Cop who "accidently" shot panhandler charged with misdemeano

[Dominus Atheos]

A police officer here who said he meant to fire his Taser, not his handgun, has been charged with a misdemeanor in the shooting of a fleeing panhandler.

Officer Jason L. Shuck, 36, was charged Wednesday with misdemeanor third-degree assault in the May 9 shooting near a neighborhood Walmart. If convicted, he could face up to a year in jail.

"The best explanation that I have is that my ... brain was saying Taser ... but my body moved faster than my brain," Shuck told an investigator, according to the probable cause statement filed in Greene County Circuit Court.

Police Chief Paul Williams said Shuck remains an employee of the Springfield police on paid administrative leave. Williams said Shuck, like any officer according to policy, might remain on the force even if he is convicted of the misdemeanor.

Williams said he has not made a final decision about Shuck's employment.

"The internal investigation is separate from the criminal investigation, and it is in process," Williams said.

Shuck and his lawyer could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Eric David Butts, 27, who had been seeking money outside the Walmart, was shot after Shuck confronted him and Butts started running away. He was hit in the lower back.

Butts, who has been diagnosed with mental illnesses including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, suffered serious intestinal injuries. He is a convicted burglar who had served time in prison and was wanted on a warrant for failure to appear in court on a parole violation.

The shooting has left Butts unable to use the bathroom normally, at least temporarily. A colostomy bag collects his intestinal wastes.

Butts' lawyer, Joshua Roberts, said the misdemeanor charge is "appropriate given all the facts and circumstances of the incident."

On May 21, Roberts sent Mayor Bob Stephens,Williams and Shuck a letter, telling them he had been retained to represent Butts in any civil legal claims for his injuries. No lawsuit is filed yet.

Darrell Moore, who reviewed police shootings during his 12 years as the county's top prosecutor, said he can't recall another case in the past three decades where a police officer in Greene County was criminally charged for an officer-involved shooting.

MAY: Texas town shaken after cop shoots 93-year-old

"I think it sends a good message to the public that law enforcement and prosecutors believe that law enforcement officers should be held to the same standard as civilians when it comes to deadly force. That it should be justified," Moore said.

Dan Patterson, the Greene County prosecuting attorney, said Shuck was charged with a misdemeanor, not a felony, because the investigation pointed toward criminal negligence.

"The evidence in this case did not show a 'conscious disregard' of the risk but rather a 'failure to be aware' of the risk — the standard for criminal negligence and thus the class A misdemeanor of assault in the third degree," Patterson said.

Only seven prior cases of a suspect being mistakenly shot with a handgun instead of a Taser have been documented, according to the probable cause statement. That's out of about 2.2 million uses of a Taser.

"Statistically, the chance of something like this happening is very, very, very low," said Steve Ijames, a former assistant police chief in Springfield who now is a consultant on police force issues.

Shuck carried his department-issued Glock semiautomatic on his right side and his Taser on his left side. He had to reach across his body with his right hand to draw the Taser that weighed about a third as much as the handgun.

According to court documents, Shuck was familiar with Butts. The Springfield police reporting system showed that Butts "had been involved in assaults, burglaries, warrants and stealing, as well as numerous other incidents," Shuck told an investigator questioning him about the shooting.

Shuck is scheduled to be arraigned Aug. 11. He received a meritorious service award from the police department in 2013 for disarming a subject who was attempting to commit suicide with a shotgun in his mouth.

Shuck's intent to use his Taser is noted in the probable cause statement used to charge him.

"Officer Shuck yelled for Butts to stop running at that time and received no response," according to the statement. "Officer Shuck then pulled the trigger and heard the loud report of a gunshot."

Butts told police that Shuck apologized after the shooting.

"I'm sorry Butts, I thought I reached for my Taser," Shuck told him, according to the probable cause statement. "I didn't know that I reached for my gun, I thought I had my Taser."

Ijames called Springfield's training in the use of Tasers as good as any in the country.

A 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that defines reasonable use of force by police applies in cases like this. That case says that the reasonableness of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with 20/20 hindsight.

A 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee v. Garner, said deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent escape and an officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. The father of a 15-year-old boy whom Memphis police shot and killed filed the case.

[Zaune]

Grabbing your sidearm instead of your taser is carelessness, but shooting a guy in the back when he jumps up and runs the fuck away? Really?

[Dominus Atheos]

• In defense of the cop, the victim is white, so it is possible that the shooting was accidental. (I'd say a 25% chance)
• I like how the misdemeanor charge is held up as a shining example of how "law enforcement officers should be held to the same standard as civilians when it comes to deadly force"
• Fun thought experiment, what do you think a black person would be charged with if he shot someone but said it was an accident and he only meant to tase the person?
• I also like how it totally wouldn't be police brutality if the asshole cop had just tazered the fleeing, mentally ill panhandler. That's clearly a good enough reason to shoot someone with thousands of volts of electricity until they fall to the ground in pain. Hey, he was wanted on a parole violation, he deserved to be tortured with electricity, right?

Every day I inch closer to the idea that it might be justified for minorities and the mentally ill to shoot police preemptively. It's getting close to the point where I honestly believe that those people are in immediate life threatening danger whenever a cop is within 25 meters of them.

[Borgholio]

"I think it sends a good message to the public that law enforcement and prosecutors believe that law enforcement officers should be held to the same standard as civilians when it comes to deadly force. That it should be justified," Moore said.

Yeah, like any civilian will get a misdemeanor charge for shooting a panhandler in the back. Bull fucking shit.

[Simon_Jester]

[*]In defense of the cop, the victim is white, so it is possible that the shooting was accidental. (I'd say a 25% chance)

What's going on here is not so much a deliberate police campaign to shoot/taze "the wrong people," which includes both blacks walking down the street and white panhandlers, it's a huge race issue but it's not only a race issue.

What I think is going on is that the police (at least in some parts of the country) have been pressured to be more and more meticulous in how they pre-emptively monitor the 'undesired' people in a given community. And given more and more license to use violence to secure compliance. Tazers are very effective for getting compliance, so the police taze more often... and some percentage of the time, they screw up and pull a gun instead because what's really going on in the brain is "Asshole! How dare he! I'm going to stop him with my weapon... whoops, wrong weapon... O_o"

[*]I like how the misdemeanor charge is held up as a shining example of how "law enforcement officers should be held to the same standard as civilians when it comes to deadly force"

[*]Fun thought experiment, what do you think a black person would be charged with if he shot someone but said it was an accident and he only meant to tase the person?

Two parallel arguments here:

1) It's all about relative standing on the totem pole, man. Police are higher up.

2) It's a very practical thing, because policemen are routinely placed in situations where their lives are in danger, where criminals may at least be tempted to use violence on them, or where we expect them to somehow enforce actual laws governing conduct on people who don't want to obey those laws. If we apply the same standard of reasonable force to private citizens (who don't have a state mandate to enforce laws) as we do to police (who do) it becomes nearly impossible for the police to police any person that does not want to be told what to do.

Are those arguments mutually exclusive? Probably. And yet, I think, they are both true.

[*]I also like how it totally wouldn't be police brutality if the asshole cop had just tazered the fleeing, mentally ill panhandler. That's clearly a good enough reason to shoot someone with thousands of volts of electricity until they fall to the ground in pain. Hey, he was wanted on a parole violation, he deserved to be tortured with electricity, right?

Every day I inch closer to the idea that it might be justified for minorities and the mentally ill to shoot police preemptively. It's getting close to the point where I honestly believe that those people are in immediate life threatening danger whenever a cop is within 25 meters of them.

In at least some areas, the police have very definitely and blatantly adopted a tactic of pervasively trawling through low-standing communities and regularly punishing all low-status people in an area, by arresting them if not by charging them. 'Stop and frisk' in New York being a good example.

One effect of this is that the people who are being monitored this way become hostile and fearful of the police. Another is that in absolute terms, the frequency of hostile police interactions with a white panhandler (or a black guy just walking down the street, whose status may be no higher) increases. Both those things make police violence more likely even if the police want to avoid police brutality.

Have policemen walk up and deal with people twice as often, there will be twice as many tazings and beatings and shootings. Have people in the neighborhood get the attitude that police are scary and hostile and evil and constantly harassing you no matter what you do, and they will tend to get irrational and act in ways that make them even more likely to get tazed, beaten, or shot.

[General Zod]

Didn't we already do this once in California?

[TheHammer]

Didn't we already do this once in California?

Yes that was a fatal shooting by a BART officer as I recall. And caught on film. Among the other things making that incident even worse was that the man killed was already pinned to the ground and surrounded by cops, meaning even tasing was probably over the line.

I also like how it totally wouldn't be police brutality if the asshole cop had just tazered the fleeing, mentally ill panhandler. That's clearly a good enough reason to shoot someone with thousands of volts of electricity until they fall to the ground in pain. Hey, he was wanted on a parole violation, he deserved to be tortured with electricity, right?

I think tazering in that instance WOULD be justified. That's why Tazers exist so that cops can apprehend resisting suspects without harming themselves, and without (in theory) causing permanent harm to the suspect. They are certainly abused by police, but I wouldn't have had a problem with it had it actually been used in this case.

That being said, the whole "I thought I grabbed by taser" screams bullshit to me just like it did in the BART incident. If you can't tell the difference between a taser and a pistol in your hand then you aren't fit to be a cop.

[Raw Shark]

I think tazering in that instance WOULD be justified. That's why Tazers exist so that cops can apprehend resisting suspects without harming themselves, and without (in theory) causing permanent harm to the suspect. They are certainly abused by police, but I wouldn't have had a problem with it had it actually been used in this case.

That being said, the whole "I thought I grabbed by taser" screams bullshit to me just like it did in the BART incident. If you can't tell the difference between a taser and a pistol in your hand then you aren't fit to be a cop.

+1. Fuck every murderer, including the ones who wear a badge. Being entrusted with the public's interest is not a mandate to act more illegally. You know exactly where you carry which tool, you lying fucks.

[Mr Bean]

Doesn't it also indicate they have their pistol with the safety off in the holster? Because otherwise you need to grab the big hunk of metal which is not bright yellow, aim it and click the safety off to fire.

[TheFeniX]

Doesn't it also indicate they have their pistol with the safety off in the holster? Because otherwise you need to grab the big hunk of metal which is not bright yellow, aim it and click the safety off to fire.

Depends completely on the pistol. Glocks and quite a few other pistols popular among law enforcement don't have safeties outside "grip" and "trigger" varieties. Basically, if it's chambered and you're holding the gun to fire, it will fire when the trigger is pulled. These safeties only exist to pass drop tests and a few other specific cases, not stop you from firing the gun.

Even then, and someone can check me on this, it's pretty SOP for law enforcement to carry a pistol with a locking safety without the safety locked due to the speed required to clear the weapon and fire when it's needed. This doesn't apply to "cocked and locked" pistols like the 1911 because considering the light trigger pull (like .5lbs) when cocked, it's dangerous to even draw them without the safety on.

Edit: This doesn't cover something like the Ruger P99 which has a decocker, but no locking safety. That gun is meant to be carried with the hammer "down," forcing a long trigger pull on the first shot. Same with revolvers sporting exposed hammers (you don't have an option with internal hammers).

[Zaune]

I think tazering in that instance WOULD be justified. That's why Tazers exist so that cops can apprehend resisting suspects without harming themselves, and without (in theory) causing permanent harm to the suspect. They are certainly abused by police, but I wouldn't have had a problem with it had it actually been used in this case.

The hell it would have been. The guy wasn't brandishing a weapon, he wasn't throwing punches, he wasn't endangering anyone unless he happened to crash into them in the act of -let me reiterate this- running the fuck away. Is a taser really proportionate here, as opposed to just running after the guy and grabbing hold of him?

[General Zod]

I think tazering in that instance WOULD be justified. That's why Tazers exist so that cops can apprehend resisting suspects without harming themselves, and without (in theory) causing permanent harm to the suspect. They are certainly abused by police, but I wouldn't have had a problem with it had it actually been used in this case.

The hell it would have been. The guy wasn't brandishing a weapon, he wasn't throwing punches, he wasn't endangering anyone unless he happened to crash into them in the act of -let me reiterate this- running the fuck away. Is a taser really proportionate here, as opposed to just running after the guy and grabbing hold of him?

Arguably yes. The officer should be concerned with their own safety, and tackling a suspect runs a risk of putting themselves in jeopardy. (Let's say the guy might be hiding a knife for argument's sake?) A taser eliminates or at least reduces the chance of the officer getting hurt from a physical fight.

If the guy was brandishing a weapon, then you'd be justified with a gun. Deadly force with deadly force.

There's also a lot more risk of killing the suspect with physical force as the case of Eric Garner on Staten Island this last week shows.

[TheHammer]

I think tazering in that instance WOULD be justified. That's why Tazers exist so that cops can apprehend resisting suspects without harming themselves, and without (in theory) causing permanent harm to the suspect. They are certainly abused by police, but I wouldn't have had a problem with it had it actually been used in this case.

The hell it would have been. The guy wasn't brandishing a weapon, he wasn't throwing punches, he wasn't endangering anyone unless he happened to crash into them in the act of -let me reiterate this- running the fuck away. Is a taser really proportionate here, as opposed to just running after the guy and grabbing hold of him?

Obviously the rules and laws on the use of tasers will vary from region to region. But as to my own personal opinion, a guy resisting arrest (which is what he was doing by fleeing) is justified in being tased. Especially if the officer is by himself and there are innocent civilians nearby, as is the case here. A fleeing suspect, particularly in a crowded area, could quickly become a hostage taking suspect if he felt cornered.

But again, this guy's story that he mistook his taser for his glock strikes of bullshit therefore I do not defend his ultimate actions.

[Borgholio]

a guy resisting arrest (which is what he was doing by fleeing) is justified in being tased.

It was not stated that the guy in the article was under arrest. Panhandling is usually a stern talking to or a small citation at worst. It's not like he was peddling drugs or something. I think even a tazer would be irresponsible against a man who is only guilty of minor panhandling and was being a nuisance at most.

Now it does state that the guy had a bench warrant out on him. If the officer knew this ahead of time then use of a tazer to restrain and arrest him is fine. But if the officer did not know, then he really had no reason for using ANY kind of force on the guy.

[Ziggy Stardust]

[quote="General Zod]
Arguably yes. The officer should be concerned with their own safety, and tackling a suspect runs a risk of putting themselves in jeopardy. (Let's say the guy might be hiding a knife for argument's sake?) A taser eliminates or at least reduces the chance of the officer getting hurt from a physical fight.[/quote]

But who says that even tackling the suspect was justified in this case? The article says it was an elderly pan-handler. The whole point of the cop approaching him in the first place was just to get him to leave the area, not to arrest him, according to the article. If he was running away, then why the fuck tackle or taze or anything at all? Mission already accomplished by him running the fuck away.

[General Zod]

But who says that even tackling the suspect was justified in this case? The article says it was an elderly pan-handler. The whole point of the cop approaching him in the first place was just to get him to leave the area, not to arrest him, according to the article. If he was running away, then why the fuck tackle or taze or anything at all? Mission already accomplished by him running the fuck away.

Why didn't he just ask the cop if he was free to leave? You could argue that running gives a cop probable cause to detain you.

[TheHammer]

a guy resisting arrest (which is what he was doing by fleeing) is justified in being tased.

It was not stated that the guy in the article was under arrest. Panhandling is usually a stern talking to or a small citation at worst. It's not like he was peddling drugs or something. I think even a tazer would be irresponsible against a man who is only guilty of minor panhandling and was being a nuisance at most.

Now it does state that the guy had a bench warrant out on him. If the officer knew this ahead of time then use of a tazer to restrain and arrest him is fine. But if the officer did not know, then he really had no reason for using ANY kind of force on the guy.

They made it clear that the officer knew the guy, and of his extensive rapsheet, even apologizing by name for shooting him "by mistake" with his gun.

But that's neither here nor there. A fleeing suspect immediately becomes a danger to the public because someone desperate enough to run from a cop is also desperate enough to put others in danger. That means potentially taking hostages or causing physical injuries to innocent people in his path.

Look at it this way, if I get pulled over for running a red light I might only get a stern talking to or a ticket, but if I take off and refuse to stop I would get arrested and charged with much heavier offenses if and when I was caught. The simple fact is, most people aren't going to run because they committed a minor offense, but if they do and get tased for their trouble, well tough shit.

[TheHammer]

Arguably yes. The officer should be concerned with their own safety, and tackling a suspect runs a risk of putting themselves in jeopardy. (Let's say the guy might be hiding a knife for argument's sake?) A taser eliminates or at least reduces the chance of the officer getting hurt from a physical fight.

But who says that even tackling the suspect was justified in this case? The article says it was an elderly pan-handler. The whole point of the cop approaching him in the first place was just to get him to leave the area, not to arrest him, according to the article. If he was running away, then why the fuck tackle or taze or anything at all? Mission already accomplished by him running the fuck away.

I don't think you read the article very closely or you wouldn't make such a statement Ziggy.

Facts of the situation:

Eric David Butts, 27, who had been seeking money outside the Walmart, was shot after Shuck confronted him and Butts started running away. He was hit in the lower back.

Butts, who has been diagnosed with mental illnesses including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, suffered serious intestinal injuries. He is a convicted burglar who had served time in prison and was wanted on a warrant for failure to appear in court on a parole violation.

...

According to court documents, Shuck was familiar with Butts. The Springfield police reporting system showed that Butts "had been involved in assaults, burglaries, warrants and stealing, as well as numerous other incidents," Shuck told an investigator questioning him about the shooting.

27 doesn't qualify as elderly... And he was a convicted criminal wanted for parole violation not merely a poor homeless panhandler being harassed by police.

Now in your defense, I believe midway through there is a link to an unrelated story involving a 93 year old being shot, so if you merely skimmed the article, that might be where you got that idea.

[TheFeniX]

But that's neither here nor there. A fleeing suspect immediately becomes a danger to the public because someone desperate enough to run from a cop is also desperate enough to put others in danger. That means potentially taking hostages or causing physical injuries to innocent people in his path.

Or maybe having had previous interactions with the officer, the suspect knew he was about to get his ass kicked in one way or the other. It's not like he had any chance at remaining anonymous. I think that's about as likely as claiming someone fleeing from police becomes an automatic danger to the public. Otherwise, stupid high school kids hiding in bushes from police busts are some hard-core motherfuckers who need some hi-voltage correction.

Look at it this way, if I get pulled over for running a red light I might only get a stern talking to or a ticket, but if I take off and refuse to stop I would get arrested and charged with much heavier offenses if and when I was caught. The simple fact is, most people aren't going to run because they committed a minor offense, but if they do and get tased for their trouble, well tough shit.

Fleeing in a vehicle is a different situation since you're basically driving a 3000lbs deadly weapon. In fact, you can almost justify letting an identified driver "flee" the scene and catch him later when he/she doesn't have access to said deadly weapon if you have no cause to believe they are a danger outside their own stupidity.

This is a rough spot for police. It's generally safer to let a fleeing suspect go when you have solid identification and there's no reason to believe they may cause further harm. However, if you're wrong in that, the department/city gets it's ass sued off because you didn't stop them earlier.

I will say: The officer had every reason to try and stop Butts from fleeing consider prior knowledge of his record. He just doesn't need to be carrying a gun if he can't tell the difference between one and a taser.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oops, yeah, I accidentally conflated two different stories with my last comment. Nevermind me, then.

[TheHammer]

But that's neither here nor there. A fleeing suspect immediately becomes a danger to the public because someone desperate enough to run from a cop is also desperate enough to put others in danger. That means potentially taking hostages or causing physical injuries to innocent people in his path.

Or maybe having had previous interactions with the officer, the suspect knew he was about to get his ass kicked in one way or the other. It's not like he had any chance at remaining anonymous. I think that's about as likely as claiming someone fleeing from police becomes an automatic danger to the public. Otherwise, stupid high school kids hiding in bushes from police busts are some hard-core motherfuckers who need some hi-voltage correction.

Being a "hard-core motherfucker" has naught to do with it. Its arguably more dangerous to the officer and the suspect to try and tackle him when he is fleeing.

Look at it this way, if I get pulled over for running a red light I might only get a stern talking to or a ticket, but if I take off and refuse to stop I would get arrested and charged with much heavier offenses if and when I was caught. The simple fact is, most people aren't going to run because they committed a minor offense, but if they do and get tased for their trouble, well tough shit.

Fleeing in a vehicle is a different situation since you're basically driving a 3000lbs deadly weapon. In fact, you can almost justify letting an identified driver "flee" the scene and catch him later when he/she doesn't have access to said deadly weapon if you have no cause to believe they are a danger outside their own stupidity.

This is a rough spot for police. It's generally safer to let a fleeing suspect go when you have solid identification and there's no reason to believe they may cause further harm. However, if you're wrong in that, the department/city gets it's ass sued off because you didn't stop them earlier.

I will say: The officer had every reason to try and stop Butts from fleeing consider prior knowledge of his record. He just doesn't need to be carrying a gun if he can't tell the difference between one and a taser.

Take the vehicle out of the equation. If I exited the vehicle and attempted to run its the same scenario. My original crime was extremely minor, but by fleeing police I've now made it into a far more serious one. I'd still be chased and subject to physical restraint/tasing/etc. So my original point stands.

[Simon_Jester]

TheHammer, while I don't actually disagree with the idea that fleeing the police is a crime, there's a systemic issue you're neglecting here, a major point that you are missing.

I would like to recommend that you read the recent book The Divide, my Matt Taibbi, which talks about this at length. What it comes down to is that on the poor-and-low-status side of American society, certain police departments have become too pervasive, too invasive, too quick to assume that 'suspects' have NO right to safety or freedom from random beatings or arbitrary arrests.

So people get arrested when they shouldn't, tazed when they shouldn't, shot when they shouldn't. And mysteriously, it's almost always the impoverished minorities and homeless people on the receiving end of this treatment, the ones who don't have lawyers or loved ones who can complain to City Hall and be listened to.

[TheFeniX]

Being a "hard-core motherfucker" has naught to do with it. Its arguably more dangerous to the officer and the suspect to try and tackle him when he is fleeing.

It's more dangerous only if the officer decides to pursue. In general, a person, who otherwise is non-violent, who decides to run from a cop for a minor infraction isn't any more likely to just start up a rampage. That's why it's called "fleeing." There's a reason there have been calls for police to back-off certain chases when they've identified a suspect: it's safer for everyone involved. In this instance, it would have been a lot safer, at least for the suspect.

So people get arrested when they shouldn't, tazed when they shouldn't, shot when they shouldn't. And mysteriously, it's almost always the impoverished minorities and homeless people on the receiving end of this treatment, the ones who don't have lawyers or loved ones who can complain to City Hall and be listened to.

And this creates a group of citizens who don't trust police and thinks they're all crooked and out to get them. So... if you're pretty sure the cops are going to beat your ass for a minor infraction and probably throw in some "resisting" charges for good effect, why not just run and try to avoid it all?

[Simon_Jester]

Car chases are a good example of what Fenix is talking about. They're dramatic, they're compelling, they show up in movies a lot. But in practice, police piling into squad cars and roaring through the streets at high speed in pursuit of someone who is himself speeding is very dangerous. The policemen can lose control and crash, the fleeing suspect can lose control and crash, innocent bystanders swerving to avoid a police car that zooms past them at a hundred miles an hour can lose control and crash. People can die as a result of police car chases, including innocent people.

As a result, by and large police do a lot less car chases than they might have done back in the '30s. Instead, they just call in a helicopter to tail the suspect (no traffic accidents!) or set up a roadblock down the highway. It's safer for everyone involved that way.

[TheHammer]

TheHammer, while I don't actually disagree with the idea that fleeing the police is a crime, there's a systemic issue you're neglecting here, a major point that you are missing.

I would like to recommend that you read the recent book The Divide, my Matt Taibbi, which talks about this at length. What it comes down to is that on the poor-and-low-status side of American society, certain police departments have become too pervasive, too invasive, too quick to assume that 'suspects' have NO right to safety or freedom from random beatings or arbitrary arrests.

So people get arrested when they shouldn't, tazed when they shouldn't, shot when they shouldn't. And mysteriously, it's almost always the impoverished minorities and homeless people on the receiving end of this treatment, the ones who don't have lawyers or loved ones who can complain to City Hall and be listened to.

Please spare me your incessant preaching. I'm not interested in debating the trials and tribulations of the downtrodden at the hands of police. I'm also not missing any point. A person who is subject to police abuse has my sympathy and outrage at how they were treated. A person who runs from the cops, and suffers injuries/tazing does not - particularly when they were in fact criminals.