Important Links

Hock's Blog

Hock's Downloads

CQC-Facebook

Hock's Facebook

Hock's Seminars

Hock's Shopsite

Hock's Web Page


New Products

Combat Kicks VID

Critical Contact VID

Death Grip of Knife VID

Dominant/Counter VID

First Contact VID

Impact Weapons Book

Knife Book

The Other Hand VID


Lauric Enterprises, Inc.
1314 W. McDermott
Ste 106-811
Allen, TX 75013
972-390-1777

 

 

 


W. Hock Hochheim's

           Combat Centric

Talk Forum for Military, Police, Martial Artists and Aware Citizenry



Hock Hochheim's Combat Talk Forum

  • October 20, 2018, 03:12:35 PM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Shooting at Incoming Car  (Read 985 times)

Hock

  • Administrator
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 6324
    • www.HocksCQC.com
Shooting at Incoming Car
« on: January 18, 2007, 07:21:25 AM »

L.A. OFFICER WINS 2-YEAR BATTLE TO CLEAR HIS NAME
IN CONTROVERSIAL SHOOTING OF 13-YEAR-OLD DRIVER
by Force Science

To the outrage of community activists and some politicians, a Los Angeles
officer who is the central figure in a nationally spotlighted police
shooting has been exonerated of wrongdoing, with the help of findings from
the Force Science Research Center.

LAPD Officer II Steven Garcia, accused of using excessive force in killing
a 13-year-old African-American boy who was accelerating a stolen car toward
him, had earlier been found "out of policy" in the shooting by the city's
Police Commission, a politically appointed civilian oversight body.

But last week [1/8/07], after a 9-day hearing, LAPD's disciplinary Board of
Rights ruled that Garcia's shooting was fully justified and found him "not
guilty," therefore not deserving of punishment. In a 19-page "Rationale"
for the finding, the Board made clear that it relied heavily on an analysis
of the controversial encounter by Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of
the FSRC at Minnesota State University-Mankato.

The Board also cited a sophisticated, real-time reconstruction animation of
the shooting created by Parris Ward, a technical advisor to FSRC, as a
"valuable" part of the evidence "to support the finding of not guilty."

In the Rationale, retired Capt. Bruce Crosley, chairman of the 3-person
rights panel, stated that the Board "put aside any preconceived notions,"
as well as "emotional and political factors," and objectively pursued "as
thorough, complete and exhaustive an examination of...this matter as has
been conducted by any individual or body to date."

The result, he said: "[W]e have determined that Officer Garcia responded
reasonably...."

[To read the Board's full Rationale, go to the website of the Los Angeles
Police Protective League: http://www.lapd.com/article.aspx?a=4662]

Next month it will be 2 years since Officer Steve Garcia and the suspect,
Devin Brown, met in their deadly confrontation. At about 0330 on Feb. 6,
2005, Garcia and his patrol partner, Dana Grant, noticed a red Toyota Camry
(later found to be stolen) being driven erratically, as if the operator
were drugged or drunk.

After the driver ran a stop sign and refused to pull over, a 7-minute chase
on city streets ensued. Then as the driver, later identified as young
Brown, attempted a sharp right turn in a high-crime South LA neighborhood,
he lost control of the car. The Camry bounced over a curb and came to stop
against a wrought-iron fence.

Across the next few seconds, the intersection erupted in chaos:

--Officer Grant bails out of the squad car's driver seat and Garcia out on
the passenger side and take cover behind their respective doors, Glock
pistols drawn;

--Simultaneously, a juvenile passenger in the Camry bolts from that vehicle
and pulls from his waistband what Garcia thinks is probably a gun as he
runs away from the scene;

--Brown jams the Camry into reverse and guns it back toward the squad car,
engine roaring, tires squealing;

--Garcia on the exposed side of the squad backpedals toward the rear as
Brown first smashes the Camry's open passenger door into a light pole and
then plows into the police unit, scraping backward along the passenger side
with a deafening screech;

--As he now moves laterally away from his unit trying to evade the Camry,
Garcia fires 10 rounds at Brown at machine gun speed, hoping to stop him;

--Brown, meantime, has jammed the car into second gear. Seven of Garcia's
rounds hit him. The car moves forward a bit and stops. Devin Brown is dead.

--The confrontation is over. The nightmare battle by Garcia to save his
career is just beginning.

The age and color of Devin Brown (whom the media identified as an "honor
student"), plus the fact that no gun was found on him or in the Camry,
virtually guaranteed a firestorm. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton jetted in
to lead angry protests. The shooting became "the subject of several
investigations, numerous inquiries and countless newspaper articles,
television editorials and radio broadcasts," in the words of the Board of
Rights report.

A cascade of major developments left Garcia facing discouraging prospects:

1. Shortly after the incident and while under intense activist pressure,
the department changed its force policy, essentially banning shooting at
moving vehicles unless a deadly threat other than the vehicle itself is at
hand. This restrictive revision ipso facto sent the message that firing at
cars in circumstances like Garcia's was an inappropriate use of deadly
force.

2. The Los Angeles County DA declined to file criminal charges against
Garcia, citing insufficient evidence, and the LAPD Use of Force Review
Board found the shooting within policy as it existed at the time. Chief
William Bratton agreed, noting that Garcia was legitimately in fear of his
life.

However, a separate internal investigation within the department concluded
that the officer was not in danger when he opened fire. He told
investigators he shot at the Camry's broad back window, but in fact--to his
surprise, he said-evidence showed that his rounds crashed through the rear
passenger-side window and through the open front passenger side where the
door had been torn back by the utility pole. Therefore, investigators
concluded, he had to have been well out of the path of the car and not in
threat when he pulled the trigger.

Indeed, by methods still not clear, the internal investigators concluded
that he was standing 10-15 feet to the side of the vehicle and aimed every
shot. They posited that there had, in reality, been 2 shootings--1 from
close to the rear of the Camry when Garcia was "recoiling" from the car
coming backward and the other--wholly unjustified--from the vehicle's side
when he was "retaliating" for the alleged attempt to run him over.

3. The city's Police Commission, an oversight group, also took issue with
Garcia's actions.

Appointed by the mayor, it's members are all civilians, at least one of
whom is affiliated with the ACLU. Only one Commission member has LE
experience. Roughly a year after the shooting, the group voted 4-1 that
Garcia's insistence that he believed his life to be in danger "was not
objectively reasonable." In the Commission's view, the shooting "violated
department rules and warrants discipline."

4. About 5 months after that, the Los Angeles City Council voted to settle
a civil suit brought by Brown's family through the law firm of the late
Johnny Cochran. The Council handed the suspect's survivors $1.5 million,
reflecting apparently dim prospects that the case could be won in court.

The Police Commission is not empowered to mete out discipline. That
responsibility falls to LAPD's Board of Rights, which for this case
consisted of Capt. Crosley, Capt. Nancy Lauer and Ann Reiss Lane, a
civilian and former member of the Police Commission.

Garcia's future rested with these 3.

"At the very minimum," Crosley noted in the Board's ultimate report, "this
was a unique and challenging endeavor." The Board "considered numerous
witnesses and experts presented by both the department and the accused." It
examined "52 exhibits accepted into evidence." And it made on-site visits
to a police shed where the 2 involved vehicles were preserved and to the
intersection where the shooting occurred.

Garcia's attorneys, provided by the Los Angeles Police Protective League
(the police union), were Michael Stone, who gained national prominence as a
defense lawyer in the Rodney King case, and Gary Ingemunson. They built
their persuasive case on the expertise of 4 key witnesses: Lewinski and
Ward; James Trahin, an independent firearms examiner; and Michael Varat, an
accident reconstructionist.

Using scientific reconstruction methods and the time-stamped record of
radio calls made during the incident, the team was able to establish time
frames for the encounter. From the moment the Camry started backing up
until Devin Brown was shot dead at the wheel spanned a mere 4 seconds. The
shooting itself took less than 2 seconds, Lewinski calculated, based on
FSRC's studies of officers' performance in gunfights and Ward's testing of
Garcia at a range.

Lewinski testified before the Board that there would not have been time for
2 distinct shooting phases to occur, as the department's internal
investigation had speculated. For Garcia to have moved to the relatively
distant and safe position the investigators conjured and to have shifted
emotionally from "recoil" to "retaliation" mode would likely have taken 5
seconds or more, exceeding the total verified time of the encounter,
Lewinski said.

Internal investigators had claimed that the Camry was backing up at only
about 1-2 mph, allowing Garcia ample time to escape. But the
reconstruction, aided by an interpretation of tire marks and the time
frame, established that the vehicle actually reached a speed of 12
mph--rapid movement in the limited confines of the scene. Garcia's position
behind the squad's passenger door was less than 1 1/2 car lengths from the
rear of the Camry at the outset, placing him in imminent jeopardy.

A civilian eye witness--the only 1 of 3 nonpolice witnesses that the Board
considered credible--testified that the Camry "backed up fast" as if Brown
was "smashing the gas," seemingly determined to strike Garcia. Two backup
officers in the pursuit, who were on the scene, described the Camry's
engine revving at high pitch and tires screeching as the car lunged
backward.

Brown was looking directly at him, Garcia testified, and as the officer
tried to move out of the way it seemed that the juvenile adjusted the car
to track him. During his years on the street, Garcia said, "I've thought
about how to get out of the way of a vehicle so I wouldn't have to shoot,
but I never prepared for a vehicle hunting me down."

Citing well-established psychological principles and FSRC studies, Lewinski
told the Board that the noise, the movement, the angles, the tight
proximity and tunnel vision on the oncoming vehicle all would have combined
to make the car appear to Garcia to be even closer, faster and more ominous
than it was.

From interviewing him, there was no doubt in Lewinski's mind that the
officer genuinely considered himself a dead man. Indeed, Garcia said that
an image of his infant son flashed into his mind and he thought "I'm not
going to be a father any more."

FSRC experiments have clearly established that it takes time for an officer
to make the decision to shoot, to begin shooting and then to perceive that
a threat is over and to stop shooting.

This could account for why rounds that Garcia thought he was firing through
the Camry's back window actually entered the vehicle from its right side,
Lewinski explained. Garcia was moving and the car was moving and without
him realizing it their relative positions changed between the time he
decided to shoot and the time the round actually impacted. Even once he
perceived that the threat was over and decided to stop shooting, it would
likely have taken him 2/3 of a second to do so, during which time as many
as 3 "extra" rounds could have been fired, Lewinski said.

The Board's Rationale characterized the testimony of Lewinski, "an
internationally recognized expert on the topic of human performance in
high-stress encounters," as "informative and enlightening" and said it
"clarified" important factors in the case.

Weighing across several days what he had to say, along with the physical
evidence and the testimony of other witnesses, the Board concluded
unanimously that Garcia had not violated LAPD's use-of-force policy as it
then existed.

"
  • ur decision has required that we put ourselves in Officer Garcia's

shoes and try to get inside his head to see what he saw, feel what he felt,
and determine if his actions and decisions were indeed reasonable," the
Rationale stated. "Was Garcia's perception that his life was in imminent
danger a reasonable one? Virtually all the evidence presented...tells us
that it was....Whether Devin Brown was trying to kill Officer Garcia or not
is not the issue; but rather, did the officer reasonably believe his life
was threatened? We believe...that the answer is yes...."

Initially the Board's Rationale was kept confidential because police
disciplinary proceedings in general have been considered private since a
California Supreme Court ruling last year. However, in hopes of quieting an
immediate and intense chorus of criticism from activists and certain city
leaders who labeled the decision biased, unjustified and the consequence of
a secret "star chamber" hearing, Garcia asked that the report be made
public, which it has been.

Even so, the carping continues at this writing, with demands being made to
give more disciplinary power to the civilian Police Commission.

One city councilman did speak out in defense of the Board's exoneration. "I
understand the concerns," said Greig Smith. "But these are the same people
who have been criticizing the Police Department for as long as I can
remember, and no matter what we do they will not be satisfied." Smith is a
reserve officer on LAPD.

After the shooting, Garcia was transferred to a detective assignment where
he remains today. Despite the ordeal of the last 2 years, he intends to
continue his career in law enforcement.

juszczec

  • Level 3
  • ****
  • Posts: 208
Re: Shooting at Incoming Car
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2007, 07:45:41 AM »

How on earth do you go thru something like that and not give up being and LEO?

Someone tries to run him over and then he has to spend time in legal limbo while a bunch of people in comfortable chairs try to determine if he was justified all while being used/influenced by politicians/activists for political gain.

I'd make a lousy LEO.  I know it.  Its why I never pursued such a career.

Hats off to all of you who go into that day after day.

Mark

Shogun79

  • Level 1
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • Keith's Kraal
Re: Shooting at Incoming Car
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2007, 12:32:56 PM »

We are second guessed all the time.  Even by our superiors sometimes, who forget what it was like to be on the road.  Some people have personal agendas that invovled crucifiying police officers, anywhere and anyhow they can.   A recent artile was sent to me stating that police shootings are not about "Black and White" anymore, but about "Black and Blue,"  This was to imply that police officers are shooting "people of color", not just white officers shooting blacks and hispanics.  I for one, am sick and tired of it.  I've done this job for 21 years, and thank God, I have not had to shoot anyone.  I've come close on a few occassions, but the suspects complied with the orders they were given.   I am sure that over the years there have been bad shootings.  Cops are human and capable of making errors.  But what fries me more than anything, is the attitute, that its ok for cops to be killed.  I have heard a public outcry when a police officer is killed.  but, I've also heard the attitute expressed as "Well, the cops are killing people, so its fair for them to be killed.  I'll get off my soapbox, its been one of those days, today.
Logged
"He who passively accepts evil, is as much involved in it, as he who helps to perpetuate it."
 

Download