911 Caller Arrested In Deadly Police Shooting

[MJS]

http://news.yahoo.com/911-caller-arrested-deadly-police-shooting-074541485.html

PASADENA, Calif. (AP) — A California 911 caller told emergency dispatchers he'd just been robbed at gunpoint by two men who fled with his computer and backpack.Pasadena Police Chief Philip Sanchez said that call set off a deadly chain of events that led officers to shoot and kill a 19-year-old college student, later identified as Kendrec McDade, late on Saturday night.
McDade was spotted in an alley about two blocks from the spot where Oscar Carrillo told police he'd been robbed, Sanchez said Wednesday.
"The actions of the 911 caller set the minds of the officers," Sanchez said.
McDade ran from officers until an officer used the police cruiser to block McDade's path in an alley and rolled down his window, Lt. Phlunte Riddle said.
McDade allegedly made a motion at his waistband and the officer opened fire. A second officer who was chasing McDade on foot also opened fire, Riddle said.
McDade, who was less than 10 feet away from the patrol car when the officer opened fire, died of his injuries at Huntington Hospital. The Citrus College student was a football standout at Azusa High School.
In an interview Monday with detectives, Sanchez said Carrillo admitted that he made up the story about the gun to speed up the officers' response. Detectives now believe McDade and the other person, a juvenile, were unarmed, Riddle said.
Carrillo was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the officer-involved shooting, Sanchez said.
Sanchez said video from a security camera shows the two young men were involved in the theft of a backpack from Carrillo's car, according to the Los Angeles Times. Sanchez alleged that McDade was a lookout in the theft.
The juvenile co-suspect was charged with two counts of commercial burglary, one count of grand theft and one count of failure to register as a gang member as a condition of his probation, Sanchez said. He remains in custody.

What a shame. I hope the ******* who trumped up this call, gets locked up for many years! Not only was someone killed, when they didn't have to be, but this jack *** endangered the lives of not only the responding officers, but of everyone else who was also in that area.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://news.yahoo.com/911-caller-arrested-deadly-police-shooting-074541485.html

What a shame. I hope the ******* who trumped up this call, gets locked up for many years! Not only was someone killed, when they didn't have to be, but this jack *** endangered the lives of not only the responding officers, but of everyone else who was also in that area.

I would really feel bad if I was one of those officers. You use the information you have, you have to depend upon it to stay alive. A 'furtive move' towards a waistband means something if you have reason to believe the suspect is armed. This is just horrible.

 

[MJS]

I would really feel bad if I was one of those officers. You use the information you have, you have to depend upon it to stay alive. A 'furtive move' towards a waistband means something if you have reason to believe the suspect is armed. This is just horrible.

That is true. The call taker is only as good as the info given/asked. Sadly, in this case, they were given false info.

 

[punisher73]

That is true. The call taker is only as good as the info given/asked. Sadly, in this case, they were given false info.

In many states filing a false police report carries the same penalty as what you lied about. It seems that they could charge him with the penalty for armed robbery, which is a lot of years.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In many states filing a false police report carries the same penalty as what you lied about. It seems that they could charge him with the penalty for armed robbery, which is a lot of years.

I've never heard of that, but he is apparently charged with involuntary manslaughter.

EDIT: I am also reading that the remaining suspect has been identified and arrested; video shows that the two, including the man that was shot, were indeed stealing from the victim's car; but there is no evidence they had a gun or showed one. The victim apparently made that part up hoping to speed police response.

http://news.yahoo.com/911-caller-arrested-deadly-police-shooting-074541485.html

Sanchez said video from a security camera shows the two young men were involved in the theft of a backpack from Carrillo's car, according to the Los Angeles Times. Sanchez alleged that McDade was a lookout in the theft.

The juvenile co-suspect was charged with two counts of commercial burglary, one count of grand theft and one count of failure to register as a gang member as a condition of his probation, Sanchez said. He remains in custody.

The dead suspect's lawyer claims he was involved in no crime and was shot "like a dog" for being "Black at night." The lawyer is doing what she is paid to do, but it won't help racial tensions in Pasadena. This is a tragedy all the way around. No winners, and only the police appear to have been innocent parties to this.

 

[ballen0351]

Around here people add guns to 911 calls all the time in hope we will come faster if we think a gun is involved. Im suprised this does not happen more often.

 

[punisher73]

I've never heard of that, but he is apparently charged with involuntary manslaughter.

I looked it back up in my law book. Previously, I was just going by what my LE instructor's had said and hadn't verified it (should've known better...lol). Here is the statute for a false report.

750.411a False report of crime; violation; penalty; payment of costs by juvenile. Sec. 411a.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who intentionally makes a false report of the commission of a crime, or intentionally causes a false report of the commission of a crime to be made, to a peace officer, police agency of this state or of a local unit of government, 9-1-1 operator, or any other governmental employee or contractor or employee of a contractor who is authorized to receive reports of a crime, knowing the report is false, is guilty of a crime as follows:
(a) If the report is a false report of a misdemeanor, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.
(b) If the report is a false report of a felony, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
(2) A person shall not do either of the following:
(a) Knowingly make a false report of a violation or attempted violation of chapter XXXIII or section 327, 328, 397a, or 436 and communicate or cause the communication of the false report to any other person, knowing the report to be false.
(b) Threaten to violate chapter XXXIII or section 327, 328, 397a, or 436 and communicate or cause the communication of the threat to any other person.

As a side note, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in the People vs. Chavis (2003) that a "false report" also includes when you report false details about a crime. So this person would be looking at a 4 year felony in Michigan just on that charge.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I looked it back up in my law book. Previously, I was just going by what my LE instructor's had said and hadn't verified it (should've known better...lol). Here is the statute for a false report.


As a side note, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in the People vs. Chavis (2003) that a "false report" also includes when you report false details about a crime. So this person would be looking at a 4 year felony in Michigan just on that charge.

Thanks for taking the time to look it up! I learned something!

 

[Steve]

Philosophically, how is this different from the stand your ground law?

This guy did him wrong. He broke a law to guarantee in his mind that justice would be served. The bad guy is killed. In this case, the weapon he used isn't a gun. It was the cops. But philosophically, how is this different from a guy who chases a radio thief down and stabs him in the chest?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Philosophically, how is this different from the stand your ground law?

This guy did him wrong. He broke a law to guarantee in his mind that justice would be served. The bad guy is killed. In this case, the weapon he used isn't a gun. It was the cops. But philosophically, how is this different from a guy who chases a radio thief down and stabs him in the chest?

I think it is fundamentally different because you are misinterpreting what 'Stand Your Ground' means. Intentionally?

Let's review. The right of self-defense is generally recognized as just that, a right. If someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.

Some self-defense laws allow you to defend your own property as well; so if someone breaks into your house, you can defend your property.

Some self-defense laws apply a legal presumption that if a person breaks into your house and is killed by you, that no crime has occurred (Castle Doctrine).

Neither self-defense laws nor Castle Doctrine permit one to pursue a fleeing criminal and 'stab him in the chest', however. One may have the right to pursue a fleeing felon when one has personally witnessed the crime in question and to stop (citizen's arrest) that person, but that is a different set of laws, not self-defense per se.

Many states had a 'Duty to Retreat' clause in their self-defense laws. That is, if attacked, the person being attacked first had to attempt to retreat if such was possible. Only if retreat was not possible could they then defend themselves, particularly if they defended themselves with deadly force. In some states, that included one's home; even Castle laws in some states required a homeowner to flee their home if it was invaded, rather than defend it. Only if they were trapped in the home and unable to jump out a window, for example, could they legally fight back.

"Stand Your Ground" laws were basically attempts to create a presumption that a person did not have to first attempt to escape before they could defend themselves. The political feeling at the time when they started was such that criminals were considered to have the upper hand. For example, in Colorado where I was living (the first or nearly the first SYG law, then known as "Make My Day"), criminals were being injured by the victims they attacked, and then SUING THEM and winning in court, or claiming disability and getting it from the government. This was seen as a serious perversion of justice. As well, if an armed criminal invaded a home and was shot dead by the homeowner, the homeowner would be arrested, have their weapon confiscated, and a Grand Jury would be empaneled to determine if charges should be brought. They seldom were; most shootings of that sort were seen to be fully justified; but the homeowner would typically lose their jobs, sometimes lose their entire wealth defending themselves against the charges, in other words, they would be made victims for having been victims. The "Make My Day" law in Colorado create a legal presumption that if the person was in your house illegally, and you shot them, it was a justified homicide and no criminal or civil charges could be brought. There was at least one case I recall where it appeared the homeowner lured someone they wanted to kill into their home, shot them dead, and then claimed self-defense. I do not recall how that one ended up. Otherwise I have not heard of a lot of abuse of the SYG laws.

Many opponents of SYG have called it a "license to kill," and have predicted dire consequences if various states enacted such laws. But over the past several decades, state after state has adopted a SYG law and the blood has not run in the streets as predicted. This has tended to silence the opposition; it had nearly become a non-issue until now.

No SYG law allows a person to pursue a criminal and stab them in the chest. That is neither self-defense nor SYG.

However, it can also be said that it is not necessarily the case that if a person engages in a behavior that they should not be engaging in, they lose the right of self-defense. It is just not the case.

Some states limit the right of self-defense to people who are not breaking the law. For example, if a person mugs me, and I fight back, they cannot claim self-defense if they fear for their lives and shoot me dead. They were breaking the law at the time. However, in states where that is not required, if two knuckleheads decide to have a fistfight in back of a pub, and one of them beats the other so badly that he fears he is about to be killed, he may be entitled to invoke self-defense as a defense if he shoots the person he was previously voluntarily fighting. He did not lose the right to self-defense just because he was very very stupid and engaged in a drunken fist-fight.

I think that being for or against SYG is a matter of opinion. If you're against it, OK, no problem. However, it seems a lot of people are suddenly against it who don't actually know what it is. That's kind of a problem for me.

 

[Steve]

Okay. Take this: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717572/miami-dade-issues-ruling-in-stand.html

So, in the above case, a guy chases down a radio thief. he was in no danger. He chose to pursue this guy who had done him wrong... stolen his radio. The guy swings a bag of radios at him, and so this guy stabs the thief in the chest, killing him. Murder is usually illegal, but in this case, it is not. He committed a crime and the bad guy dies. And in this case, it apparently doesn't matter that the guy who did the killing hid the knife, lied to the cops and sold a couple of the stolen radios. It was SYG according to the judge because the bag of radios represented a threat.

In the case here, a guy is wronged and calls 911. He commits a crime and the result is that the bad guy is killed. The difference in this case is that the cops were the instrument of death instead of a knife.

I realize that there are practical differences. I'm asking a philosophical question here. Stand Your Ground is really just a way to mete vigilante justice without being accountable to the rule of law. Isn't it? In this case, because the guy didn't physically kill the theif himself, he's accountable.

Anyone ever see the South Park episode from Season 1 where the kids are taken hunting? "It's coming right at me." BLAM. That's the stand your ground law.

Anyway. Just an observation. Not something I've thought too much about. Just a thought that occurred to me as I read the OP.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Okay. Take this: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717572/miami-dade-issues-ruling-in-stand.html

So, in the above case, a guy chases down a radio thief. he was in no danger. He chose to pursue this guy who had done him wrong... stolen his radio. The guy swings a bag of radios at him, and so this guy stabs the thief in the chest, killing him. Murder is usually illegal, but in this case, it is not. He committed a crime and the bad guy dies. And in this case, it apparently doesn't matter that the guy who did the killing hid the knife, lied to the cops and sold a couple of the stolen radios. It was SYG according to the judge because the bag of radios represented a threat.

Yes. The case is straightforward:

"But Bloom, in her order, said that under the law, Garcia “was well within his rights to pursue the victim and demand the return of his property . . . the defendant had no duty to retreat and could lawfully pursue a fleeing felon who has stolen his property.”

"Bloom acknowledged in her order that Garcia did not call police or 911, but went home and fell asleep. He later sold two of the car radios and hid the knife. Those actions, however, did not sway the judge in ruling in favor of his self-defense claim."


A) Garcia was initially the victim. He was within his rights to pursue the thief. Not to kill him (at that point), but to pursue him.

B) Garcia caught up to him and the thief swung the bag of radios at him. That would put anyone in reasonable fear for their life. Taken completely by itself, that alone permits a person to defend themselves with deadly force.

C) Florida's SYG law merely says that Garcia did not have a duty to retreat before defending himself. Even if Florida did not have a SYG law, if Garcia could show that he did not have time to retreat (which I feel confident he could have made), he would still have been legally covered.

D) Garcia did a bunch of illegal **** later; none of which affects the legality or illegality of his actions when he killed the thief.

SYG mattered in the above case, but not that much. All Garcia would have to do would be to argue that he could not reasonably retreat in the face of the threat (the swung bag) and that's that.

In the case here, a guy is wronged and calls 911. He commits a crime and the result is that the bad guy is killed. The difference in this case is that the cops were the instrument of death instead of a knife.

I realize that there are practical differences. I'm asking a philosophical question here. Stand Your Ground is really just a way to mete vigilante justice without being accountable to the rule of law. Isn't it? In this case, because the guy didn't physically kill the theif himself, he's accountable.

I do not see any parallel at all, not even philosophical. Perhaps primarily because I do not agree that SYG is a license to administer vigilante justice.

Anyone ever see the South Park episode from Season 1 where the kids are taken hunting? "It's coming right at me." BLAM. That's the stand your ground law.

No, it's not.

Anyway. Just an observation. Not something I've thought too much about. Just a thought that occurred to me as I read the OP.

Interesting thought, but it reveals a bias that does not jibe at all with the facts of what the law is and is not, IMHO.

 

[Steve]

Okey dokey, then.

One thing, though. Have you seen that episode of south park? If so, how do you not see the similarity? Someone looks at you funny... "oh my god. He's coming right at me.". Blam.

And Wwhat kind of bias am I revealing? I try to be as transparent as possible. Hopefully you aren't accusing me of a hidden agenda. While we all have biases... Even you... I would seriously take it personally Iif after almost 5000 posts you think I'm trying to hide mine.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Okey dokey, then.

One thing, though. Have you seen that episode of south park? If so, how do you not see the similarity? Someone looks at you funny... "oh my god. He's coming right at me.". Blam.

To the best of my knowledge, South Park does not constitute a legal cite, nor are episodes accepted as precedent in court cases. If that changes...

However, I checked it out. Yes, as it turns out I've seen it, if this is the one you're talking about.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149674/its-coming-right-for-us

I'd like my 2:12 back, please.

Yes, it shows a fallacy, doesn't it?

Those wicked old Democrats. Don't they understand that we get to decide whether or not we're in danger and then react accordingly? There is no objective standard, we just say it and we're covered. Wink, wink.

Except...it's not like that.

http://volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-self-defense-laws/

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

"(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;"

Reasonably believes? Well, if I say so, then it's reasonable, right? I can just shoot anyone I want to and then claim I was 'reasonably' in fear, right?

Well...no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

"The reasonable person (historically reasonable man) is a legal fiction of the common law that represents an objective standard against which any individual's understanding or conduct can be measured. "

So who gets to decide what a 'reasonable person' would believe? In the case of an arrest, the police do. In the case of prosecution, the DA does. In the case of a criminal case, the judge and/or jury does.

But Zimmerman does not get to decide what a reasonable person would believe in his case. It's simply not up to him.

And that's why Judge Bill hereby rejects the legal cite of US versus South Park.

And Wwhat kind of bias am I revealing? I try to be as transparent as possible. Hopefully you aren't accusing me of a hidden agenda. While we all have biases... Even you... I would seriously take it personally Iif after almost 5000 posts you think I'm trying to hide mine.

OK, fair enough, and I retract the statement. Let me say that it seems...difficult...for me to believe that you are not aware that a person cannot simply make up their own 'reasonable fear' of death and then shoot whomever they wish. Seriously, you're way smarter than that, so it strikes me as having some other meaning that you would say "Stand Your Ground is really just a way to mete vigilante justice without being accountable to the rule of law." I can understand your not liking the law, but do you really not know at all what it means? If you weren't just pimping me to get a rise out of me...do you really not know?

 

[Steve]

What The hell are you talki g about, bill? Jesus Christ. It's south park. I'm not a lawyer and neither are you. Just watch the episode and try to enjoy it. I, confident that, while certainly not a legal dissertation, you'll appreciate the satire if you can unclench just a smidge.

Edit: and thank you for saying I'm smart. While I understand you didn't exactly say that, I choose to accept it as a compliment anyway.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What The hell are you talki g about, bill? Jesus Christ. It's south park. I'm not a lawyer and neither are you. Just watch the episode and try to enjoy it. I, confident that, while certainly not a legal dissertation, you'll appreciate the satire if you can unclench just a smidge.

My point was to reply to your comment that I could not comment on the 'philosophy' of your argument without having seen it. As I knew what your point was and disagreed with it without seeing the episode, I didn't want to go look at it, but I have been hearing a lot of that lately on MT - if you don't read this or watch that, your opinion is invalid. OK, I saw it. Yay. It's ********.

Funny ********, OK? But ********.

Edit: and thank you for saying I'm smart. While I understand you didn't exactly say that, I choose to accept it as a compliment anyway.

I will say it now; you're quite intelligent and I respect your intelligence. I often agree with you about various things as well. I guess that's why I'm a bit taken aback by this notion that SYG means anyone can shoot anyone dead and then say "He was coming right at me," and the police just say "Oh, fine then, be on your way, citizen, we'll clean this corpse up for you." Doesn't work like that; really even a casual reading of the law should prove that.

It's one thing when we disagree about what a law should or should not be. That doesn't shock me. But when a law says clearly one thing, and you (appear to me) to believe it says something radically different, well, it knocked me for a bit of a loop. Sorry if my response seemed harsh, I didn't mean it that way.

 

[Steve]

Bill. I'm not trying to bust your balls. Honestly, I'm not trying to do much of anything. I am wiped from class. Got my *** handed to me for a couple hours and am drinking a beer and trying to relax.

I'm literally just asking a question and referring to a piece of satire. It's just that. Satire. And it's just as much a satire of the SYG law as it was a satire of hunting.

That's it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill. I'm not trying to bust your balls. Honestly, I'm not trying to do much of anything. I am wiped from class. Got my *** handed to me for a couple hours and am drinking a beer and trying to relax.

I'm literally just asking a question and referring to a piece of satire. It's just that. Satire. And it's just as much a satire of the SYG law as it was a satire of hunting.

That's it.

Got it, my bad. Relax, my friend. Enjoy the brewski; wish I could still partake.

 

[MJS]

Philosophically, how is this different from the stand your ground law?

This guy did him wrong. He broke a law to guarantee in his mind that justice would be served. The bad guy is killed. In this case, the weapon he used isn't a gun. It was the cops. But philosophically, how is this different from a guy who chases a radio thief down and stabs him in the chest?

I wasn't there in either case, but I'd say in this case, the guy heard/saw someone taking something from his vehicle. He gave chase, the badguy swung the bag of radios at him, the victim hit back.

In the Zimmerman case, did he actually see Martin doing anything? Or just walking thru the area?

Personally, anytime you involve yourself, you're going to be taking some seroius risk. Would I chase after someone who just stole something from my vehicle? I'd say it'd depend on the situation. Of course, if I opt to give chase, then I have to take all responsibility for anything that happens to me.

 

[MJS]

Okay. Take this: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717572/miami-dade-issues-ruling-in-stand.html

So, in the above case, a guy chases down a radio thief. he was in no danger. He chose to pursue this guy who had done him wrong... stolen his radio. The guy swings a bag of radios at him, and so this guy stabs the thief in the chest, killing him. Murder is usually illegal, but in this case, it is not. He committed a crime and the bad guy dies. And in this case, it apparently doesn't matter that the guy who did the killing hid the knife, lied to the cops and sold a couple of the stolen radios. It was SYG according to the judge because the bag of radios represented a threat.

In the case here, a guy is wronged and calls 911. He commits a crime and the result is that the bad guy is killed. The difference in this case is that the cops were the instrument of death instead of a knife.

I realize that there are practical differences. I'm asking a philosophical question here. Stand Your Ground is really just a way to mete vigilante justice without being accountable to the rule of law. Isn't it? In this case, because the guy didn't physically kill the theif himself, he's accountable.

Anyone ever see the South Park episode from Season 1 where the kids are taken hunting? "It's coming right at me." BLAM. That's the stand your ground law.

Anyway. Just an observation. Not something I've thought too much about. Just a thought that occurred to me as I read the OP.

In this case, the guy falsely hyped up the call, making it something it wasn't. It seems like the courts decided that a bag full of metal, was a deadly weapon, thus the justification for the victim to use deadly force.