You know, on reflection I’m going to change my answer.
Yes.
At first I was thinking you meant some general, wide-reaching change to the principles of manslaughter and the mens rea associated with it. Changing that is a bad idea.
But a change that could come from this is a tightening of the standards associated with the serving of no-knock warrants, and the level of preparation associated with that event. That would result in being able to say, “The police were grossly negligent because they failed to follow the procedures the law requires.”
Yes, thanks. It was a while ago. So it was negligence on everyones part.
So he says. Blair was backed into a corner, about a dozen feet away from an officer that had a draw weapon that was pointed at Blair. Complete with bright lights pointed in Blairs face. The officer (IMHO) reacted without taking any due diligence to determine what was really up. I think that’s gross negligence on his part.
Someone trained in these tactics should be able to perform better.
How long does it take someone holding a sword and standing twelve feet away to lunge close enough to slice you with the sword?
Answer: less than a second.
“Gross negligence?” No, it’s not.
But you say you think it is gross negligence? I’m wondering what sort of information you relied upon to reach that opinion.
How have courts in Utah defined gross negligence when they have considered the issue, for example? That would be a pretty relevant question to answer.
In this case, the officer had less than a second to decide what to do. You have the advantage of calmly viewing the videotape, unworried that you may be injured. You have the opportunity of pausing it and viewing it frame by frame. The officer did not, and the determination of his conduct must be made from his vantage point, not yours.
From his vantage point, does the evidence show he was utterly indifferent to the consequences that might result? Does it show that he had no care at all? “Even a showing of a mere thoughtless omission or slight deviation from the norm of prudent conduct is insufficient to support a finding of criminal negligence.” State v. Bassett, 495 P. 2d 318, Utah Supreme Ct 1972)
What kinds of information, reference, or research are you relying on to form your opinion that this was gross negligence?
He shot and killed a person before determining if he was a threat.
And from the position Blair was in, from what I saw when I first viewed the tape, he did not look like he was a threat to the officer. I believe that the SWAT officer acted recklessly.
You see it differently. Differently than most people in this thread. We will have to agree to disagree.
It remains unclear to me that the stakes were high enough (i.e. that they were there to arrest a dangerous felon, or that they were expecting to find a major drug haul) to require the creation of a situation where split-seconmd life-death decisions were necessary, but since you acknowledge that tightening standards will help (I was never eager to see the officers criminally charged, but I think firing them is justifiable, or at the very least permanently removing them from the SWAT team) I guess this has been taken as far as it will go.
As an incidental note, I daresay this incident demonstrates the value of videotaping all such entries. Sure, we get hours to calmly dissect them after the fact, but the police had hours to calmly plan before the fact, and should be prepared to take responsibility for their actions.
So, it’s OK for a police officer to get a 9 iron across the jaw? Let’s be honest, he wasn’t holding the club because he was practicing his putting, he intended to hit someone with it, or at least threaten to hit someone with it.
If you’re walking down the street, and a guy jumps from around the corner holding a golf club like that, I’d bet you’d consider him a threat. Yes, you’re not a SWAT officer, but SWAT officers are still human beings, and getting smashed with a golf club is going to harm them too.
If we were to take a frame out of that tape of Blair standing in that doorway and showed it to 100 random people for just one second, what percentage do you think would say they saw a man wielding a sword?
The problem is that “recklessly” has a meaning under the law. It refers to a specific mental state.
It also has a more general, discussion-type meaning. This second meaning is more open to individual interpretation.
So if we’re just generally chatting, I agree that your “reckless” and my “reckless” can be very different things and we can agree to disagree.
But when you start by saying that criminal charges should lie, you have invoked “reckless” in its more technical, legal sense. I don’t think that this meaning is as open to multiple, “agree-to-disagree” interpretations. Utah has a number of court cases that discuss what “reckless” means in the criminal context, and I don’t believe you’re really hewing to that definition when you say the officer’s conduct was reckless. I think you’re using the more general, conversational meaning.
It’s funny you should say that, because last week, I showed the video clip to seven people in my office.
I didn’t say anything to five of them, and then when the clip was over, I asked them what the man was holding. Only one said a golf club. Three said a weapon of some kind. One said a sword.
Two others, I rigged the bet. I told one beforehand that the man was holding a golf club, and he agreed afterwards that it was a golf club.
I told the last one that it was a sword before he watched it, and he agreed it was a sword.
I don’t know if the freeze frame test you propose would make a difference – I suspect it might.
This is where you lose me. I’ve watched you argue for pages the subtleties of “Murder” vs. “Manslaughter” vs normal police procedure and generally agree with you. But you’re willingness to replace the factual “golf club” with “sword” seems designed to mislead. Not “alleged sword” or “possible sword” or “deadly weapon”? If Blair, had he lived, claimed that he saw masked men carrying licorice sticks would you so freely substitute his wording for the facts?
When the officers correctly plan ahead of time, they each are assigned zones, areas of responsibility. Without that assignment, every officer has to look in every direction, which means that he has much less time to evaluate individual events as threats. If each entry officer has to scan a full 180 or 270 degree arc in front of him, he has much less time to see and react than if he’s focused, say, on the left, knowing that the guy next to him is focused on the right.
§ 76-2-103(3). The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances **as viewed from the actor’s standpoint. **
I’m arguing sword because that’s what the officer thought.
If the issue were Blair, then yes, of course, we would consider events from his standpoint.
I can’t imagine how “licorice sticks” would help his case, but sure… if he saw licorice sticks, and that was somehow relevant to the actions he took, then absolutely yes, we’d assume they were licorice sticks for the purpose of evaluating his conduct.
Isn’t that up to a jury though? I think I asked this upthread, but if Blair had been holding a pink teddy bear and the officer said he saw an AK-47, would the officer’s perception be enough to clear him of all charges? If not, can’t we argue that the officer’s perception of reality should be evaluated by a jury?