Nomination For Hero Badge

My Blivit* Runneth Over


This story has everything. Cops enforcing chicken shit traffic violations, no matter who it kills. Shit heads, of preferred pigmentation, determined to stand up for their right to be an asshole. Female officers who are unable to tell the right from the left. Here are two versions of the dash cam video. First the shooting itself. Then the entire traffic stop (at the link) culminating in the shooting. Watch the entire video.

Lawrence, Kansas

http://www.kake.com/story/40190526/video-shows-kansas-officer-shooting-wounding-man

Where to start. The wounded guy worked his ass off to get shot. He is a shit head that set this confrontation in motion and wouldn’t let up. Did he deserve to get shot? Not the way it went down. That being said, the world would be a better place, had the officer killed him.

The officer that initiated the traffic stop should have recognized that the situation was not going to remain at the level of a traffic contact. Yes sir, no sir, three bags full. He had two choices. (1) Concede defeat, give the idiot a verbal warning and walk away. Or (2) Call for backup, preferably a supervisor. Instead he wasted five minutes arguing with the guy. The officer practiced restraint but nothing he tried diffused the situation. Another officer or supervisor might have connected and been able to calm things down. Failing that, two officers may have been able to physically handle the guy before he worked himself into a rage.

The old line of Ron White comes to mind. He was confronted by six bouncers in a club and observed: “I didn’t know how many of those guys it would take to kick my ass… but I knew how many they planned to use.”

I didn’t see or hear any planning between the two officers. The female officer couldn’t figure out where she needed to be and she received no instructions. She was out of position when the suspect exploded out of the suburban and attacked the lead officer. What she saw was a suspect much bigger than herself actively and aggressively attacking a fellow officer. Let’s pause for a moment to review Kansas law.

Here is the Kansas statute on Use of Force in defending a third person. The second governs Aggravated Battery. I have edited it to emphasize Aggravated Battery (reckless) and Aggravated Battery On a Peace Officer.

21-5222. Use of force in defense of a person. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3211]

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.

(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person. History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3211; L. 2006

Kansas Statute 21-5222


Kansas Statutes 21-5413. Battery; aggravated battery; battery against certain persons; aggravated battery against certain persons
Current as of: 2016
Terms Used In Kansas Statutes 21-5413

(b) Aggravated battery is:

(2) (A) recklessly causing great bodily harm to another person or disfigurement of another person; or
(B) recklessly causing bodily harm to another person with a deadly weapon, or in any manner whereby great bodily harm, disfigurement or death can be inflicted; or

(c) Battery against a law enforcement officer is:
(1) Battery, as defined in subsection (a)(2), committed against a:
(A) Uniformed or properly identified university or campus police officer while such officer is engaged in the performance of such officer’s duty;
(B) uniformed or properly identified state, county or city law enforcement officer, other than a state correctional officer or employee, a city or county correctional officer or employee or a juvenile detention facility officer, or employee, while such officer is engaged in the performance of such officer’s duty;

(d) Aggravated battery against a law enforcement officer is:
(1) An aggravated battery, as defined in subsection (b)(1)(A) committed against a:
(A) Uniformed or properly identified state, county or city law enforcement officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of the officer’s duty;
(B) uniformed or properly identified university or campus police officer while such officer is engaged in the performance of such officer’s duty;

(2) an aggravated battery, as defined in subsection (b)(1)(B) or (b)(1)(C), committed against a:
(A) Uniformed or properly identified state, county or city law enforcement officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of the officer’s duty;
(B) uniformed or properly identified university or campus police officer while such officer is engaged in the performance of such officer’s duty;

(2) Aggravated battery as defined in:
(A) Subsection (b)(1)(A) is a severity level 4, person felony;
(B) subsection (b)(1)(B) or (b)(1)(C) is a severity level 7, person felony;
(C) subsection (b)(2)(A) or (b)(3)(A) is a severity level 5, person felony; and
(D) subsection (b)(2)(B) or (b)(3)(B) is a severity level 8, person felony.
(3) Battery against a law enforcement officer as defined in:
(A) Subsection (c)(1) is a class A person misdemeanor;
(B) subsection (c)(2) is a severity level 7, person felony; and
(C) subsection (c)(3) is a severity level 5, person felony.
(4) Aggravated battery against a law enforcement officer as defined in:
(A) Subsection (d)(1) or (d)(3) is a severity level 3, person felony; and
(B) subsection (d)(2) is a severity level 4, person felony.

Kansas Statutes 21-5413.

I am not a fan, but I think a case can be made that the officer was justified in using deadly force against the suspect. If:

  • She believed that the suspect was engaged in a dangerous felony. The assault on her fellow officer qualifies.
  • She had a reasonable belief that without her intervention the officer would suffer serious bodily injury or death.
  • Her actions were immediately necessary to end the assault.

The officer being assaulted was on his back, with the suspect on top. The assault was continuing and escalating. Any physical altercation between police and a suspect involves a deadly weapon. The officer provided it and it only remains to be seen whether he or the suspect uses it. The video is unclear as to whether during the struggle the officer’s weapon was in play.

Most police policies regarding the use of a taser rule out deployment of a taser in a deadly force situation. Secondly, there is the possibility that the taser, if deployed could have unintended effects. It could debilitate the suspect. It might have no effect on the suspect. It could take the assaulted officer out of the fight.

Had she said, “Die motherfucker, die,”as she shot the suspect, the shooting still would have been justified. However, she said the one thing that negated the justification afforded a person using deadly force.

“OPPS!” Undermines the cool reflection necessary for effective use of deadly force. This statement triggered the Kansas statute for aggravated battery, due to reckless conduct. Drawing a firearm while intending to draw a taser is not an easy mistake to make. Compounding the problem by actually firing it makes a pretty convincing argument for reckless conduct.

To sum up. The law generally discourages people from assaulting other people. When the assault is directed at a specific class of people (police, judges, etc) or involves serious bodily injury or potential death, it is a felony. Kansas calls this act Aggravated Battery.

Kansas law allows third parties to intervene to prevent Aggravated Battery and some felonies. Third parties who intervene may, in certain circumstances, commit Aggravated Battery in order to prevent or mitigate an Aggravated Battery. If their intervention and use of force is justified, then they are excused from the application of the law.

However, the justification and defense is not available to third parties if their intervention was reckless and involves the use of a deadly weapon or serious bodily injury. The female officer intended to use her Taser, got confused and used her firearm instead. She shot the driver in the shoulder. This caused serious bodily injury to the driver, who was committing a felonious assault. She has been charged with Reckless Aggravated Battery.

We’re not done, yet. Consider this possibility. What if the officer’s decision to use the Taser was mistaken? Confronted with a violent felony and Aggravated Battery, the female officer decides to intervene at a lower level of force than is justified by circumstances? What if the use of the Taser was inappropriate but the use of a firearm was appropriate? In other words her intention, to use the Taser was wrong. Her inadvertent use of the firearm was correct. History is replete with examples of seeming bad decisions that results in desired outcomes.

It is situations like this that give police chiefs gray hair.

I wouldn’t be to quick to dump all the blame on this female officer. The community is best served with her in the unemployment line. I think the confrontation illustrates how a situation can escalate for no good reason.

I take issue with the decision not to charge the suspect with the felonies he worked so hard to gain. In taking this path Lawrence, Kansas has identified the next multimillionaire and winner of the Ghetto Lottery.

*A blivit, for those of you that lead a sheltered life, is ten pounds of shit stuffed into a five pound sack.