But the evolution of his account which ballistics contradicted to what it became was disturbing and interesting in terms of its impact on his cross-examination. I think the jury was looking for a way out and the defense attorney is one of the best for defending police in criminal cases in the business.

The link says he hit the tires and the radiator. I’ll take that at face value, but I’d like to know what the angles were.

Daniel Riter

His name was Daniel Riter, a senior investigator out of Indio. His story was originally that he was in front of the vehicle and he shot at it to keep it from hitting him. His statement was backed by an Evidence Tech from the D.A.’s office who was with him but contradicted by other witnesses and by ballistics which placed the gun less than two feet away as among other things, there was stifling on the victim’s skin. The shell casing of the bullet that hit the driver was found on the floorboard of the car.

So he changed his story after telling two friends the original version was what had happened. He said he was trying to get away from the vehicle, spun around and the gun accidently discharged which didn’t match with ballistics which placed the muzzle of the gun inside of the car b/c the gun used discharged cartridges to the right and behind. They did 700 trials all on video and all played in court to try to recreate the shooting to get the shell casing to go forward (and thus inside the truck) but the casing stovepiped all but twice and he had to fling the gun forward and the casing still wouldn’t travel foreward far enough. The window of the truck was 2/3 up so he had to put his gun inside the window.

But hey, he’s a cop, and they knew involuntary manslaughter was his only hope. So they constructed an account and the jury either bought it or looked for a way out. The judge sentenced him to seven years. The AG had argued first degree saying that Riter waited with the gun for the truck to come past him. I think it was closer to second degree. It was more than just recklessness and his providing a version of events to investigators which was refuted by ballistics and then claiming amnesia while being spun around didn’t wash in my opinion.

The case was prosecuted by the state AG due to him being a D.A. office employee and he was represented by one of the foremost defense attorneys for law enforcement officers. I saw most of the trial and talked to the driver’s relatives, watched Riter testify and he got upset during his testimony angry, but it was like a cold, chilly anger. Really unnerving.

The county did pay out several million in litigation settlement to the family of the guy killed.

And maybe it’s the Indio office but another investigator killed his entire family before killing himself and another beat his girlfriend and threatened to kill her.

He’s doing seven years in the state pen for involuntary manslaughter.

“”Whatever happened to shooting out the car’s tires and approaching cautiously, …”

Dianne, in all seriousness, have you ever shot a firearm in your life?

You see this sometimes. “Why didn’t they shoot the guy just to wound him?” “Why didn’t they shoot out the car’s tires?” Maybe in the movies or on TV. But in real life it’s pretty much impossible to do that deliberately. It’s way too difficult of a target. Police, military, anyone who handles a gun professionally is taught to shoot for the center of the body mass. To hit any other target quickly, or if the target itself is moving, is just too damn hard. Try to shoot out the tire of a moving vehicle from the front and I guarantee you’ll never hit it. If you don’t believe me, go stand out in front of your car (or a car) from, oh, 40 feet away and see if you can even see the front tire. It’s a miniscule target. Even from the side, it’s not particularly big, and I’ll give you 20:1 odds you won’t hit it, either (and remember, the wheel doesn’t count, just the tire). Especially if it’s moving at all.

Oh, another question; have you ever had a flat tire? I’ve blown tires at all speeds from 15 to 90 mph (I don’t recommend the latter, BTW, it was the front right tire on a rear-wheel drive car, I was actually scared). You keep going for quite some distance, especially if you don’t give a shit about the resultant condition of the tire and/or wheel afterwards. Shooting out a tire - shit, shooting out all the tires - would do the person being targeted by the car the tires were on exactly no good unless they were quite some distance away. Watch Cops when they put down a nail strip to stop someon. Even then, with all four tires shredded, the car keeps going for a 100 yards or so or more.

Were 50 bullets really necessary? Whatever happened to shooting out the car’s tires and approaching cautiously, after calling backup? Even if they heard someone talking about “fetching a gun” the very word “fetching” implies that they did not, currently, have a gun. The best interpretation one can possibly put on this case is that the officers in question were ill trained, in which case the city is liable for not training its police officers better. The police are supposed to protect the public. That implies that they may have to take some risks. Including being willing to give someone the benefit of the very large amount of doubt about their having a gun just because someone MAY have said that they were going to FETCH a gun. If the best law enforcement can do in that situation is shoot 50 times then it’s time for a major overhaul of the law enforcement system.

Well, it would have been nice if the lieutenant hadn’t been hiding beneath the dashboard while his officers were shooting and reloading (in the case of Michael Oliver) and that when an officer is asked by the grand jury why he fired his gun, he would respond by saying something besides “I don’t know” as in the case of Det. Marc Cooper.

Many police shootings at motor vehicles occur when the officer is standing to the side of the car by the driver’s side. So if the car’s moving, it’s not in the process of running him over or hitting him. My city even had two officers shoot at a man in a completely totaled car and they still feared being hit by it, even though the surveilance video showed it was not going anywhere. Another walked behind a stationary vehicle to shoot through the driver’s side of the stationary vehicle. If he’d been in danger, he never would have gone behind a car he had alleged had been backing into him earlier.

Were 50 bullets really necessary? Whatever happened to shooting out the car’s tires and approaching cautiously, after calling backup? Even if they heard someone talking about “fetching a gun” the very word “fetching” implies that they did not, currently, have a gun. The best interpretation one can possibly put on this case is that the officers in question were ill trained, in which case the city is liable for not training its police officers better. The police are supposed to protect the public. That implies that they may have to take some risks. Including being willing to give someone the benefit of the very large amount of doubt about their having a gun just because someone MAY have said that they were going to FETCH a gun. If the best law enforcement can do in that situation is shoot 50 times then it’s time for a major overhaul of the law enforcement system.

I’ve got to say that I don’t know how much credit Rush Limbaugh deserved. I saw a lot of “crossover and vote for Hillary to keep the pot boiling” on a few blogs and never saw anything about “Operation Chaos” or Rush Limbaugh. In fact, I didn’t even know Rush was publicizing this idea (I don’t listen to him and I don’t know anyone who does) until about two weeks ago.

And in Indiana, Obama even pulled in a large chunk of voters who were both White and working-class, so to say it’s “weakening” is hardly the case among the demographic she cited. Both Obama and Clinton are too far to the right of what’s left of the Democratic Party for me, but her words are just so far removed from reality, it’s embarrassing.

Radfem, I don’t know much about New York and less about the police, but I get the impression that the core of the problem is in the origin of the NYPD itself as a tribal militia of Irish and later Italians that was formed for a radically different demographic situation, which ceased to exist decades ago. They may recruit from other communities, but the culture of the force still reflects that origin. Holding officers accountable in criminal courts is certainly necessary, obviously, but isn’t that like closing the barn door after the cow has gotten out?

I think the culture is fairly old as you state. As far as diversity, the NYPD is better some agencies particularly in terms of the percentage of women (roughtly 19% of all officers) being somewhat higher than the national average for large agencies (which is between 13-15%) but the salaries are among the lowest (and start at about $25,000 after being reduced by arbitration several years ago), cap out pretty low and the only way to get higher pay outside of promotion is through “bonus” pay based on arrest numbers. The department “introduced” the latter recently to much fanfare but having talked to ex-NYPD officers, that provision was in place for years.

The reason why I place more emphasis on accountability through criminal courts is because the NYPD has historically been so resistant to reform efforts. They’ve had various commissions including the Knapp and Mollen Commissions which have addressed mostly corruption issues rather than excessive force issues.

History of the NYPD

The NYPD was also the focus of pattern and practice investigations which were tabled when Bush came into office, in connection with both the Abner Louima torture case and the Amadou Diallo shooting.

New York does see more prosecutions of its officers in relation to use of force including lethal force than in other cities probably because it utilizes the grand jury process rather than leaving it up to the discretion of a D.A.’s office but very few of them result in convictions.

Do I even need to comment?

Ron, I was just being snarky, but there is some substance - Rush Limbaugh was crowing this morning abiout the way his “Operation Chaos” affected the outcome in Indiana.

“But the NYPD only reforms its operations when its officers are held accountable in criminal courts.”

Radfem, I don’t know much about New York and less about the police, but I get the impression that the core of the problem is in the origin of the NYPD itself as a tribal militia of Irish and later Italians that was formed for a radically different demographic situation, which ceased to exist decades ago. They may recruit from other communities, but the culture of the force still reflects that origin. Holding officers accountable in criminal courts is certainly necessary, obviously, but isn’t that like closing the barn door after the cow has gotten out?

When dealing with a policeman, you have to be an idiot to do anything without him telling you.

That’s assuming that you know of course it is a police man. My only two runins with police with guns drawn were plainclothed officers who didn’t identify themselves and it was mistaken identity but I thought what would have happened if I weren’t a White woman. I do believe, therefore but the grace of (God or luck or racism) go I.

And yes, a police officer might be a stressed out person with a gun, but he or she’s a highly trained stressed out person with a gun, although I believe at least two of the officers in this case weren’t properly certified at the range (according to documents obtained by members of the 100 Black Police Who Care) It’s amazing that you yourself have laid out the rules that some individuals need just to survive an encounter with them. That in itself indicates a serious problem.

The only consolation in a case like this is that hopefully, the 19 “reforms” that the NYPD has implemented with its very problematic special units (which have a disproportionately higher shooting rate particularly of minorities even as the overall shooting rate by NYPD officers is quite a bit lower than average) will prevent the next hail of gunfire against an unarmed Black man or woman. But the NYPD only reforms its operations when its officers are held accountable in criminal courts.

Actually, according to the NYT, it doesnt appear that there were many–if any–witnesses that testified to hearing the police identify themselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/04/24/nyregion/20080424_BELL_GRAPHIC.html

I remember this case pretty well, because I have been, myself, detained for disarming a plainclothes police officer that failed to identify himself. I was lucky that it happened in a dorm’s pub, that the officer was outside of his jurisdiction, intoxicated, that no shots were fired, and that I called the Campus Police myself. Oh, he happened to be black, but at that time I did not even know it was significant. I still don’t know whether it would have been any different if he had been white (or I black) I knew that it was DAMN significant that he was from Boston’s PD and not a Cambridge or CP officer. Still, it took me months to stop worrying about being jailed or deported.

I frankly do not understand the protests. In cases like this, the judge will always, always, always decide for the policemen, unless the witnesses are absolutely unanimous that they failed to identify themselves. Any other outcome is unimaginable… law enforcement cannot function if policemen are afraid to fire at someone who rams one of their cars. As for how many bullets are used… policemen are human, they get scared like everyone else, and I am sure we can all tell a dozen anecdotes about people surviving/firing after being riddled with bullets. Once the shooting starts, some people do not stop until they run out of ammo (yes, that includes spare magazines)

The police had multiple witnesses who swore 1. that the victims talked about fetching guns before the shooting and 2. that the officers identified themselves as police. You can say the witnesses lied, and I could believe it. I definitely believe that the officers and witnesses lied about a fourth man who was armed. I also know that given the seriousness of the case, the police applied pressure on everyone on whom they had something, and insured the maximum number of favorable witnesses.

But once the witnesses were recorded, it was all over. It’s ridiculous to talk about excessive use of force, or racism. Both were present, and they do not matter. When dealing with a policeman, you have to be an idiot to do anything without him telling you. People should remember that a cop is a stressed out human with a gun, with at least a few chips on his shoulder, and a good reason to fear that he’ll die in the line of duty. Don’t try to be funny, don’t reach anywhere he did not tell you, keep your hands in plain sight… and for sure, don’t ram his car.

I am pretty sure the victim thought he was fleeing from carjackers. I am quite sad that he died. But even knowing that, I would have still let the policemen go.

I haven’t talked to any blacks about what they’ll do if Clinton is nominated, but I’ve definitely been told by women that support Clinton that there’s no way they’ll vote for Obama. The media is all full of the concept that given Obama’s present position, they’ll turn away from the Democrats if Clinton gets the nomination; but then, I generally figure the MSM is full of something else in general, so we’ll see.

“Women” are not a bloc of voters that are for Clinton the way African Americans are for Obama. Obama actually carries women under 65. It is the senior vote he has to watch out for, not the women vote. The generation gap is the most neglected major aspect of this primary cycle.

I was under the impression that what defined the Republicans’ primary cycle this year was the presence of no real conservative candidates, with the exception of the weak, half-hearted Thompson. You could say the Republicans failed in rallying behind Thompson; I say Thompson was just a really shitty candidate.

As far as what happens with conservatives in elections, I’m not just talking about Presidential elections, but House and Senate ones as well. But take this cycle; you had Huckabee, Thompson and Paul at least running as conservatives; if they had all united behind one they would have had a chance. Instead, McCain has the nomination wrapped up.

Jim, I wish there was a way to measure the crossover vote on that. It’ll be interesting to compare the vote totals by party in November with the primary votes. I actually voted a Democratic primary ballot myself this year. But I did so because I was interested in the more local races, where there are rarely Republican contests that matter where I live. I don’t even remember voting on the top of the ticket. If I did, I probably voted for Clinton, but not to screw with Obama (there’s no way he was going to lose Illinois).