Police officer kills unarmed adolescent

[SVPD]

Of note #1

The 17-year veteran ordered the pair to stop in their tracks, but Lopez ran off and after the police officer lost the teen on foot he called his office for help.
'I saw an assault in progress,' he told the operator. 'He punched the guy several times.'

This fact does not tally with the account of the boy who was assaulted, a schoolmate of Lopez's, who said: 'He just hit me once. It wasn't a fight. It was nothing.'

This only means that the boy who was hit remembers being punched once. The other boy may not have successfully hit him more than once. Any time a fight occurs, there will be significant differences in accounts. Things happen too fast for anyone to remember all the details correctly.

Of note #2

'The suspect bull rushed his way out of the shed and lunged right at me,' Alvarado said.

'The suspect was literally inches away from me, and I feared for my safety.'
The bullet was traced going through teen's chest as it ricocheted off the pancreas, colon, right liver and left kidney and exited the stomach.
A post-mortem noted a lack of gunpowder on Lopez's bloodstained T-shirt - the report concludes: 'There is no evidence of close range firing of the wound.'

Things seem very different in the heat of the moment than they do in the dispassionate, non-critical setting of the coroner's examining room. "Close range" is rather nebulous in any case; pistols are close-range weapons by definition.

Of note #3

And files, recently obtained by San Antionio Express News, show that the 46-year-old has been reprimanded on at least a dozen times since 2006 - and half of those occasions were because he had gone against orders.
In other cases, Alvarado failed to show up for assignments, and his supervisors appeared to suspect him of lying.

Appeared to suspect him of lying? That's damn weak - especially since proof of lying renders you worthless as a police officer since any defense attorney can then impeach anything you ever say. If he was not fired for lying then either A) some supervisor was making up some bullshit accusation of lying which they couldn't carry through to termination or B) his entire chain of command is grossly incompetent. Getting rid of a liar on your force should make for an unchallenging firing process on a first offense.

Of note #4:

In March 2006 one superior officer wrote an official letter to him and it read: 'Your complete disregard toward my directive was evident upon checking your reports that are still incomplete and in some cases not written at all.'
Some weeks later, Alvarado's supervisor scolded him for making 'no effort to complete said cases' and many other letters followed.

Many letters followed and in January 2008 he was suspended for one day for failing to show up for assignments.
'Any further incidents of failing to follow a directive, an assignment, or violating practices will result in immediate termination of your employment,' the suspension letter stated.
More violations followed - including two separate cases when Alvarado was suspended for collecting evidence that disappeared, including an MP3 player and fingerprint cards

You will now demonstrate, I presume, some sort of relationship between proper filing of reports, or not showing up for assignments, or evidence collection and.. shooting people without justification. It's interesting that it just says the evidence "disappeared", not where int he chain of custody it did so, which should be easy to determine from the chain of custody form. In light of the inability of the department to fire him after 4 alledged incidences of lying, any other disciplinary action against him is highly, highly, suspect.

Of note #5, immediately following the final quote you posted

However David Klinger, a former police officer who's now a professor of criminology was alarmed by Alvarado's disciplinary history.
'It sounds like they knew this guy was a problem,' Mr Klinger told mysanantonio.com.

'If someone's insubordinate in a bunch of circumstances, it's logical to believe they'll be insubordinate in an important circumstance.'

Or maybe our good professor is just taking things at face value. More importantly, however, he seems to have forgotten that insubordination is irrelevant to whether the shooting was justified.

This is also a surprisingly short interview of the good professor. It's quite possible that he had far more to say on the issue, and actually was aware of that, and of the problems indicated with allegations of lying, but no termination... and mysanantonio just didn't find the rest of what he said to be convenient to the picture they wanted to paint.

Key Take aways:
- Per note #1, the victim asserts that it "wasn't even a fight, it was nothing" - one punch.
- There is no indication the boy was ever armed with even so much as a garden rake.
- The officer claims he was "bullrushed" and struck in the face, but no such injury was noted.
- The boy's body was retrieved from within the shed. Had he truly "bullrushed" out, striking the officer in the face with the door and the officer been forced to fire the body would have been outside the shed.
- Futher, per note #2, no indication of a close range weapon discharge is evident.
- Further per subsequent notes, it seems this officer had a history of insubordination, failure to perform his duty, lieing, and was also quite possibly a theif himself.
- Per the final note, its clear that the department and or school district should be held liable for keeping this guy on the force.

1) The indication is that he was in the shed. The fact that the officer did not specifically mention any weapon to s nurse that happened to show up, or that the fact that it wasn't still in his hand after he was shot hardly indicate he didn't have one. What do you suppose people typically keep in outdoor sheds?

2) So what if no injury was noted? Being hit in the face doesn't always leave a mark but that does not mean it's not painful, alarming, or frightening at the time, especially in a high-stress situation.

3&4) I have news for you, you have to open the shed door BEFORE exiting the shed, and because the door had to swing out far enough to strike the officer and allow him to shoot, that indicates he was at least the width of the door back. That might easily be far enough to preclude powder residue, but still close enough that he would be almost on top of the officer, and the need to open the door would also explain how he was not actually out of the shed yet. "Bullrushed out of the shed" does not necessarily mean he successfully exited; it can also mean "was in the process of exiting."

4) It seems that the officer had a substantial history of allegations that, if substantial, should ahve resulted in him being fired a long time ago. Yet he wasn't. The indications are that either A) most or all of the allegations are bullshit or B) that his chain of command is appallingly inept, which, in turn, still calls the allegations into question.

I mean, come on. Are you not shocked that he was still a cop after such allegations? I am. I simply don't see any way competent administration could have let him stay on if there were truth to even half these allegations.

5) Or, perhaps, the shooting actually is justified because there still is not enough information to determine. The articles we've used have been highly predjudiced. The one we just discussed points out that their nurse witness didn't see the shooting but then questioned why he shot the "defenceless teen". How did she know he was defenseless? Oh right; most likely she didn't and was just assuming that because hey, he's just a kid, right?

Furthermore, the department ruled this a justifiable shooting - a department which has repeatedly advised this guy that he was going to be fired if he kept fucking up. Don't give me any line about protecting their own; they discipline this guy over and over, try to fire him, fail, and then get handed a good reason on a silver platter? A case where ruling it unjustifiable would have gotten them public acclaim for firing a cop that killed a teenager that didn't have a gun? In spite of having this coroner's report regarding the distance the killing occured at?

More likely they realize they have a history of fucking with this officer, and if they try to pin unjustifiable killing on him without good reason - if only because they have no eyewitnesses other than the officer - they're going to get fried when he sues them, and they're going to lose any criminal case they bring against him.

[TheHammer]

Of note #1

The 17-year veteran ordered the pair to stop in their tracks, but Lopez ran off and after the police officer lost the teen on foot he called his office for help.
'I saw an assault in progress,' he told the operator. 'He punched the guy several times.'

This fact does not tally with the account of the boy who was assaulted, a schoolmate of Lopez's, who said: 'He just hit me once. It wasn't a fight. It was nothing.'

This only means that the boy who was hit remembers being punched once. The other boy may not have successfully hit him more than once. Any time a fight occurs, there will be significant differences in accounts. Things happen too fast for anyone to remember all the details correctly.

You are joking right? You're right, you might not get all the details right. However you certainly could determine if you were hit once, as the victim says, or multiple times as the officer in question stated. Since the kid has nothing to gain by lieing, I'm banking on it being the officer.

Further, its clear the boy didn't suffer any major injuries since the officer's concern wasn't getting medical attention for him, but rather to chase down the other boy. That doesn't seem to jive with the notion that this was a "violent assault" as the officer stated.

Of note #2

'The suspect bull rushed his way out of the shed and lunged right at me,' Alvarado said.

'The suspect was literally inches away from me, and I feared for my safety.'
The bullet was traced going through teen's chest as it ricocheted off the pancreas, colon, right liver and left kidney and exited the stomach.
A post-mortem noted a lack of gunpowder on Lopez's bloodstained T-shirt - the report concludes: 'There is no evidence of close range firing of the wound.'

Things seem very different in the heat of the moment than they do in the dispassionate, non-critical setting of the coroner's examining room. "Close range" is rather nebulous in any case; pistols are close-range weapons by definition.

So what you are essentially saying is, things didn't happen the way the officer described them. That the kid was actually farther away than "a few inches". Except for the fact that he supposedly was close enough to the door to be struck in the face as the kid was "bullrushing out of the shed". There are so many holes in this story it isn't funny.

And please spare me the semantic games. Obviously pistols are a close range weapon. However, the extreme close range that the officer describes is what the report is referring to.

Of note #3

And files, recently obtained by San Antionio Express News, show that the 46-year-old has been reprimanded on at least a dozen times since 2006 - and half of those occasions were because he had gone against orders.
In other cases, Alvarado failed to show up for assignments, and his supervisors appeared to suspect him of lying.

Appeared to suspect him of lying? That's damn weak - especially since proof of lying renders you worthless as a police officer since any defense attorney can then impeach anything you ever say. If he was not fired for lying then either A) some supervisor was making up some bullshit accusation of lying which they couldn't carry through to termination or B) his entire chain of command is grossly incompetent. Getting rid of a liar on your force should make for an unchallenging firing process on a first offense.

Apparently it was getting proof of the lieing that was at issue. But it doesn't give favor to the officer that his supervisors felt he wasn't trustworthy. The point I was trying to again highlight was that he had a history of disobeying orders, as well as flat out failing to perform his duty.

Of note #4:

In March 2006 one superior officer wrote an official letter to him and it read: 'Your complete disregard toward my directive was evident upon checking your reports that are still incomplete and in some cases not written at all.'
Some weeks later, Alvarado's supervisor scolded him for making 'no effort to complete said cases' and many other letters followed.

Many letters followed and in January 2008 he was suspended for one day for failing to show up for assignments.
'Any further incidents of failing to follow a directive, an assignment, or violating practices will result in immediate termination of your employment,' the suspension letter stated.
More violations followed - including two separate cases when Alvarado was suspended for collecting evidence that disappeared, including an MP3 player and fingerprint cards

You will now demonstrate, I presume, some sort of relationship between proper filing of reports, or not showing up for assignments, or evidence collection and.. shooting people without justification. It's interesting that it just says the evidence "disappeared", not where int he chain of custody it did so, which should be easy to determine from the chain of custody form. In light of the inability of the department to fire him after 4 alledged incidences of lying, any other disciplinary action against him is highly, highly, suspect.

It shows a pattern of wanton disregard of procedure and the chain of command which are the key things at issue. It is not merely whether or not the "shooting" itself was justified (of which there is reason have severe doubts), but if the events that lead up to it could have been avoid by following orders and proper procedure. It also calls into question the officer's judgement.

Again, we don't know how he managed to avoid being fired, but quite frankly this happens everywhere. Examples of cronyism can be found in any industry known to man. If he was buddies with someone in a high place, or had dirt on someone in a high place then that would allow him to skirt regulations to some extent without getting fired. Why he wasn't fired in fact warrants an investigation of its own.

Of note #5, immediately following the final quote you posted

However David Klinger, a former police officer who's now a professor of criminology was alarmed by Alvarado's disciplinary history.
'It sounds like they knew this guy was a problem,' Mr Klinger told mysanantonio.com.

'If someone's insubordinate in a bunch of circumstances, it's logical to believe they'll be insubordinate in an important circumstance.'

Or maybe our good professor is just taking things at face value. More importantly, however, he seems to have forgotten that insubordination is irrelevant to whether the shooting was justified.

Insubordination may have been irrelevent to the actual shooting, but it is NOT irrelevent to the creation of the events that lead to the shooting. The entire premise of my argument that he should be charged with criminally negligent manslaughter is that he himself, by disregard for proper procedure and the orders of his superiors, precipitated the events at hand.

Had he done as he was fucking told to do they could have easily picked the boy up for questioning the next time he was at school. Given that this was apparently a very minor fight its likely that little more than a school suspension at worst would have occured.

This is also a surprisingly short interview of the good professor. It's quite possible that he had far more to say on the issue, and actually was aware of that, and of the problems indicated with allegations of lying, but no termination... and mysanantonio just didn't find the rest of what he said to be convenient to the picture they wanted to paint.

Sure its possible he had more to say. If you happen to come accross additional details, then by all means bring those to light.

1) The indication is that he was in the shed. The fact that the officer did not specifically mention any weapon to s nurse that happened to show up, or that the fact that it wasn't still in his hand after he was shot hardly indicate he didn't have one. What do you suppose people typically keep in outdoor sheds?

No weapons have ever been mentioned. The officers own account makes no mention of weapons, and the boy has been repeatedly described as "unarmed". If you've got something other than speculation to counter that then the most obvious conclusion is that he was not armed.

2) So what if no injury was noted? Being hit in the face doesn't always leave a mark but that does not mean it's not painful, alarming, or frightening at the time, especially in a high-stress situation.

Merely pointing out that there is a lack of evidence that the officer was in fact struck with the door. By itself, sure it could simply mean he doesn't bruise easily, however it doesn't jive with the notion of the kid bullrushing out.

Another point I'd like to raise - we know from witness accounts the officer drew his gun when he exited the vehicle. Certainly he was holding the gun in front of him. How would it be that a shed door could swing open and hit him in the face? If his arms were at his side, sure that could have happened, but if he had a gun drawn it should have hit his arms before it ever had a chance to hit him in the face...

3&4) I have news for you, you have to open the shed door BEFORE exiting the shed, and because the door had to swing out far enough to strike the officer and allow him to shoot, that indicates he was at least the width of the door back. That might easily be far enough to preclude powder residue, but still close enough that he would be almost on top of the officer, and the need to open the door would also explain how he was not actually out of the shed yet. "Bullrushed out of the shed" does not necessarily mean he successfully exited; it can also mean "was in the process of exiting."

A bullrush at the officer who described him as beeing "inches" away does not jive with him being inside the shed. For the door to "swing open, you're talking at least three feet, plus the length of the officer's arms as he held his weapon in front of him to fire, say another two feet. The story just sounds like utter bullshit to me.

You know what really gets me? If it were ANYBODY other than a cop telling this story you'd be ALL OVER it for its inconsistencies. But because this asshole had a badge you will bend over backwards to come up with hypotheticals to try and make his story plausible. While a good cop with a relatively clean record might deserve the benefit of that doubt, this guy certainly does not.

4) It seems that the officer had a substantial history of allegations that, if substantial, should ahve resulted in him being fired a long time ago. Yet he wasn't. The indications are that either A) most or all of the allegations are bullshit or B) that his chain of command is appallingly inept, which, in turn, still calls the allegations into question.

I mean, come on. Are you not shocked that he was still a cop after such allegations? I am. I simply don't see any way competent administration could have let him stay on if there were truth to even half these allegations.

I am in fact very shocked they didn't fire him, but as I noted there could be an element of cronyism to all of that. Or perhaps they've got a damned good police union down there. The administration, or at least whoever was keeping this guy on the force certainly bears a significant amount of the blame for this. No one is giving them a free pass...

5) Or, perhaps, the shooting actually is justified because there still is not enough information to determine. The articles we've used have been highly predjudiced. The one we just discussed points out that their nurse witness didn't see the shooting but then questioned why he shot the "defenceless teen". How did she know he was defenseless? Oh right; most likely she didn't and was just assuming that because hey, he's just a kid, right?

I think that's the key issue isn't it? There was no witness to the actual shooting, no hard evidence to counter the officer's story even if it doesn't completely jive. Police will tend to take the word of a cop in the absense of hard counter evidence. If I could somehow prove that this shooting was not justified then I'd be calling for murder charges for this prick rather than criminally negligent mansalughter.

The nurse was probably appalled that an unarmed boy was shot by a cop, as most of us would be... Again, if you've got other accounts or evidence to present to counter the articles cited, then please present them.

Furthermore, the department ruled this a justifiable shooting - a department which has repeatedly advised this guy that he was going to be fired if he kept fucking up. Don't give me any line about protecting their own; they discipline this guy over and over, try to fire him, fail, and then get handed a good reason on a silver platter? A case where ruling it unjustifiable would have gotten them public acclaim for firing a cop that killed a teenager that didn't have a gun? In spite of having this coroner's report regarding the distance the killing occured at?

More likely they realize they have a history of fucking with this officer, and if they try to pin unjustifiable killing on him without good reason - if only because they have no eyewitnesses other than the officer - they're going to get fried when he sues them, and they're going to lose any criminal case they bring against him.

Again, the big mystery in all of this is how this guy continues to recieve a paycheck for being a cop. As I've noted it could be because they've got a strong union, because he has friends in high places, or dirt on the same. It's sure as hell not because he was a "good cop".

As for the shooting, given there was no eye witness testimony to counter the officer's version, and no conclusive hard evidence to dispute his account and the default that police tend to take an officer's word and bingo "justified shooting". Personally, I don't believe the officer's account in the slightest. It's got too many holes. But its not about what you think happened, it's what you can prove.

What can be proven is that he disobeyed orders, did not follow proper procedure, needlessly escalated the situation and in general behaved in a manner that should sicken all the good cops out there.

[Kamakazie Sith]

As noted, we can pick up that discussion once evidence is presented at trial. If he didn't violate procedure, but merely disobeyed orders then perhaps a lesser charge.

Seriously? Why is firing him so unacceptable?

There are certain policies that if I don't follow I'm not only fired, but held criminally accountable. If a worker operating a construction crane doesn't follow proper procedure and people get killed, not only is he fired but likely prosecuted as criminally negligent.

The Officer's refusing to obey orders and not following proper procedures could easily be construed as a failure to perform his duty. There do not appear to be any extenuating circumstances that would excuse his doing so. It may well be that ultimately the Kid "charged out" of the shed, However it is clear that the Officer needlessly escalated the situation. So, while the shooting may be justified, the officers recklessness that lead to the situation was not. And yes there may not be a particular statute for this, but there damn well should be.

Failure to perform his duty doesn't mean he's responsible for the actions of another. In your construction example only you are responsible for the deaths and I can confidently say that had you followed procedure then those deaths would not have taken place. In the officer example I can confidently say that had the kid not taken the action he did then he would not be dead and I can confidently say that the officer was reacting to save his own life just like any other reasonable person would. (this is taking the officers story at face value though)

I thought cops were supposed to obey the orders of their superiors and follow procedure. The order to "not pursue" was hardly unusual because the "Suspect" was a 14 year old boy who went to a school in the district this idiot patrolled. The crime was minor, there was no need to go into hot pursuit over a school yard fight when you could easily find out where the boy lived from his school records, or pick him up when he went to school the next day. It was the most sensible order in the world.

They are suppose to obey those orders and follow procedure. However, you're wrong about the order being unusual. The only time I've ever heard that order is when the pursuit endangers the lives of innocents.

IF it turns out that the statement about violating procedure is bullshit, and he in fact did everything "by the book" (aside from disobeying orders), then I could see him not criminally culpable. However, if he did not follow procedure, and because of that lead to the escalation resulting in a situation where he "needed to defend himself" then he should most certainly be held criminally responsible as I have noted. Given this guy's track record, I find it highly unlikely that he did anything "by the book"...

I don't think he violated any procedure but I don't know this departments policies. Anyway, you're only going to be criminally culpable when your actions alone caused the death of another. Had this teen obeyed the law and not tried to attack a police officer he'd still be alive. Criminal negligence is an act by which you and you alone failed to foresee the consequences.

I can see why you might empathize with him because you imagine yourself maybe being in that situation. I can understand that. But honestly, do you think you'd have done what that officer did? The fourteen your old boy, who you keep referring to as "the suspect" wasn't some dangerous criminal. He was a kid who got into a minor one punch fight, got scared, and ran away. If it had been your child maybe you wouldn't be so quick to excuse the behavior of the officer involved.

I have no idea what I would have done in this officers position because all I've read is news articles. Would I shoot a 14 year old coming at me with an object that could inflict serious injury or death? Yes. Would I shoot a 14 year old if I got slammed in the face by a shed door or the 14 year old got a lucky hit in and I was disabled by that attack and the 14 year old advanced on me? Yes. Would I shoot a 14 year old boy who was unarmed and just charged me? No.

[Thanas]

You trust the officer. If the guy was hit in the face by a door caused to spring open by a charging kid, then why was no gun residue found on his shirt? Doesn't that travel up to five feet? Now call me crazy, but if the kid threw open the door hitting him in the face would that not be less than five feet?


Just firing him is pretty much unacceptable to me because a 14-year old kid died due to his incompetence. That is not something that can be fixed by just "oh well, good luck in your next life."

Also, unless the kid charged at you with a bowie knife or something of that magnitude I wonder why to shoot him. Don't you have a baton? (Harping back to the Germany example, this is one response German law does not allow for immediately).

[Kamakazie Sith]

I would agree that if the guy was armed with a really serious weapon (like a machete or an ax) and there was no way of the officer physically overpowering him without severe risk of injury I would agree that shooting at him to wound would be justified, but not direct shots to the head or middle chest area.

How much research have you done in regards to wounding shots? Does your research take into account the fact that it may not immediately disable your attack and does it take into account the higher degree of difficulty of hitting a limb, and does it take into account that when someone is trying to kill you your stress level will be higher and your motor control may be compromised?

Do you have any information on the success of these tactics in the field against determined opponents trying to kill officers that follow your style of police work? To clarify the guy walking towards officers carrying a deadly weapon is not the same as a guy running towards officers carrying a deadly weapon and in close proximity. One is just trying to suicide by cop the other is trying to murder.

In the context of US law, which does not place as high a value on human beings per se, I would probably agree that the shooting as an isolated incident was justified if the guy indeed was seriously armed and charged at him with a clear identifiable attempt to hurt him.

US law regarding human life is that you have a right to life until you attempt to seriously injure or kill another person and until you're stopped deadly force can be used against you. German law seems to place a higher value on the lives of people trying to seriously injure or kill others.

However, due to the officer's huge messups that were responsible for creating this situation in the first place he bears a not inconsiderate amount of blame. This was a completely needless death and the office should be punished for this. Loss of his jobs, pension, benefits and being a debt slave to the family of the boy he killed should be the very least he deserves.

I disagree. The same situation could play out in any state in the US. Police chasing and apprehending suspects is a function of duty and is not unusual or reckless. The only thing that makes this situation unique is the officer not obeying orders.

With what, though? Shouldn't the police response be "he charged at me with [weapon]", not "I thought he was dangerous?" That seems like a tacit admission that the kid actually posed little risk.

That's a quote from the article. If that's all his police report had then I'd probably be on your side. I'll remind you that I consider US media to be highly suspect. I've seen it first hand, Thanas. They alter information. I don't expect you to accept my personal experiences but I want you to understand my position and why I take the position that I do.

How many officers got killed by boys though?

You don't make policy using that kind of information because all you do is set yourself up to fail when you encounter that exception. It's not the number of officers killed by juveniles that should concern you. It's the number of juveniles that carrying guns that should. Unfortunately, that type of information is hard to collect and compile.

And was there any indication this kid was a gang member or armed? Shouldn't that be the first thing he would say? "I noticed his gang tats and a bulge in the waist area as he an away" or stuff....yet nothing.

Did you read the report? I haven't. Can you share it with us?

If he had stopped we would not have to discuss anything here. It is the same thing with his other actions - he cornered the kid (against orders) and therefore immediately created the situation. Had he led the kid walk nobody would be dead and they would have just arrested him tomorrow.

That is his contribution.

His contribution was a duty performed by police everywhere. You'll need more than "he did something that police in the US do on a regular basis".

I can't remember that it happened outside some turkish/lebanese gangs fighting in Berlin with knifes and pistols. Point being though, was there any indication the kid was a gang member? Or are young adolescents automatically considered such threats in the USA? If so, on what statistical basis?

It's more of a behavioral basis. What of the warning sizes that someone could be dangerous is that they flee, hide, and fail to obey instructions. When you notice these signs you should take defensive measures. Our training is full of in your face videos of police who failed to take action when these signs presented themselves and now are listed on the Officer Down Memorial Page.

The fact is I don't really care, Thanas. I'm not trying to get into a who has the bigger dick argument.

Fine by me.

Okay then - what is the evidence the kid was a gang member and what are the actual rates among adolescents in that area for shooting at police officers?

No idea. An rates for actual shooting against police is a terrible way to create policy on when an officer can take defensive action. Behavior is a much more effective method.

None of that is however claimed by the police, despite the fact that it should be the first thing mentioned in the media, like "the victim was a member of street gang COPKILLAS". In fact, the only thing we know from the article is "I was scared and feared for my life so I shot the kid".

And that's my problem. Our source is the media.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You trust the officer. If the guy was hit in the face by a door caused to spring open by a charging kid, then why was no gun residue found on his shirt? Doesn't that travel up to five feet? Now call me crazy, but if the kid threw open the door hitting him in the face would that not be less than five feet?

I'm not a ballistics expert. Like I've said before if I was hit in the face and rendered disabled and my attacker continued to approach me I would fire.

Just firing him is pretty much unacceptable to me because a 14-year old kid died due to his incompetence. That is not something that can be fixed by just "oh well, good luck in your next life."

My position depends on the officers report. If all he has is "he came at me and I was scared for my life" then I agree with you completely. However, if the officer is able to articulate a reasonable reason why he was scared for his life.

Also, unless the kid charged at you with a bowie knife or something of that magnitude I wonder why to shoot him. Don't you have a baton? (Harping back to the Germany example, this is one response German law does not allow for immediately).

Again it depends on the specifics but only because our suspect is 14. However, I'll remind you that batons, OC spray, and tasers can fail or not be immediately accessible in time to stop the attack and if that happens then you will likely be serious hurt or killed. Meeting deadly force with deadly force is the more reasonable options because if you still die at least you did what you could and didn't hold back.

[Thanas]

No police officer in Germany has even been killed by shooting to warn/wound instead of shooting to kill. Let's get this falsehood out of the way, okay? German officers also kill 67 less people than the US police forces do per capita, yet not a single police officer was shot in Germany this year.

US law regarding human life is that you have a right to life until you attempt to seriously injure or kill another person and until you're stopped deadly force can be used against you. German law seems to place a higher value on the lives of people trying to seriously injure or kill others.

Yeah, and it seems not to have any negative effect so far.

I disagree. The same situation could play out in any state in the US. Police chasing and apprehending suspects is a function of duty and is not unusual or reckless. The only thing that makes this situation unique is the officer not obeying orders.

Assuming his statement holds up.

That's a quote from the article. If that's all his police report had then I'd probably be on your side. I'll remind you that I consider US media to be highly suspect. I've seen it first hand, Thanas. They alter information. I don't expect you to accept my personal experiences but I want you to understand my position and why I take the position that I do.

Fair enough. Got to discussing the huge hole in his story yet?

You don't make policy using that kind of information because all you do is set yourself up to fail when you encounter that exception. It's not the number of officers killed by juveniles that should concern you. It's the number of juveniles that carrying guns that should. Unfortunately, that type of information is hard to collect and compile.

That is funny, considering over here we actually set policy according to what actually happened instead of wild theories like "every boy is potentially armed".

Did you read the report? I haven't. Can you share it with us?

Can you provide any evidence that he thought the kid was armed in the first place? Did you even read the second link provided in this thread?

No idea. An rates for actual shooting against police is a terrible way to create policy on when an officer can take defensive action. Behavior is a much more effective method.

Says what, exactly? How is past behavior and shooting not a good indicator of what will happen in the future?

And that's my problem. Our source is the media.

So that makes it automatically suspect? Sorry, I get your paranoia, but this is vastly approaching "ZOMG. VAST MEDIA CONSPIRACY" territory, especially because I do not seem to remember an inherent anti-cop basis present in US society.

I'm not a ballistics expert. Like I've said before if I was hit in the face and rendered disabled and my attacker continued to approach me I would fire.

So not addressing the huge hole in the officers story, I see.

Again it depends on the specifics but only because our suspect is 14. However, I'll remind you that batons, OC spray, and tasers can fail or not be immediately accessible in time to stop the attack and if that happens then you will likely be serious hurt or killed. Meeting deadly force with deadly force is the more reasonable options because if you still die at least you did what you could and didn't hold back.

Sounds like a vast overreaction based out of fear. Over here we know there is a risk and we expect our officers to take that risk. Again,, with 67 time more people being killed by police in the USA than in Germany it does not take a huge expert to think about what policy is saner. Unless of course you can show me (with evidence, please) that those methods fail on a permanent basis in the US, which makes me think what the US is doing wrong there.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Here's where I don't quite agree. If I was to slip on my Prosecuter's hat, I would argue that the officer needlessly and recklessly created a situation (by going into the shed, instead of containing the situation while things cooled down) where a trained, reasonable person could anticipate a high possibility, even probability of a panicked youth doing something stupid and the situation escalating. As a direct result of the officer's action, the boy died. I believe he could be charged with the boy's death, and if he wasn't a police officer, he would be. (This statement is based upon a personally observed bias in Australia towards not prosecuting police when things go wrong if they were "just doing their job" (sic), no matter how stupidly they were doing it. Therefore, it should be regarded as unsubstantiated opinion)

So, you're saying that if the owner of this shed decided he was going to get the boy out but brought along protection just in case and ended up shooting the boy...you think he'd be charged? I highly doubt it.

This boy was engaged in illegal activity, including trespassing. It's within the powers and duties of the police to apprehend people planning, engaged in, or fleeing from criminal activity. It is also within the right of a property owner to take reasonable action to remove people from the property. The smart thing to do is call the police but it is not required and you won't be held responsible for the actions of another person when that person is engaged in criminal activity.

I wonder. Let's say you have a home owner that fails to follow a city ordinance mandating that you remove ice from the ceiling of your house. This home owner fails to do this. During the night a prowler comes and breaks the window and due to the force of the impact the ice breaks free and paralyzes or kills the prowler. Is the prowler or his family entitled to compensation?

[Kamakazie Sith]

No police officer in Germany has even been killed by shooting to warn/wound instead of shooting to kill. Let's get this falsehood out of the way, okay? German officers also kill 67 less people than the US police forces do per capita, yet not a single police officer was shot in Germany this year.

That just proves your country is far less violent. It doesn't mean your tactics are always the best.

Yeah, and it seems not to have any negative effect so far.

I'd love to see how German police officers would fare over here.

Assuming his statement holds up.

Agreed.

Fair enough. Got to discussing the huge hole in his story yet?

You mean the selective quotations provided by the author of this article?

That is funny, considering over here we actually set policy according to what actually happened instead of wild theories like "every boy is potentially armed".

I never said "every boy was armed". Nice exaggeration though. Our polices are based off of observations from officers who have been attacked and survived. What did the suspect do before he attacked. Those danger signs are failure (or confusion) to follow simple instructions, fleeing, hiding, looking around while being talked to, focusing on the officer.

Can you provide any evidence that he thought the kid was armed in the first place? Did you even read the second link provided in this thread?

Yes, I read the article.

Says what, exactly? How is past behavior and shooting not a good indicator of what will happen in the future?

See danger signs above.

So that makes it automatically suspect? Sorry, I get your paranoia, but this is vastly approaching "ZOMG. VAST MEDIA CONSPIRACY" territory, especially because I do not seem to remember an inherent anti-cop basis present in US society.

I just want to read the officers report before I render judgement, Thanas. Articles are for entertainment.

So not addressing the huge hole in the officers story, I see.

Why is it a huge hole. Thanas, get this through your head. You have not heard the officers account. You've read selected sentences by the author.

Sounds like a vast overreaction based out of fear. Over here we know there is a risk and we expect our officers to take that risk. Again,, with 67 time more people being killed by police in the USA than in Germany it does not take a huge expert to think about what policy is saner. Unless of course you can show me (with evidence, please) that those methods fail on a permanent basis in the US, which makes me think what the US is doing wrong there.

We also have over three times your population, have more guns than you do, and more violent crime. Please, Thanas. If I didn't know you were such a nationalist I'd guess you were being dishonest.

US police policies have changed much through the last half century. In 1910, 196 police officers were killed, 89 from gunfire. In 2010, 160 police officers were killed, 59 from gunfire. In 1910 the US population was 92,228,496. In 2010 the US population was 308,745,538. The number of police officers killed, and killed by gunfire remains steady from 1910 to 2010. This is despite a growing population in citizens, police, criminals, and people with firearms.

[SVPD]

You are joking right? You're right, you might not get all the details right. However you certainly could determine if you were hit once, as the victim says, or multiple times as the officer in question stated. Since the kid has nothing to gain by lieing, I'm banking on it being the officer.

No, I'm not joking at all. Why are you assuming that the kid clearly remembers the details of a fight/physical assault? Have you ever been in one, as an adult, or adolescent? It's really easy for you to assume you'd know, sitting there in your comfy chair.

Further, its clear the boy didn't suffer any major injuries since the officer's concern wasn't getting medical attention for him, but rather to chase down the other boy. That doesn't seem to jive with the notion that this was a "violent assault" as the officer stated.

So? If it wasn't that serious of an assault, why would the officer need to stay with the victim, either? More importantly, it's not as if it makes it any less important to catch the attacker just because he didn't do a lot of damage.

So what you are essentially saying is, things didn't happen the way the officer described them. That the kid was actually farther away than "a few inches". Except for the fact that he supposedly was close enough to the door to be struck in the face as the kid was "bullrushing out of the shed". There are so many holes in this story it isn't funny.

I've already explained why there are not. For one thing, "a few inches" could really even be 4 or 5 or 6 feet; it's an imprecise measurement, people in general are not good at estimating distances, and it may have seemed closer than it was at the time. The holes are entirely a product of your assumptions.

And please spare me the semantic games. Obviously pistols are a close range weapon. However, the extreme close range that the officer describes is what the report is referring to.

TExtreme close range can easily be 6 or even 9 feet; I can reliably hit every single time at 3 meters using no sights and one hand. Tha's also plenty close enough to get hit with a shovel, or an axe, or whatever he might possibly have had. The only thing we know from the coroner's report is that he wasn't close enough to have powder residue, which means little in terms of the imminence of the threat.

As for semantic games, you're in little position to complain given the false level of precision you're ascribing to the officer's description of the distances involved. I hate to break this to you, sparky, but people ar not always precise in their terminology.

Apparently it was getting proof of the lieing that was at issue. But it doesn't give favor to the officer that his supervisors felt he wasn't trustworthy. The point I was trying to again highlight was that he had a history of disobeying orders, as well as flat out failing to perform his duty.

No, he does not have such a history. He has a history of such allegations.

1) It's hilarious that you express such distrust of the police, but are suddenly so trusting of police supervisors when its convenient for you
2) If they can't get proof of him lying, that really calls into question whether he was actually lying, now, doesn't it? Failing to get proof on 4 different occasions? Really? You're willing to trust the assertions of his chain of command despite such rank incompetence? Oh, of course you are; it feeds right into your predjudices.

You will now demonstrate, I presume, some sort of relationship between proper filing of reports, or not showing up for assignments, or evidence collection and.. shooting people without justification. It's interesting that it just says the evidence "disappeared", not where int he chain of custody it did so, which should be easy to determine from the chain of custody form. In light of the inability of the department to fire him after 4 alledged incidences of lying, any other disciplinary action against him is highly, highly, suspect.

It shows a pattern of wanton disregard of procedure and the chain of command which are the key things at issue. It is not merely whether or not the "shooting" itself was justified (of which there is reason have severe doubts), but if the events that lead up to it could have been avoid by following orders and proper procedure. It also calls into question the officer's judgement.

No, it's not a question of whether it could have been avoided by following orders or procedure.

1) No such pattern has been demonstrated. You have yet to offer a valid reason why the allegations of a chain of command that cannot fire an officer after 4 charges of lying and numerous other misonduct should be treated as truthful
2) There is not going to be any "procedure" for dealing with schoolyard fights. Officers are expected to use judgement.
3) An order to "Stay with a victim" that had not suffered serious phyiscal harm, and was in a place (a school) where other responsible adults could summon medical aid, was absolutely improper for the supervisor to give. The primary purpose of the police is to apprehend criminals. Not to call ambulances, comfort victims, or anything like that; those are all important secondary responsibilities but they are subordinate to apprehending criminals.

Again, we don't know how he managed to avoid being fired, but quite frankly this happens everywhere. Examples of cronyism can be found in any industry known to man. If he was buddies with someone in a high place, or had dirt on someone in a high place then that would allow him to skirt regulations to some extent without getting fired. Why he wasn't fired in fact warrants an investigation of its own.

Are you seriously claiming there was cronyism protecting a man who was repeatedly threatened with termination on the next offense? Who exactly was he a crony of? You have no evidence whatsoever of any such thing; none. This is simply the final refuge of people who like to assume misconduct by police when confronted with their own lack of evidence, or when confronted with the fact that a police officer may have been improperly disciplined; just assume some sort of cronyism! I notice you have no explaination for why this supposed protector didn't quash his other suspensions or do anytihng about these embarassing records of his.

I have bews for you buck-o; for every incident of a cop who should be fired being protected by a benefactor, there's an incident of a cop being punished or fired because he's disliked. This is one of the major things police unions do; cathc departments who mysteriously inflict harsher discipline on some officers than others.

Insubordination may have been irrelevent to the actual shooting, but it is NOT irrelevent to the creation of the events that lead to the shooting. The entire premise of my argument that he should be charged with criminally negligent manslaughter is that he himself, by disregard for proper procedure and the orders of his superiors, precipitated the events at hand.

The problem with that is that there is no excuse for the supervisor to have issued such instructions. Had the supervisor said nothing, how would the situation have unfolded differently? There is nothing inherently improper about chasing on foot a suspected criminal, so your entire case hinges on the premise that had he obeyed orders and not pursued the kid would not have been shot.

You are attempting to claim that disobeying the supervisor's order was somehow criminally negligent because of the eventual result, but you have shown no reason that a supervisor should issue orders not to pursue a criminal on foot just because of the exteremely unlikely eventuality of an unjustifiable shooting.

Had he done as he was fucking told to do they could have easily picked the boy up for questioning the next time he was at school. Given that this was apparently a very minor fight its likely that little more than a school suspension at worst would have occured.

This is really irrelevant. This is like saying that the police should not chase drunk drivers because they could be apprehended the next morning when they leave for work, because in some cases the drunk might kill someone, or get killed himself. Obviously I should be suing the police department that attempted to pull over my drunk stepbrother on his motorcycle because he cashed and died.

The fact is that there was no good reason for issuing the order in the first place. You would need to show that chasing a criminal is, in and of itself, substantially likely to end in an unjustified shooting; otherwise you're just using hindsight to assign weight to the order it didn't have when it was issued.

This is also a surprisingly short interview of the good professor. It's quite possible that he had far more to say on the issue, and actually was aware of that, and of the problems indicated with allegations of lying, but no termination... and mysanantonio just didn't find the rest of what he said to be convenient to the picture they wanted to paint.

Sure its possible he had more to say. If you happen to come accross additional details, then by all means bring those to light.

No, it's near certain he had more to say. Do you seriously think they just showed up, asked one question about the guy's disciplinary record, and the professor just happened to be familiar with it?

Your request for additional details is absurd; you know perfectly well they're in the custody of the reporter or his employer and were already cut from the story. However, it's well-known that any news interview will be heavily edited before being published for space and time considerations - and what's left will be what the publisher wants to be left. The only thing we know about this is: the paper selected this snippet from what the professor said, and no others.

No weapons have ever been mentioned. The officers own account makes no mention of weapons, and the boy has been repeatedly described as "unarmed". If you've got something other than speculation to counter that then the most obvious conclusion is that he was not armed.

Described by who as unarmed, and what "officer's account" are you referring to? Has his report been released? If so, I apologize for missing it; presumably you can point me to it again?

Merely pointing out that there is a lack of evidence that the officer was in fact struck with the door. By itself, sure it could simply mean he doesn't bruise easily, however it doesn't jive with the notion of the kid bullrushing out.

Sure it does. It's highly unlikely the door hit him only in the face. Do you get a bruise every time you slam into something? I've walked into steel I-beams before with no bruise.

Another point I'd like to raise - we know from witness accounts the officer drew his gun when he exited the vehicle. Certainly he was holding the gun in front of him. How would it be that a shed door could swing open and hit him in the face? If his arms were at his side, sure that could have happened, but if he had a gun drawn it should have hit his arms before it ever had a chance to hit him in the face...

We don't know that it didn't. We only know that it did hit him in the face. I cannot spek to his exact body posture at all points in the confrontation and neither can you.

A bullrush at the officer who described him as beeing "inches" away does not jive with him being inside the shed. For the door to "swing open, you're talking at least three feet, plus the length of the officer's arms as he held his weapon in front of him to fire, say another two feet. The story just sounds like utter bullshit to me.

It sounds that way to you because you're a little anti-police wanker who wants reinforced doors to protect him from fantasy-cops barging in to shoot him for no reason, and you already had your mind made up. Despite your earlier complaints about semantics you are, again, using a semantic nitpick to cast doubt on the officer's story. Again, perceptions under stress can be inaccurate, people are poor at estimating distances, and "inches" is not precise terminology.

You know what really gets me? If it were ANYBODY other than a cop telling this story you'd be ALL OVER it for its inconsistencies. But because this asshole had a badge you will bend over backwards to come up with hypotheticals to try and make his story plausible. While a good cop with a relatively clean record might deserve the benefit of that doubt, this guy certainly does not.

I'm so glad you've completed mind-reading school and can tell me what I think. All you're doing is retreating into typical anti-cop refuges; when your argument is shown to be so full of shit it turns the webpage brown around it, you just flee to the "you're just defending him because he's a cop!" appeal to motive fallacy.

I'm not coming up with hypotheticals at all; I'm pointing out facts like, how wide a door is, and gee, that there must be a fucking reason you can't get a guy fired for supposedly lying 4 times. But no, those are somehow more "hypothetical" than assumptions made by your completely-lacking-experience ass.

I am in fact very shocked they didn't fire him, but as I noted there could be an element of cronyism to all of that. Or perhaps they've got a damned good police union down there. The administration, or at least whoever was keeping this guy on the force certainly bears a significant amount of the blame for this. No one is giving them a free pass...

No police union, however good, can defend against an allegation of lying and most won't because you might then also be lying to the union. They'll cut your ass loose. As for cronyism, that's utterly hypothetical on your part, does not jive with the discipline and action taken, and is based on your apparent willingness to distrust regular police officers but implicitly trust supervisors... when it works for your argument. That's some first-class dishonesty right there.

I think that's the key issue isn't it? There was no witness to the actual shooting, no hard evidence to counter the officer's story even if it doesn't completely jive. Police will tend to take the word of a cop in the absense of hard counter evidence. If I could somehow prove that this shooting was not justified then I'd be calling for murder charges for this prick rather than criminally negligent mansalughter.

Will they? How do you know they will? Because it's happened sometimes in the past, it must be the case any ime police authorities come to a conclusion that you don't agree with, that's why.

They'll take the word of a guy they've accused of lying 4 times? That's hilarious as well. Oh right, cronyism. They're protecting "one of their own" from this accusation even though they wanted to fire him before. Of course they are.

The nurse was probably appalled that an unarmed boy was shot by a cop, as most of us would be... Again, if you've got other accounts or evidence to present to counter the articles cited, then please present them.

I don't need to. I'm pointing out only that there is no good reason to think the shooting was unjustified; there's simply a lack of evidence either way. It's more than sufficient to pick apart your bullshit. It's amusing that you ask for more sources, however, when you're more than content to pull accusations of cronyism out of your ass.

Again, the big mystery in all of this is how this guy continues to recieve a paycheck for being a cop. As I've noted it could be because they've got a strong union, because he has friends in high places, or dirt on the same. It's sure as hell not because he was a "good cop".

Or, it's because he is a good, or at least decent, cop, since there's no way a union can protect against legitimate accusations of lying, and it would be very hard for a "highly-placed friend" to either, especially since this nonexistent friend has... no evidence of his existence, and no evidence he took any action when this officer was disciplined before.

Or, he may even be a shitty cop, and his supervisors are inept, bungling fools, who have seriously violated his rights in past discipline and therefore were unable to fire him.. but then, if that's the case and this is an unjustified shooting, why are they not using it to finally rid themselves of him, and get lauded by the public for doing so? Hmmm.. why, I wonder?

As for the shooting, given there was no eye witness testimony to counter the officer's version, and no conclusive hard evidence to dispute his account and the default that police tend to take an officer's word and bingo "justified shooting". Personally, I don't believe the officer's account in the slightest. It's got too many holes. But its not about what you think happened, it's what you can prove.

Well, since most the the holes are manufactured out of a combination of your desire to see him be guilty and your assumptions from the comfort of your living room with no experience in such matters, I'm really not impressed with your evaluation.

What can be proven is that he disobeyed orders,

Irrelevant

did not follow proper procedure,

false

needlessly escalated the situation and in general behaved in a manner that should sicken all the good cops out there.

unproven

[TheHammer]

SVPD You know, we could continue to rehash these points ad nauseum. You claim that you aren't the one putting up hypotheticals, but quite frankly that's ALL you've done. You have a hypothetical that his disciplinary record must not have been that bad since he wasn't fired. You have presented hypotheticals about the kid potentially having weapon, despite absolutely no mention of any weapon is mentioned at any time. You talk about hypotheticals of a human being actually equating 5-6 feet to being "a few inches". Quite frankly, I'm a bit insulted with the bullshit you're trying to serve here.

I actually found the most detailed article I've yet seen on this event. I suggest reading all three pages.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/sunday ... php#page-1

In short, it specifies multiple occaisions where Alvarado LIED.

In January 2008, Alvarado was suspended for one day for failing to show up for assignments.

He'd been scheduled to teach a grant-funded gang prevention class at a middle school. When the school's principal called the school district about the missing officer, a lieutenant called Alvarado and asked him where he was.

At the middle school, Alvarado said.

He arrived there 30 minutes later.

Later that year, Alvarado was four hours late to an assignment. Asked why, Alvarado said he'd told a clerk he couldn't make it.

But the clerk said "she does not remember you telling her anything like that," a letter of reprimand states. "We recommend immediate termination of your employment."

Read on, there are plenty more details on how this guy was a shitty cop for quite some time before this incident.

It also has a more detailed description of "the fight"

About 4:30 p.m., at Vista West Drive and Hunt Lane, a 13-year-old student from the Bexar County Juvenile Justice Academy was talking on a cell phone at a bus stop when Lopez, one of his classmates, punched him in the face.

"He just hit me once," the boy said in his deposition. "It wasn't a fight. It was nothing."

And just in case you're ready to accuse Bias, it also uses Alvarado's own words to describe how the shooting went down:

In a report, Alvarado wrote that he was approaching the shed with his gun drawn when the door flew open, hitting him in the face. No witness recalled seeing any injuries to the officer's face after the shooting.

Again, I gotta ask - If his gun was drawn, how the hell could the door have hit him in the face since his arm would have been in the way? Seems fishy...

"The suspect bull rushed his way out of the shed and lunged right at me," Alvarado wrote. "The suspect was literally inches away from me, and I feared for my safety."

Litterally inches... Doesn't sound like five or six feet to me... Again, no weapon mentioned. You will note the words, "bullrushed his way out of the shed". I'm sure you'll try to spin it and say "well he didn't mean OUT out of the shed".

The homeowner saw the officer carrying the boy out of the shed and putting him "on the grass, on the ground," she said. She grabbed a bath towel and ran outside.

Again, I have to ask, if the kid had already bullrushed his way out of the shed per Alvarado's report, why did the officer have to retrieve his body from inside the shed? Seems fishy...

But hey, there is something in there for everyone. I even found an extended quote from David Klinger the criminologist... You're welcome.

But David Klinger, a former police officer who's now a professor of criminology and an expert in the use of deadly force, was surprised by Alvarado's disciplinary history.

"It sounds like they knew this guy was a problem," Klinger said. "If someone's insubordinate in a bunch of circumstances, it's logical to believe they'll be insubordinate in an important circumstance."

He added, "Mercifully, from what I know, these are rare. Most of the time when an officer has a problem following an order or doing their job, they get counseled so they learn how to do their job.

"If they don't, at some point they're terminated."

But it doesn't exactly help your case...

[Korto]

First up, I'm going to have to confess a reading fail on my part. Two parts.
1) Somehow I had got the impression that the cop was in hot pursuit of the boy all the way, and actually chased the boy into the shed. I missed the part of the owner giving a call.
This may make a substantial difference, as it introduces uncertainty in the cop's mind if the kid is actually there; sure, the owner says he is, but maybe the owner's wrong? Maybe the kid slipped out during the call or something? It's one thing to hang around outside, waiting out a scared kid, but another to stake out an empty garden shed for hours.
A thing to do would be to try and make verbal contact with the kid, just a minute or two calling out and trying to talk to him. Did he try to do that? It seems not, but I share other's distrust of brief media reports. If he did, got no reply (no indication there's anyone there), and finishes up with, "Look, I'm coming in, kid. Don't do anything stupid" (drawing his weapon because he's not totally stupid), and then the kid rushes to get out just as the cop's at the door, well, that's just unfortunate. I withdraw my case.
If he didn't take the time to attempt verbal contact, then would he have been trained to do so? My manslaughter case rests upon him being a trained professional who should have known better. If there was no reasonably applicable training, and it was all "bull at a gate" stuff, then the department has more to answer than the officer.
However, if he did receive training, I think he should be forced to explain in court why he didn't use it.

2) I was also under the impression that the officer entered the shed, on his own initiative, and I missed the counter-story that the kid actually charged out. How I missed that, I don't know, but I thought I better mention it before I get accused of wilful blindness, instead of just blindness through incompetence
If

“It seems pretty clear that the student charged out” of the shed,

then he mustn't have made it out of the shed, as then a weapon (if there was such) should have been on the ground, and anyway, the officer surely couldn't have been hit in the face with the door. Lack of powder burns suggests they weren't too close together (although I'm no ballistics expert either. Maybe we should get those CSI guys from telly? They're amazing), and if the boy didn't make it out of the shed I don't see how clear it could be to anyone after the event that he was charging out. Particularly as the body was moved, for whatever reason (probably for medical reasons. Lets not go completely tin-hat here).

KS, as its relevance is tenuous at best I hesitate to mention this, but mention I shall...

There are certain policies that if I don't follow I'm not only fired, but held criminally accountable. If a worker operating a construction crane doesn't follow proper procedure and people get killed, not only is he fired but likely prosecuted as criminally negligent.

The Officer's refusing to obey orders and not following proper procedures could easily be construed as a failure to perform his duty. There do not appear to be any extenuating circumstances that would excuse his doing so. It may well be that ultimately the Kid "charged out" of the shed, However it is clear that the Officer needlessly escalated the situation. So, while the shooting may be justified, the officers recklessness that lead to the situation was not. And yes there may not be a particular statute for this, but there damn well should be.

Failure to perform his duty doesn't mean he's responsible for the actions of another. In your construction example only you are responsible for the deaths and I can confidently say that had you followed procedure then those deaths would not have taken place.

Under NSW workplace law (confidently regarded as the most draconian laws in all of Australia), not only would the crane operator be up on charges, but any workmates who could see what he was doing would be up on charges, his supervisor would be up on charges, and everyone up to the boss of the entire company would be up on charges, under a lovely "Guilty until proven innocent" regime. Under that law, the cop would be charged. What workplace law (from another country, yet) has to do with the matter at hand, I'm not entirely sure.

I wonder. Let's say you have a home owner that fails to follow a city ordinance mandating that you remove ice from the ceiling of your house. This home owner fails to do this. During the night a prowler comes and breaks the window and due to the force of the impact the ice breaks free and paralyzes or kills the prowler. Is the prowler or his family entitled to compensation?

As this example relies upon the improbable events of your house being broken into, through the window, combined with the ice breaking loose at that point, I would argue that such a happening could not be anticipated by a reasonable person. If, however, it was over the door and it fell and injured someone (including someone breaking in) then as long as it can be shown the person should have been aware of the danger posed, he very well may have a case to answer.

[SVPD]

SVPD You know, we could continue to rehash these points ad nauseum. You claim that you aren't the one putting up hypotheticals, but quite frankly that's ALL you've done. You have a hypothetical that his disciplinary record must not have been that bad since he wasn't fired. You have presented hypotheticals about the kid potentially having weapon, despite absolutely no mention of any weapon is mentioned at any time. You talk about hypotheticals of a human being actually equating 5-6 feet to being "a few inches". Quite frankly, I'm a bit insulted with the bullshit you're trying to serve here.

I actually found the most detailed article I've yet seen on this event. I suggest reading all three pages.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/sunday ... php#page-1

In short, it specifies multiple occaisions where Alvarado LIED.

<snip extensive bullshit>

First off, your article is just a rehash, for the most part word-for-word, of articles we've already seen.

Second, it DOES NOT show multiple occasions where he lied. It shows multiple occasions where his department claims he lied.

I do not think you understand what you are up against here. Lying is something that absolutely cannot be tolerated in police work, not even when someone has "dirt" or "friends in high places". Even if the whole chain of command is in on it together (obviously not the case here) it eventually comes to light.

You see, once a police officer is shown to be a liar, he can no longer do his job. By law and court ruling, any information about that officer that impeaches his testimony's reliability must be revealed to a defense attorney. That means, any testimony he gives is worthless, and therefore means that, even if he retains legal authority to enforce the law, cannot do so because he can never be used in court to convict anyone. He's a money pit, and nothing else. It might be possible to play games for a while and cover up what he did, but even corrupt agencies will get rid of a known liar if for no other reason than to avoid drawing attention to anything else going on.

That means that in this case there are exactly 2, and only 2, possibilities.

1) His agency was so inept, it was unable to fire a liar. This is a level of incompetence that's almost beyond belief, if true.

2) He actually was not lying in those cases.

Either way, you have not explained why you are perfectly willing to take the word of police supervisors, and their accounts of these incidents at face value, while claiming to distrust regular police so highly. So - which is it? Are you taking the word of the police supervisors because you think they're honest but wildly incompetent, or are you taking their word in spite of them being unable to take action on 4 different allegations of lying because you need those allegations to be true in order to hold onto the conclusion you made before you read more than a headline about this case?

[TheHammer]

SVPD You know, we could continue to rehash these points ad nauseum. You claim that you aren't the one putting up hypotheticals, but quite frankly that's ALL you've done. You have a hypothetical that his disciplinary record must not have been that bad since he wasn't fired. You have presented hypotheticals about the kid potentially having weapon, despite absolutely no mention of any weapon is mentioned at any time. You talk about hypotheticals of a human being actually equating 5-6 feet to being "a few inches". Quite frankly, I'm a bit insulted with the bullshit you're trying to serve here.

I actually found the most detailed article I've yet seen on this event. I suggest reading all three pages.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/sunday ... php#page-1

In short, it specifies multiple occaisions where Alvarado LIED.

<snip extensive bullshit>

First off, your article is just a rehash, for the most part word-for-word, of articles we've already seen.

Actually that article seems to be the source that many of the other articles drew from. It contains additional details not found in any other articles, which is why I posted it. If you've got something to counter it with, then by all means.

Second, it DOES NOT show multiple occasions where he lied. It shows multiple occasions where his department claims he lied.

I do not think you understand what you are up against here. Lying is something that absolutely cannot be tolerated in police work, not even when someone has "dirt" or "friends in high places". Even if the whole chain of command is in on it together (obviously not the case here) it eventually comes to light.

You see, once a police officer is shown to be a liar, he can no longer do his job. By law and court ruling, any information about that officer that impeaches his testimony's reliability must be revealed to a defense attorney. That means, any testimony he gives is worthless, and therefore means that, even if he retains legal authority to enforce the law, cannot do so because he can never be used in court to convict anyone. He's a money pit, and nothing else. It might be possible to play games for a while and cover up what he did, but even corrupt agencies will get rid of a known liar if for no other reason than to avoid drawing attention to anything else going on.

That means that in this case there are exactly 2, and only 2, possibilities.

1) His agency was so inept, it was unable to fire a liar. This is a level of incompetence that's almost beyond belief, if true.

2) He actually was not lying in those cases.

Either way, you have not explained why you are perfectly willing to take the word of police supervisors, and their accounts of these incidents at face value, while claiming to distrust regular police so highly. So - which is it? Are you taking the word of the police supervisors because you think they're honest but wildly incompetent, or are you taking their word in spite of them being unable to take action on 4 different allegations of lying because you need those allegations to be true in order to hold onto the conclusion you made before you read more than a headline about this case?

I never said I dis-trusted "regular police". I'm just a realist and I know that since there are a percentage of shitbag people among the population, that at least SOME of them have managed to become police officers. The problem I have is that while 90% (arbitrary number) of police do their job and their duty, that there isn't enough oversight of the 10% who are real dirt bags. Further, many of the 90% who are good will defend those dirtbags simply because they are "brother officers" even when its patently clear they don't deserve it.

You really are trying to have it both ways don't you see that? Your statements amount to this:

Alvarado could not have been lieing because police officers who lie are a liability. Therefore the police supervisors (who are ALSO POLICE) MUST be lieing about Alvarado being a liar.

Do you not see the serious contradiction? Even if I were to accept that ridiculous notion, you also have the fact that his account of events DO NOT mirror those of the other witnesses. He claims he saw a victim struck several times by the kid he shot. The victim himself says he was hit exactly once. He claims he had his gun drawn, and was hit in the face with a door. Yet he has no mark on his face from being hit, and further it would seem highly unlike that it could have happened at all with his gun drawn and in front of him. He claims the kid was "literrally inches" away despite no evidence of him being shot from that close a range. He claims the kid bullrushed out of the shed despite the fact that he in fact had to go into the shed to retrieve his body after he was shot. You have one inconsistency, maybe that's an error but you have a series of inconsistencies and a history of not being truthful with this guy.

What I think really happened is he came upon the shed, opened the door surprising both the kid and himself, panicked, and shot the kid. That's what the evidence would in fact suggest be more likely than the scenario the officer described. Knowing he couldn't simply say that's what happened, he cooked up this story about "He was coming right for me!" to try and cover his ass, the way he's done his entire police career. But you keep on defending this guy, and giving him the benefit of the doubt. Unless you present new testimony or evidence I'm done arguing with you.