TexasCHLforum.com

Didn't work out too well in this case:

By DAVID SIMPSON
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/26/07

A federal judge Monday awarded $7 million to the mother of a man who was shot to death by a DeKalb County police officer in 2003.

Loretta Luke said she does not expect to collect any money from former DeKalb Officer Alexander Brown, who did not show up for court proceedings in Luke's lawsuit over the death of her 35-year-old son, Stanley Bates. But, she said, "I'm about as excited as if I had [the money], to know that he was held responsible."

Luke called DeKalb police to her home about 3 a.m. on Feb. 2, 2003, saying Bates was trying to enter her house. She had already obtained an arrest warrant against her son for earlier incidents. She said later she got the warrant so Bates, a drug addict, could sober up in jail. Bates was shot and killed just outside Luke's front door.

Brown reported he fired when Bates lunged toward him with a knife. A Police Department review board concluded Bates was too far away from Brown to pose an immediate threat. Brown was fired, although he later reached a deal in which he was allowed to resign. He could not be reached for comment Monday.

Luke sued Brown and the county. Governments have broad legal protection against such lawsuits, and U.S. District Judge Charles A. Pannell Jr. earlier dismissed the county as a defendant. Brown, who was not represented by the county attorney's office, failed to appear for the trial in the lawsuit against him. Pannell ruled against him by default.

On Monday, the judge heard testimony from Luke and other witnesses before awarding $5 million as the value of Bates' life, $1 million for pain and suffering and $1 million in punitive damages.

Asked whether the county could be forced to pay any of the damages, one of Luke's attorneys, Bruce Millar, said, "That is an undecided issue." He declined to comment on what further steps he might take.



Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/ ... 0626a.html

The former officer defaulted. So, there was no evidence for the defense only the plaintiff. Surprisingly, the plaintiff won.

All that this case proves is that the former officer made a bad decision in not hiring an attorney and defending himself in the courtroom.

I am guessing that the former officer is judgment proof so he didn't care how big the judgment might be.

Nazrat wrote:The former officer defaulted. So, there was no evidence for the defense only the plaintiff. Surprisingly, the plaintiff won.

All that this case proves is that the former officer made a bad decision in not hiring an attorney and defending himself in the courtroom.

I am guessing that the former officer is judgment proof so he didn't care how big the judgment might be.

I meant this part:

Brown reported he fired when Bates lunged toward him with a knife. A Police Department review board concluded Bates was too far away from Brown to pose an immediate threat.

Thus they did not buy into his version of the Tueller Distance, whatever it was.

Nothings a guarantee in court, but in the case above, it appears the distance was a bit more then 21ft (or at least that's what his bosses beleived), and there appears to be some dispute on the intentions of the guy with the knife…

http://policecrimes.org/forum/viewtopic ... 238237d701

“October 25, 2004 -- DECATUR -- A DeKalb County police officer who shot a man to death has been allowed to resign instead of being fired.

Alexander Brown was initially fired after a police review board found he violated department policy when he shot Stanley Bates on Feb. 2, 2003.

Brown and another officer said Bates threatened them with a knife. But the review board and police chief Eddie Moody determined no one was in imminent danger.

Government documents show Brown dropped his appeal in exchange for Moody approving a letter of resignation that was dated Feb. 2 -- one day before Brown's firing and exactly one year after the shooting.

Brown and Officer Jerome Clay encountered Bates after Bate's mother, Loretta Luke, called 911 to report that her son was high on drugs and trespassing at her house in south DeKalb County. The officers said Bates ignored their instructions to drop a knife and ran to the front steps, where he failed to get in the front door.

Brown said Bates then turned back toward the officers. Brown shot him three times.

Luke was just inside the closed front door and said she tried to tell the officers Bates would not harm her. She also said the officers were too far away to be threatened by him.

Police investigators concluded Brown was 35 to 40 feet from Bates. Brown claimed he was closer.

Officer Clay supported Brown's decision to shoot and told investigators he would have fired himself but did not have a clear shot. But Clay collapsed and died after playing basketball this summer. Not being able to call Clay as a witness at his appeal hearing was a factor in his decision to drop the appeal, Brown said last week.

In the meantime, Luke said she is glad Brown is off the force. She has also filed a lawsuit against Brown. “

Renegade, your point is well taken though…the Tueller defense is not a get out of jail free card. You will still have to convince the court your use of force was justified…even if the guy was inside 21 feet.

Renegade wrote:Didn't work out too well in this case:

By DAVID SIMPSON
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/26/07

A federal judge Monday awarded $7 million to the mother of a man who was shot to death by a DeKalb County police officer in 2003.

I wonder why this is a federal case. When I first read the article, my first thought was "It can't happen here". Maybe I was wrong.

Liberty wrote:I wonder why this is a federal case.

Civil rights.

Alleged unlawful use of force by police is often made into a federal civil rights violation.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

Liberty wrote:I wonder why this is a federal case.

Civil rights.

Alleged unlawful use of force by police is often made into a federal civil rights violation.

- Jim

I keep in mind that I wasn't there. And I don't know the real distances. Nor the demeanors, it does sound like this is a situation where an officer is held to a higher standard than a civilian. I think in most cases in a Texan court an LEO is given more lattitude than civilians.

Liberty wrote:... it does sound like this is a situation where an officer is held to a higher standard than a civilian. I think in most cases in a Texan court an LEO is given more lattitude than civilians.

I don't think this officer's situation is comparable to a non-LEO self-defense situation. The police are called to intervene in criminal and potentially violent incidents and arrest people. We aren't. The standards have to be different.

Texas courts have a good record with regard to justifiable self defense (aside from a few DAs).

- Jim

casingpoint wrote:Tueller Drill is a victim of Aggie Math. If it takes two seconds to draw and shoot a threat that will reach you in 1.5 seconds, the something over 21 feet is the distance a which a knife, bludgeon, etc would become a lethal threat when the intended victim's gun is in the holster. Of course, it's better to see trouble coming and have your weapon at the ready, avoiding all this draw nonsense. We all can't be like Bill Jordan.

Yes, I agree it could be regarded as "Aggie Math". If it only takes an assailant with a contact weapon 1.5 seconds to traverse 21 feet and it takes you 2 seconds to get your gun out, then you have already been stabbed for a half second. Not good odds huh?

I suppose it goes to show that you must always know what's going on around you.

---
Larry Bird once said, "I can turn off the lights and jump in the bed before it gets dark."

Hoppes

longtooth wrote:All of the above is why I teach in my awareness class, "Your gun may not be your best 1st response." It ma not be possible for it to be your 1st response."

I think our minds must be the first weapon. Not the gun. I would much rather get out of a gun fight that could leave me or my family dead.

My original point was to point out that knowing about the Tuller Drill and documenting that knowledge might save an honest citizen from the grief of a criminal conviction because prior knowledge of it could be used as a defense. My original question asked if someone knew of such a case and if so, what where the details.

I am greatful for all the great comments on my original post! There is a lot of good information and advice in many of these posts.

Hoppes

seamusTX wrote:

Liberty wrote:... it does sound like this is a situation where an officer is held to a higher standard than a civilian. I think in most cases in a Texan court an LEO is given more lattitude than civilians.

I don't think this officer's situation is comparable to a non-LEO self-defense situation. The police are called to intervene in criminal and potentially violent incidents and arrest people. We aren't. The standards have to be different.

Texas courts have a good record with regard to justifiable self defense (aside from a few DAs).

- Jim

Should the standards be higher for a LEO. It appears that the Federal courts introduced a higher standard. I understand that I'm making assumptions that this is a self defense situation and I could be wrong. We as civilians wouldn't be likely to face a federal civil court in a self defense shooting.

Renegade wrote:Didn't work out too well in this case:

By DAVID SIMPSON
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/26/07

Brown reported he fired when Bates lunged toward him with a knife. A Police Department review board concluded Bates was too far away from Brown to pose an immediate threat. Brown was fired, although he later reached a deal in which he was allowed to resign. He could not be reached for comment Monday.

Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/ ... 0626a.html

I note that the Police Review Board states that "Bates was too far away from Brown to pose an imediate threat." What I do not know is if that means 21 feet or 28 feet. When a policeman gets in that situation and the perp is very close, it is nearly impossible for the officer to measure how many feet away that guy with a knife is. Adrenaline is rushing. The heart races, the eyes probably go into tunnel vision and the hearing is nearly shut out. I don't think that too many police boards would overlook all these factors so I wonder how far away the oficer was. I am going to try to find that information out.


This is an excellent case for the information I was seeking. Thank you.

Hoppes

Hoppes wrote: I note that the Police Review Board states that "Bates was too far away from Brown to pose an imediate threat." What I do not know is if that means 21 feet or 28 feet.

From the post above:

"Police investigators concluded Brown was 35 to 40 feet from Bates. Brown claimed he was closer. "

So it looks like they felt he was outside 21-28 ft when he fired. Of course we have no idea who is right, but at least one claim is 35-40 ft.

Liberty wrote:

seamusTX wrote:

Liberty wrote:... it does sound like this is a situation where an officer is held to a higher standard than a civilian. I think in most cases in a Texan court an LEO is given more lattitude than civilians.

I don't think this officer's situation is comparable to a non-LEO self-defense situation. The police are called to intervene in criminal and potentially violent incidents and arrest people. We aren't. The standards have to be different.

Texas courts have a good record with regard to justifiable self defense (aside from a few DAs).

- Jim

Should the standards be higher for a LEO. It appears that the Federal courts introduced a higher standard. I understand that I'm making assumptions that this is a self defense situation and I could be wrong. We as civilians wouldn't be likely to face a federal civil court in a self defense shooting.

Liberty, I want to be clear that the federal courts made no finding regarding any legal standards in this case. The former officer never presented a case in court. He failed to file an answer or appear. The only evidence at the federal court level was presented by the dead man's attorney. As an attorney, I have never lost a default judgment when there is no opposing party in the building.

The police board is where the focus of our discussion should occur since there was only a default judgment taken in court. The only analysis of the reasonableness of the former officer's actions occurred in the police board.

Nazrat wrote: The police board is where the focus of our discussion should occur since there was only a default judgment taken in court. The only analysis of the reasonableness of the former officer's actions occurred in the police board.

You have a point, but the fact that it went Federal court is what piqued my interest. The police board has a right to hold the officer to a higher standard than the court system. Although in this case it looks to me as though the officer might have been dealt a little harshly. Employers can do anything they like I guess.