In mid-July, the Sacramento County District Attorney’s office announced it would shut down the unit in Sacramento that had independently monitored police shootings to determine whether the officers’ actions were justified and whether the investigations into them were conducted thoroughly.
This statistic is critical in evaluating the 11-page letter from District Attorney Jan Scully to the Elk Grove Police Department that exonerated police officers – at least criminally – for shooting a suspect who was handcuffed and seated in the back of a patrol car.
The man was arrested around 3 am after his wife called to complain that he had threatened her and their young daughter. The original release said that the suspect had moved around in the back seat of the police vehicle while handcuffed.
When the suspect had refused to leave the home, he verbally threatened an officer and “remained by a security door in a shooting position,” according to published reports in the Sacramento Bee, taken from the department’s spokesperson.
He was searched, they found no weapon. He was then handcuffed and taken to the police vehicle.
The police then report that the suspect “suddenly started shouting that he had a gun and made quick movements as if he did. An officer using the computer in the driver’s seat quickly left the car and told other officers that [the suspect] said he was armed.”
The Bee went on to report, that he “moved his hands toward his rear waist band, ignoring officers’ commands to keep his hands visible.”
“[The suspect] stretched his body away from the officers and reached below the backside of his waistband where his hands were in his pants positioning as if he was [sic] aiming a weapon,” the report said. “Believing that [the suspect] was about to shoot a weapon and fearing for his safety, along with the safety of the other officers present, the officer with the rifle fired a single round that grazed the left side of [the suspect’s] face.”
He was then taken from the vehicle, and no weapon was found on him, police said.
The Bee reported earlier this week that DA Scully “argued that [Officer Paul] Beckham had reason to believe Hesselbein posed a threat and that he ‘had the right to act in self-defense and in defense of his fellow officers.’ “
The report continued, “Scully outlined the events preceding the Jan. 30 shooting, beginning with a 911 call from Hesselbein’s wife stating he was drunk, abusive, acting like a ‘fool’ and ‘crazier’ than when she phoned police for help two weeks earlier.”
“She also told the dispatcher – who then warned arriving officers – that Hesselbein had recently been released from prison for ‘killing someone,’ referring to his 1998 conviction for involuntary manslaughter, Scully wrote.”
“When officers approached the home on Callippe Way, Hesselbein opened the door and yelled ‘I got something for you mother-(expletive),’ Scully wrote. He raised his hands together and pointed them toward officers, as if he had a weapon, prompting one officer to yell ‘Gun!’ “
The incident eventually ended in the patrol car, as the suspect began yelling “I got a gun” while he put his handcuffed hands down his back waistband.
According to the report, the officer began to worry that he missed a gun during the search and “he told his fellow officers they should proceed as if the suspect had a gun, Scully wrote.”
The officer then warned Mr. Hesselbein “he’d be shot in the head if he didn’t stop moving.”
“After that warning, Hesselbein looked straight at Officer Beckham and made one final hard effort putting his hands down his pants like he was reaching into his waistband to get something,” DA Scully wrote.
The officer then fired the shot.
DA Scully added that the suspect told one of the detectives, “I’m sorry this happened. I don’t blame the officer for doing this. I know he was just doing his job and this was a tough decision he had to make.”
One thing that is critical to understand here is that the DA was evaluating whether there was evidence that a crime occurred. According to the Bee, she did not address whether the officer could have used other means of force to address this situation.
That would seem to be more than a minor question, and Mr. Hesselbein’s attorney Stewart Katz asked this exact question as he called the officer’s action “unreasonable,” given the situation, and also likened it to an execution attempt.
“You couldn’t have Tasered him – instead of lining up your shot with his head?” he told the Bee.
“If you have time to have this discussion with him, you obviously had time to take affirmative steps … short of trying to kill him,” Mr. Katz added. “This isn’t like ‘I saw the motion and reacted instantly.’ They’re literally talking about it.”
It was Mr. Katz who was particularly critical of the DA’s probes into officer-involved shootings.
“I don’t think they’ve ever found a shooting not to be justified,” Mr. Katz told the Sacramento Bee back in July. “You could write their reports with a cookie cutter.”
The Bee at that time said that most large counties tend to have police shooting units, although smaller counties do not. Yolo County is an exception, and it does have a police shooting unit.
However, critics note the close ties between police and District Attorneys, who as prosecutors, must work closely with the police. So, while Yolo County may have investigated and cleared sheriff’s deputies who had shot and killed Luis Gutierrez in 2009, many residents have never accepted those findings as valid.
Subsequent efforts to have independent agencies review the files have likewise engendered skepticism, due to the fact that most of these simply reviewed the original investigation to see if the DA’s office abused discretion – an extraordinarily high standard for evidence.
It is extremely rare for a police officer or other law enforcement officer to be criminally prosecuted for a shooting while on duty. The Oscar Grant incident illustrates the difficulty, and while that resulted in a rare conviction, critics were angered by the conviction of a lesser charge and the relatively light sentence the officer received.
Sacramento’s program illustrates the point. There have been no convictions or criminal prosecutions in the last decade.
However, even that must be viewed in light of Mr. Katz’ own representation that most Sacramento police shootings “seem to have been within the realm of acceptable police behavior and that it has been more than 10 years since” he’s won a payout for a client who sued over a Sacramento law enforcement shooting.
Nevertheless, the problem of independent investigations is not an easy one.
As Marty Vranicar, the assistant chief executive officer of the California District Attorneys Association, told the Bee back in July, “We know that a lot of DA’s offices are dealing with severe budget cuts. This takes a tremendous amount of resources.”
Indeed, there are few other agencies equipped to be able to investigate such a complicated event as a police shooting.
Some cities like Davis have their own Police Oversight offices, and some have an Auditor or Investigator. Davis’ Robert Aaronson is part-time and receives a salary of $50,000 per year for his work.
However, that number would skyrocket if there were a police shooting. When Mr. Aaronson investigated grand jury complaints about the fire department, the cost of that investigation was $30,000 and was probably a low estimate. A police shooting would be far higher.
The concern that many like Allen Hopper, who is the police practices policy director for the Northern California ACLU, have is that cutting such offices from the DA’s office sends the wrong message to the community.
“It sends the wrong message to the community,” Mr. Hopper said. “There are relatively few investigations of this sort, but they are incredibly important. They really do strike at the heart of the relationship between the police and the community.”
Perhaps, but there would appear to be no really good answer as to how to get impartial oversight into police shootings. While the DA may clear a lot of these cases, the county and local agencies will still end up paying out thousands if not millions in civil settlements.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]“You couldn’t have Tasered him – instead of lining up your shot with his head?” he told the Bee.[/quote]
Now how the heck do you get near enough to Taser a suspect inside a patrol car, without getting shot first if he did have a gun? The defendant brought this on himself, he admitted he did, and I’m not seeing a reasonable alternative here…
[quote]While the DA may clear a lot of these cases, the county and local agencies will still end up paying out thousands if not millions in civil settlements.[/quote]
If the DA clears the cases, why would the county and local agencies still end up paying out thousands if not millions in civil settlements? Please give examples. Has Sac County paid out thousands or millions in civil settlements from any of the cases the Sacramento DA cleared? Is it possible that the Sacramento DA cleared cases that were in fact all justified police shootings?
There is no question law enforcement and the DA work very closely together, so it is questionable whether any DA can really be objective when it comes to reviewing a law enforcement shooting. I certainly still have questions about the Gutierrez incident, and am not satisfied with the Yolo County DA’s oversight nor the state Attorney General’s review of the case. But how do you get unbiased oversight? No easy answers there…
Another thought that comes to mind. If you believe that there is no way the review units in the DA’s offices can provide truly objective oversight of law enforcement, then aren’t we wasting a lot of money for these pro forma review units? If you cannot get objective independent reviews through the DA’s Office, then perhaps it is time to slash them from the budget for cost savings… In other words you cannot have it both ways. Either the DA’s Office provides some oversight or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then there is no point in paying for something that is not getting the job done…
What this actually illustrates is why you NEVER tell the cops yo have a gun and reach for it. Not one word in this commentary mentions the stupidity of John Hesselbein. Cops have missed weapons during searches and been killed.
[url]http://univisionsacramento.univision.com/noticias/video/2011-05-19/mujer-fue-arrestada-con-una[/url]
Why, when met with a threat of deadly force, should we expect officers to respond with anything less?
“Now how the heck do you get near enough to Taser a suspect inside a patrol car, without getting shot first if he did have a gun? “
I think the range of a taser is at least as far as he was away when he shot him. I understand the guy had something coming, the part I don’t get is why the first shot was with a gun not a taser. Also, I am a little concerned that the officer thought he hadn’t checked well enough, that could have been a fatal error on his part.
“If you cannot get objective independent reviews through the DA’s Office, then perhaps it is time to slash them from the budget for cost savings… In other words you cannot have it both ways.”
Differently people had different views on this. Some believe it is needed, some believe that the office is just a rubberstamp for the police. I don’t see anyone attempting to have it both ways.
“Why, when met with a threat of deadly force, should we expect officers to respond with anything less? “
Isn’t that the purpose of having non-lethal options and training?
The comment that struck me was this: “If you have time to have this discussion with him, you obviously had time to take affirmative steps … short of trying to kill him,” Mr. Katz added. “This isn’t like ‘I saw the motion and reacted instantly.’ They’re literally talking about it.”
He had time to warn him, have a whole discussion, he didn’t have time to try a taser? That makes little sense.
[quote]Isn’t that the purpose of having non-lethal options and training?[/quote]
It is a partial purpose, not the whole purpose. Non-lethal is the wrong term. The correct term is less lethal. Bean bag rounds can kill people. Tasers, when coupled with drugs or preexisting medical conditions, can be lethal.
Tasers are intended to be taken to a gun fight. The way you are looking at this reminds me of the old saying, “Never take a knife to a gun fight.”
You forget that Tasers are not always effective.
I’m shocked that the comment that stuck with you came from a defense attorney. Telling someone you are going to shoot them is a bit short of a conversation. By the time the officer dropped the rifle, pulled the taser, shot him with the taser, and hoped the taser was effective, the suspect who claimed he had a gun could have pulled it and shot the officer.
You have an officer within feet of a handcuffed suspect who had already motioned at officers like he had a gun. Now he’s handcuffed in the back of a car. We don’t know if this officer had actually done the search of the suspect. The suspect says he has a gun and reaches for where a gun could be hidden (it’s not like he was trying to pull it from his ear). The officer told the suspect he would be shot if he didn’t stop and the suspect continued to reach for the the gun he said he had.
Here are the questions. Why should the officer doubt that this guy is going to pull a gun? If someone is pulling a gun why would you only use a Tazer if you could be killed? Do we expect our officer to go against the possibly being killed with the less force than what they are being threatened by?
[quote]“…the office’s investigations have not resulted in a single criminal prosecution for at least a decade.
This statistic is critical in evaluating the 11-page letter from District Attorney Jan Scully to the Elk Grove Police Department that exonerated police officers – at least criminally – for shooting a suspect who was handcuffed and seated in the back of a patrol car.[/quote]And just why would the statistic be critical for that purpose? Oh, I see, the department has never had a bad shooting in more than a decade. And, every incident has been thoroughly investigated by an independent body trained and sworn to make such investigations. [quote]“One thing that is critical to understand here is that the DA was evaluating whether there was evidence that a crime occurred.”[/quote]And just why is it critical to understand that? Oh, I see, you’re supporting the report that nothing criminal happened.[quote]“Now how the heck do you get near enough to Taser a suspect inside a patrol car, without getting shot first if he did have a gun? ”
“I think the range of a taser is at least as far as he was away when he shot him. I understand the guy had something coming, the part I don’t get is why the first shot was with a gun not a taser. Also, I am a little concerned that the officer thought he hadn’t checked well enough, that could have been a fatal error on his part.”[/quote]You “think” the taser would have done the job. What’s your expert testimony standing on taser operations, and how far were the two apart? I’ll bet the officers thought differently given the guy’s words and actions. Actually, the officer [u]did[/u] check “well enough,” but wouldn’t you have second thoughts if a suspect started acting and stating otherwise. Nice of you to care, though.
It appears everybody involved, including the suspect, feels the officer did the right thing under the circumstances–except you and Mr. Katz. The guy’s lucky he isn’t dead. You’ve done a story here full of innuendo about law enforcement’s actions and evaluations. What relationship does the Oscar Grant case have to do with your thesis, except to disprove it.
Why is this the headline when it contradicts your points: “Elk Grove Officer Shooting Case Illustrates Need for Independent Police Oversight.” Sometimes, it’s just too confusing.
On the other hand, you insist on accepting without question a defense attorney’s blather–and you want us to take it as serious commentary. Do you ever have second thoughts that using defense attorneys as your only sources so much might have resulted in them using you and the [u]Vanguard[/u]?
[quote]“…the office’s investigations have not resulted in a single criminal prosecution for at least a decade.
This statistic is critical in evaluating the 11-page letter from District Attorney Jan Scully to the Elk Grove Police Department that exonerated police officers – at least criminally – for shooting a suspect who was handcuffed and seated in the back of a patrol car.[/quote]And just why would the statistic be critical for that purpose? Oh, I see, the department has never had a bad shooting in more than a decade. And, every incident has been thoroughly investigated by an independent body trained and sworn to make such investigations. [quote]“One thing that is critical to understand here is that the DA was evaluating whether there was evidence that a crime occurred.”[/quote]And just why is it critical to understand that? Oh, I see, you’re supporting the report that nothing criminal happened.[quote]“Now how the heck do you get near enough to Taser a suspect inside a patrol car, without getting shot first if he did have a gun? ”
“I think the range of a taser is at least as far as he was away when he shot him. I understand the guy had something coming, the part I don’t get is why the first shot was with a gun not a taser. Also, I am a little concerned that the officer thought he hadn’t checked well enough, that could have been a fatal error on his part.”[/quote]You “think” the taser would have done the job. What’s your expert testimony standing on taser operations, and how far were the two apart? I’ll bet the officers thought differently given the guy’s words and actions. Actually, the officer [u]did[/u] check “well enough,” but wouldn’t you have second thoughts if a suspect started acting and stating otherwise. Nice of you to care, though.
It appears everybody involved, including the suspect, feels the officer did the right thing under the circumstances–except you and Mr. Katz. The guy’s lucky he isn’t dead. You’ve done a story here full of innuendo about law enforcement’s actions and evaluations. What relationship does the Oscar Grant case have to do with your thesis, except to disprove it.
Why is this the headline when it contradicts your points: “Elk Grove Officer Shooting Case Illustrates Need for Independent Police Oversight.” Sometimes, it’s just too confusing.
On the other hand, you insist on accepting without question a defense attorney’s blather–and you want us to take it as serious commentary. Do you ever have second thoughts that using defense attorneys as your only sources so much might have resulted in them using you and the [u]Vanguard[/u]?
Mr. Obvious:
I think you are starting your questions at the wrong point. The place where I think you have to start your questions is, why was this guy not properly searched to the point where the police apparently had doubts as to whether or not they missed a gun – that action right there put both themselves and the suspect in peril.
Second, the reason I pointed out that comment is that it struck me a very reasonable point. The guy is not reaching for his gun and the officer shooting. The guy is not cooperating, but they are having a conversation. I think the points you make are precisely why a DA would not charge the officer with a crime, but the given that the matter was mishandled, I suspect the suspect here will get a large settlement from police. Ultimately they shoot an unarmed and handcuffed man, something went wrong.
Just Saying:
“And just why would the statistic be critical for that purpose? Oh, I see, the department has never had a bad shooting in more than a decade.”
Or the department has never seen a shooting they don’t like. It would be interesting to compare the number of shootings cleared by the DA to the number of payouts.
“And just why is it critical to understand that? Oh, I see, you’re supporting the report that nothing criminal happened.”
It is crucial to understand that because the standard of criminal prosecution is a lot higher than civil liability.
“You “think” the taser would have done the job. What’s your expert testimony standing on taser operations, and how far were the two apart? I’ll bet the officers thought differently given the guy’s words and actions. Actually, the officer did check “well enough,” but wouldn’t you have second thoughts if a suspect started acting and stating otherwise. Nice of you to care, though. “
Actually one of the officers said from the start they were concerned that they had not searched him properly.
Here: “According to the report, the officer began to worry that he missed a gun during the search and “he told his fellow officers they should proceed as if the suspect had a gun, Scully wrote.””
“It appears everybody involved, including the suspect, feels the officer did the right thing under the circumstances–except you and Mr. Katz. “
Other than the suspect, no one involved is a neutral party including Mr. Katz. I don’t have enough info to make a determination.
“The guy’s lucky he isn’t dead.”
There’s one thing we can agree on.
“You’ve done a story here full of innuendo about law enforcement’s actions and evaluations. “
Actually I did a story based on the accounts of others law enforcement and Mr. Katz. I never drew my own conclusions.
“Why is this the headline when it contradicts your points: “Elk Grove Officer Shooting Case Illustrates Need for Independent Police Oversight.” “
Because the purpose of the headline is to get you to read the story not to serve as a summary of the story.
“On the other hand, you insist on accepting without question a defense attorney’s blather–and you want us to take it as serious commentary. “
I said that?
“Do you ever have second thoughts that using defense attorneys as your only sources so much might have resulted in them using you and the Vanguard? “
You mean I didn’t quote from the DA and others in this case as well? Yes I highlighted the point made by Katz in the comment, I did that in response to another comment.
“Do you ever have second thoughts that using defense attorneys as your only sources so much might have resulted in them using you and the Vanguard? ”
In my experience, defense attorneys for the most part have been extremely guarded as to what they tell me. For the most part what they have told me has been very accurate in terms of their evaluation of cases and whether a case is interesting to follow or not. In articles on cases, we always present both the prosecution’s side of the story and the defense side of the story. For the most part, I would disagree that the defense is the only source because we are always evaluating an entire care. In this article, we quote from a number of people including Mr. Katz so I don’t see how you even make the comment to begin with.
[quote]In my experience, defense attorneys for the most part have been extremely guarded as to what they tell me.[/quote]
When is the last time you heard a defense attorney say, “I’m still looking into the case and at this point I have no comment.” I’m sure it happened once but I’ve never seen it. Defense attorneys are the ones out front going to the media before and during the case, unless a gag order is issued.
I think you should try to find a retired prosecutor to lend an opinion on some of these things.
[quote]I think the range of a taser is at least as far as he was away when he shot him. I understand the guy had something coming, the part I don’t get is why the first shot was with a gun not a taser. Also, I am a little concerned that the officer thought he hadn’t checked well enough, that could have been a fatal error on his part. [/quote]
A taser is ineffective if there is glass or steel in the way. How does the officer tase the defendant without risking his own life by exposing his body to the defendant’s mythical gun? That is the entire point you are refusing to concede. The taser is ineffective if anything is between the officer and the defendant. Whereas a bullet can be shot through glass, and even through the door of a car. In short, how does the officer get close enough to the defendant to tase him without glass or steel intruding into the scenario?
Police officers never can check well enough for weapons. It is not unreasonable for the officer to assume his weapons check missed something if the defendant claims to have a gun. The bottom line, pardon the pun, is defendants hide weapons in all sorts of inaccessible places…
[quote]In my experience, defense attorneys for the most part have been extremely guarded as to what they tell me. For the most part what they have told me has been very accurate in terms of their evaluation of cases and whether a case is interesting to follow or not.[/quote]
How could you possibly know how accurate in terms of evaluation of cases defense attorneys are? From what I can tell in your articles, you accept just about everything defense attorneys say at face value, and admit you have given up trying to talk to the prosecutor. So how balanced a view are you receiving? Defense attorney’s guarded about what they say? Because they claimed to be guarded in what they were saying? Really? That is your logic?
[quote]Other than the suspect, no one involved is a neutral party including Mr. Katz. I don’t have enough info to make a determination. [/quote]
Seems to me you have made the determination this was an unnecessary police shooting of a defendant bc Katz said a taser could have been used… and believe me if a taser had been used, Katz would have said that was overkill too (pardon the pun)! That is what defense attorneys do – defend their clients with whatever argument they can come up with…
DG, the author wrote: [quote]many residents have never accepted those findings as valid.[/quote]
Just how many is “many?”
BTW, in a critical incident where deadly force is at issue police may use the level of force most likley to be successful. They are NOT mandated to start with the lowest and therafter consider each and every rung of the so-called ladder of force…one at a time.
DG, [quote]why was this guy not properly searched[/quote] who told you any officer did not properly search?
Here, when the subject spontaneously stated he had a weapon, under the circumstances the officers should have responded in such a mannner.
Why would anyone do the opposite – assume he was lying to the peril of all?
“When is the last time you heard a defense attorney say”
Usually what they will say is that they is that they are trying to settle the case or it’s a boring case or don’t bother he’s guilty. Although that happened with a trial we are currently following and suddenly the witness said they had made up half the stuff and it became more interesting than even the defense attorney thought.
Like I said, in general I have found the assessments of the defense attorneys to be right on.
“Seems to me you have made the determination this was an unnecessary police shooting of a defendant bc Katz said a taser could have been used”
I haven’t made a determination.
“Just how many is “many?” “
Does it matter?
“BTW, in a critical incident where deadly force is at issue police may use the level of force most likley to be successful. They are NOT mandated to start with the lowest and therafter consider each and every rung of the so-called ladder of force…one at a time. “
I would suggest that is what gets them into trouble in segments of the community and why you are seeing rioting in Britain.
“who told you any officer did not properly search? “
Read the comment from the officer, he was afraid he missed a weapon, that means that he was not properly searched.
[quote]Like I said, in general I have found the assessments of the defense attorneys to be right on. [/quote]
How could you possibly know if their assessments are accurate or not?
[quote]I haven’t made a determination.[/quote]
Your own words:
[quote]the part I don’t get is why the first shot was with a gun not a taser. Also, I am a little concerned that the officer thought he hadn’t checked well enough, that could have been a fatal error on his part. [/quote]
[quote]The comment that struck me was this: “If you have time to have this discussion with him, you obviously had time to take affirmative steps … short of trying to kill him,” Mr. Katz added. “This isn’t like ‘I saw the motion and reacted instantly.’ They’re literally talking about it.”
He had time to warn him, have a whole discussion, he didn’t have time to try a taser? That makes little sense.[/quote]
[quote]Does it matter? [/quote]
Absolutely! Because, in a county of 200,000, when a few hundred people support a cause, that does not really constitute “many,” now does it?
Do you have 20,000 supporters? Does your “many” equate to 1% of the population of Yolo County?
Even if you did “many” may respond by stating 99% is “many.”
Consequently, comparitively speaking 1% is NOT very “many.”
[why don’t you do the math & report back to us like in crime stats write-up]
[quote]would suggest that is what gets them into trouble in segments of the community and why you are seeing rioting in Britain.
[/quote]
and permit me to suggest you study riots a little more as to the motives of the criminal element in the UK – apples to oranges at best…
[quote]Read the comment from the officer, he was afraid he missed a weapon, that means that he was not properly searched. [/quote]
Or in the alternative he began to second guess himself AFTER the perp sponaneously uttered the falshoods re: a firearm THEN elected to take the safest approach, as would a resonably prudent officer under same/similar circumstances…
Actually, what bothers me and nobody has even mention, is that the apparently the only “witnesses” to this event were police officers.
Can you say “revisionist history”?
I am constantly amazed at how the media takes the comments of cops as verbatim fact in these situations.
I personally assume that whatever the police department’s “talking head” says is primarily designed to protect the city from civil suits and to rationalize/justify the constant use of deadly force when it’s not justified.
When was the last time you heard about a cop shooting someone in the leg to wound them vs. emptying the clip into their torso to kill them?
Dead “perps” tell no tales…and all cop shootings are “justfied”.
Jon, LEO training involves stopping the threat — ordinarily at center mass. Try reading up on it…
BTW, some of us still elect to see the glass as half-full, first.