a less positively-viewed department.

[Chuck Haggard]

That makes the Chief there an idiot. I'd suspect if the deceased's family pushes things they have a hell of a lawsuit going, keeping a guy like that sets a pattern of behavior up that would fall under "deliberate indifference".


This would be a case where such a decision might be worth setting a few cars on fire in protest. When the cops actually fuck up big time overlooking it doesn't help anyone and makes the rest of us look bad.

[TheRoland]

I'm no longer local, but I believe that all the other lawsuits have been dismissed or decided in the city/department's favor. This suit against the individual officer is all that remains.