[Peace-discuss] re Police response in Garden Hills -- A bull horn would have been better than bullets

Mon Jul 9 17:17:46 CDT 2007

Marti,

  The behavior of the police -- shooting at out-of-sight target while others were present in- and outside the house -- was terrible. That they went thru Ms Davis' belongings and dumped the contents of her fridge is just bizarre. 

  It's great that you attended the CU Citizens' Meeting. Please keep us posted.

  Thanks,
  Jenifer

Marti <tvchick at insightbb.com> wrote:
        v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}        st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }                I attended a CU Citizens meeting yesterday and one of the participants has been in contact with Ms. Davis.  The police shot into the house when there were innocent bystanders both inside and outside – a window was shattered and when the officers entered the home they ransacked her belongings including dumping the contents of the refrigerator on to the floor. 

  One of the questions asked by another participant is why did the police not treat this as a hostage situation and bring someone out to mediate the situation. This is a good question and it would be interesting to see what protocol is established in this matter. 

---------------------------------

  From: Jenifer Cartwright [mailto:jencart7 at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 4:10 PM
To: John W.; Marti; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; 'CU at yahoo.com
Subject: [Peace-discuss] re Police response in Garden Hills -- A bull horn would have been better than bullets

    John W. asked me 2 questions --

    <If you wouldn't or couldn't do any better in the officers' position (which implies that you would have had their training, etc.), how can you expect better of them...

    We humans are individuals w/ vastly different talents, temperments and interests. Ideally we choose/train for-/and work in careers/professions that are a good fit for us and avoid those that aren't. Society needs our various and specialized contributions, so it's an advantage that we are not interchangeable cogs. We all strive for excellence working in our chosen fields, and we expect and are entitled to excellence from others working in theirs... We don't take it for granted that this will always be forthcoming without some vigilance on our part, whether we're asking friends to recommend doctors, teachers, roofers, or restaurants... or voicing concerns when we feel we've been short-changed.  By the same token, we all continue to admire, appreciate, and pass on information about a job well done...

    All professions require expertise, intelligence, and dedication, but some require all that and more... Some professions (police work, in this case) also demand great courage, and -- in the face of unpredictable/life and death situations -- the ability to remain calm and rational, to think and act decisively and wisely (sometimes within a fraction of a second), to use authority respectfully, to choose and use tools (weapons and others) appropriately. 

    Police work is work meant for an exceptional few -- most of us (myself included) could not begin to provide services of this quality, nor do we want to live in a society without them. We do nevertheless need, deserve, and support (with our hearts and minds, as well as our tax dollars!) an outstanding police force, and -- beyond roofers and restaurants -- we also have an obligation to be vigilant, and to do what we can to enable the exceptional men and women who provide this necessary service for us to perform at the very highest possible level.

    <What should they have done differently?

    Hmmm... what should the police have done instead of blindly shooting at- and into a building where the suspect was not in sight, but 2 occupants were in full view on the porch and more were known to be present inside... Well, it occurred to me that (while other officers ran to cover the exits) one officer could have grabbed a bull horn and warned the occupants that an armed and dangerous man had entered their house... and then told the suspect that the police had him surrounded and that his best bet was to surrender his weapon and exit the house... 

    But that's just off the top of my head -- I'm not knowledgeable about the various prodecures, tools, and options at the officers' disposal. And although I'm very grateful for- and respectful of- those on the force -- and aware of and extremely sympathetic about the challenges they face -- I do think their performance that night in Garden Hills was dangerous and rash and should not be repeated... and that the community should be reaassured that things will be better. So in the first place, I think Capt Finney should have acknowledged that his officers' performance would be reviewed, assured the community that it would be addressed as necessary because the police are committed to their protection and safety. After that, he should have met with/reprimanded his staff and suggested other/better responses to be used when encountering these and other likely (and unlikely) situations in the future. (I assume staff training is on-going, so this would have been a special
 session.) 

    Jenifer

"John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:

    This comment is interesting.  I admire your honesty, Jen, but it raises an important question.  If you wouldn't or couldn't do any better in the officers' position (which implies that you would have had their training, etc.), how can you expect better of them, and what should they have done differently?

Having been a firefighter for 16 years, I speak from some personal experience.  Making quick decisions with insufficient information while under intense pressure is far from simple or formulaic.  Hindsight is sometimes 20/20 (not always), but one does not have the luxury of hindsight while in the midst of the emergency situation.

And yes, police officers are trained that, if they draw their weapon they should be prepared to use it, and they should shoot to kill.  They shoot for the trunk, and more specifically for the area of the heart.

You raise some excellent points, though - it's hard to shoot to kill if you can't clearly see the target, or if other things intervene between yourself and the target.  If I'm not mistaken, police officers are also trained to NOT shoot in situations where there are a number of innocent bystanders present.  So the police may indeed have made some significant mistakes in how they handled the situation.  It'll be interesting to see what other information comes out.

John Wason

    At 08:33 PM 7/3/2007, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:

    Thanks for sending this Marti -- I'd missed this one entirely -- and Thanks, News Gazette for getting the headline (and story!) right -- Resident Rips Police for Shooting Into House. This was outrageous!!!. I can't believe the Chief of Police is defending such sloppy and dangerous police work! Randomly shooting into the house had every chance of hurting or killing someone innocent, and almost no chance of hitting their intended target!! (It's another question as to whether or not the police should have been shooting at the man at that point anyway, before at least warning him. I think I heard/read a local officer's statement that they're trained to - and  always shoot to kill, that they don't do the Roy Rogers thing and try to wing the guy, shoot his leg to stop him, or shoot out his tires, etc, and that's a scary thing, if I got it right.) 

I caught city council mtg last week (I think) on TV. Several officers presented information on increased patrol in certain areas of town, and it sounded reasonable and appropriate to me, something that residents would appreciate having, something that would increase their safety and well-being, which is what we all want (and which most of us on this list are fortunate to have). I am still persuaded that the plans were and are reasonable and appropriate. 

But if this is the way officers handle situations that make it necessary to have increased police presence -- and worst of all -- if Capt Finney is going to defend THIS case as reasonable and appropriate behavior, I've got a HUGE problem w/ it. Would I do any better if I were in the officers position? No. Do I expect better from them and their supervisors? Yes. 

Jenifer

    Marti <tvchick at insightbb.com> wrote:

    Recently residents of the Garden Hills subdivision received a letter in the mail regarding the increased amount of police activity which would be taking place.  This was done with the ‘good’ of the residents in mind.  One of the results of this increased patrolling is the story below.

  http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2007/06/29/resident_rips_police_over_shots_into 

  According to the resident of this house the man who ran into her place was not firing his gun at the moment, yet police officers maintained open fire and caused damage to the property.  Now if I decided to damage the property of my neighbors they would be well within their rights to charge me with vandalism, yet our police chief defended the actions of his officers when they caused damage to someone’s house.

  I wonder if the City of Champaign will pay for the repairs in this instance. At this point that would be the proper thing to do. 

  Peace, Marti 

---------------------------------

  Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. 

---------------------------------
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070709/a0d999b4/attachment-0001.htm