Police officer cleared twice in two seperate unarmed deaths

[Dominus Atheos]

Montana officer, Grant Morrison, shoots and kills his second unarmed man. No charges in either case.

Without a doubt, being a police officer is often a dangerous career path. According to the New York Times, 50 police officers in the United States were shot and killed in 2014 while on duty.
While the number of citizens shot and killed by police in 2014, according to Reason, is 1,029, which is 20 times the number of police officers killed and the highest on record for our nation, any reasonable person will admit that the job of an officer can be dangerous and often thankless.

When an officer pulls over a car for a moving violation, they have no idea if the passengers in that car are going to be school teachers, Girl Scouts, or some dudes making a drug run. With that said, Grant Morrison, a police officer in Montana, clearly has an unacceptable and unreasonable level of fear when he pulls people over.

Two times, in the past two years, Morrison has pulled over unarmed, nonviolent citizens and, in a fit of fear, shot them both—the most recent resulting in a brutal and unnecessary death. Below the fold you will find the videos of those incidents and the nearly unbelievable news stories detailing how he's been cleared of wrongdoing in both shootings.

If what he did isn't wrong, we have a problem.

Tragically, as you will see below, Morrison shoots and kills 38-year-old Richard Ramirez after a rather routine traffic stop. On January 7, according to Yahoo News, Morrison was cleared of any wrongdoing because he "feared Ramirez had a gun." After shooting him three times at close range, Morrison continues to yell commands to Ramirez on what he wants Ramirez to do, as if his body wasn't just destroyed by three bullets. Ramirez dies soon thereafter.

The shooting happens at 1:39, but it's worth watching the entire video for context.



This, though, was not the first time Morrison shot and killed an unarmed, nonviolent person during a traffic stop. In 2013, Morrison shot and killed James Shaw after a routine traffic stop. Shaw, as you will have to carefully hear since the shooting is just out of the sight of the camera, is first hit with a taser then immediately shot and killed by Morrison. Morrison says he shot Shaw because he had a "crazed look on his face."

[madd0ct0r]

holy shit. that first video is... well, not an example of great policing.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The first video is yet another example of why compliance is critical in these encounters. Especially if you have a history which the radio transmission of "Dispatch I have Richard Ramirez here can everybody step it up" tells me this individual was known to be dangerous. So, let's look deeper in to this. I wonder if a simple google search will give us more information? My comments within the article I quoted will be emphasized.

Source - Didn't take long to find

Watch the video for a deeper look into the mind of the officer.

BILLINGS, Mont. – Police dash camera video captures the moments after a Montana officer shot and killed an unarmed suspect. The video of the April 14th shooting was just released. A coroner’s jury ruled Wednesday that the shooting of Richard Ramirez by Billings Police Officer Grant Morrison was a justifiable homicide.

Police say the suspect ignored the officer’s commands to raise his hands. Morrison is heard on the tape saying “I thought he was going to pull a gun on me.”

He sounds paranoid right here. Why would he think this guy was going to pull a gun on him? In the text below we find out why. Ramirez is the suspect in a shooting.

Ramirez was a passenger during the traffic stop last April in Billings Montana. Officer Morrison says he was searching for Ramirez in connection to a shooting the night before. You can listen to the 9-11 calls from that incident here.

Morrison told the jury that he ordered the vehicle occupants to put their hands up. The officer says he immediately recognized Ramirez as a suspect in the shooting. He also says he had to tell the suspect to keep his hands up. Officer Morrison says Ramirez dropped his left hand several times.

This is a justified shooting. If you are wanted for questioning or a suspect in any sort of firearm related crime following police commands is absolutely critical. Failure to do so, and especially moving hands to the waistband or pockets will get you shot and it will be ruled justified.


“I told him I was going to shoot him if he didn’t listen to me and put his hands up.” Officer Morrison says in a Billings Gazette article.

He was later found to be unarmed. Ramirez’s mother says that her family disagrees with the decision. She doesn’t understand why her son was shot.

A test conducted after the suspect’s death revealed he had a dose of meth in his system that could be lethal to some.

So, in my professional opinion this first example of not a cover up, unjustified shooting, bad policing, police abuse, etc etc. Maybe the story in the next video will be though. Let's google.

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

Source

Granted. Articulating a crazed look as a reason to shoot somebody is definitely not justified. Though I wonder...was that Morrison's reason? Hell...was it even Morrison that made the "crazed look" statement like your article alleges?

Again, my comments within the article will be emphasized.

BILLINGS – A Yellowstone County coroner’s jury found a Billings police officer was justified in shooting a combative man who was high on methamphetamine and failed to comply with the officer’s orders to get on the ground.

The seven-member jury deliberated for less than 10 minutes Wednesday before finding the Feb. 11 death of Jason James Shaw, 32, was a justifiable homicide.

Officer Grant Morrison testified he had stopped behind a car outside a suspected drug house because the car’s owner had several arrest warrants. When Sgt. Shawn Finnegan arrived as backup, Morrison went up to the car. One man ran into the house, leaving two women and Shaw in the car.

While speaking to one of the women, Morrison said he saw Shaw reach for the door handle, and noticed the butt of a gun sticking out of his pocket.

So, Morrison sees the butt of a gun sticking out of his pocket. Well, this is the US so people can be armed. That's not reason alone to shoot someone.

Morrison ran around to the passenger side of the car, drew his handgun and ordered Shaw to turn around.

Finnegan testified that Shaw “wasn’t acting rationally” and got out of the car with a “crazed look on his face.”

How in the world did the author of your article come to the conclusion that it was Morrison that made this statement as his reason for shooting?

Morrison testified that Shaw kept his hands up, but did not comply with the order to turn around. Morrison said he fired a stun gun at Shaw, but it had no effect because it hit Shaw’s heavy winter coat.

Morrison said he saw Shaw reach both hands into his jacket toward the gun.

Failing to follow commands and reaching towards anything that resembles a firearm will get you shot and it will be justified.

“I drew my duty gun, and I shot him,” Morrison testified.

Shaw’s gun was a BB gun replica of a law enforcement handgun.

Questions?

Forensic pathologist Dr. Thomas Bennett testified Tuesday that Shaw died of internal bleeding due to being shot in the abdomen, but also had ingested a potentially lethal dose of methamphetamine.

A coroner’s inquest is required under state law whenever a person dies in police custody. The jury provides an advisory verdict to the county attorney about whether the death was justified or a criminal act.

Finding the other side of this story didn't take long at all, DA. Did you even look? By the way, who is your source? Tell me it's cop block or free thought project? HAHA. Please let that be the case because I have to admit that I find it incredibly amusing that you continue to use them as sources when they openly endorse and cite articles from infowars. Clearly, anyone that does that is credible!

[Dominus Atheos]

The source is Dailykos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/0 ... ither-case

I do not browse cop block, free thought project, or infowars. Other web forums I browse may use those as sources and I may have reposted articles from those sources, but in the future I will not if you say they aren't credible.

Anyway, "not complying with police instruction" should not be a valid reason to shoot someone. The Yahoo/AP article linked to in the DailyKos article says that:

The five-year police veteran said he became convinced that Ramirez had a gun after the man reached for his waistband during their 30-second encounter last April in a high-crime area of Montana's most populous city.

"I knew in that moment, which later was determined to be untrue, but I knew in that moment that he was reaching for a gun," Morrison said. "I couldn't take that risk. ... I wanted to see my son grow up."

...

Billings Police Detective Brad Tucker, who investigated the case, testified Tuesday that Ramirez might have been trying to stash something when he was shot. A small amount of methamphetamine and a syringe were later found near Ramirez's seat.

Hiding evidence is not a capital crime, and a reasonable police officer's mind would not immediately jump to "He has a gun and I'm not going to see my son grow up unless I shoot him dead" just because the suspect doesn't put his hands up immediately when asked. Another alternative is that he was high out of his mind and so didn't understand the officer's instructions or physically couldn't comply because he was too drugged up to move.

Either way, the officer is clearly a coward who shouldn't be interacting with the public while holding a gun.

[Gaidin]

It's not the fact that he had a gun that got him shot. It's the fact that he did something that can be perceived as reaching for the gun according to Morrison in a damn traffic stop. Especially without warning. That's the simple math. According to the second article the gun was there the entire stop, and was only acted on when he was perceived to go for it. Why? Because he literally had a right to have it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The source is Dailykos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/0 ... ither-case

I do not browse cop block, free thought project, or infowars. Other web forums I browse may use those as sources and I may have reposted articles from those sources, but in the future I will not if you say they aren't credible.

I apologize for jumping to conclusions about that. It's been a rough day and I obviously took it out on you. Please accept my apology.

Anyway, "not complying with police instruction" should not be a valid reason to shoot someone. The Yahoo/AP article linked to in the DailyKos article says that:

Alone it is not. However, when combined with other facts such as "suspect in a robbery and shooting" then failing to comply along with reaching toward the waistband or pockets does become a valid reason. This reasoning isn't only valid to police but to regular people everywhere in the US. Guns are extremely deadly and they can be brought to bare in under a second by even untrained individuals. Requiring police to actually see a firearm before being able to act is promising that they will not be able to prevent being shot.

Hiding evidence is not a capital crime, and a reasonable police officer's mind would not immediately jump to "He has a gun and I'm not going to see my son grow up unless I shoot him dead" just because the suspect doesn't put his hands up immediately when asked. Another alternative is that he was high out of his mind and so didn't understand the officer's instructions or physically couldn't comply because he was too drugged up to move.

No. Hiding evidence is not a capital crime. Neither is rape. However, you can shoot someone that is trying to rape you. Neither is robbery. You can shoot someone trying to rob you. Neither is aggravated assault. You can shoot someone trying to assault you in an aggravated manner. Your appeal that hiding evidence isn't a capital crime is not relevant. Still, hiding evidence isn't justification to shoot someone. What is justification to shoot someone is when you're dealing with a suspect in a shooting that is reaching for a place where a firearm will reasonably be concealed or actually seeing what looks like a weapon and that person reaching in the direction for it.

Either way, the officer is clearly a coward who shouldn't be interacting with the public while holding a gun.

Shooting people that aren't complying who are suspects in violent felonies involving firearms or in the second example appear to have a firearm is not a sign of cowardice.

[Grumman]

Anyway, "not complying with police instruction" should not be a valid reason to shoot someone.

Neither of these men were shot for "not complying with police instruction", they were shot for "not complying with police instruction, when the police officer has specific reason to believe they are armed".

If Ramirez did not know that he was wanted by police as a suspect in a shooting then he may not have realised how precarious his position was, but Shaw's death is entirely his own fault. When you choose to carry an item specifically designed to make you look like you're carrying a gun, you have to act like someone who is carrying what appears to be a real gun.

[Simon_Jester]

Anyway, "not complying with police instruction" should not be a valid reason to shoot someone.

Neither of these men were shot for "not complying with police instruction", they were shot for "not complying with police instruction, when the police officer has specific reason to believe they are armed".

Not even that. They were shot for "not complying with police instruction, when the police officer has specific reason to believe they are armed, and thinks they are going for a weapon."

Now, perhaps a more... phlegmatic officer might not have shot one of those two men. On the other hand, in the event of a desperate criminal actually reaching for a weapon, a more phlegmatic officer might be dead, whereas Morrison is alive.

There are plenty of unjust police killings in America. I am not convinced these are two of them.

[Highlord Laan]

According to the New York Times, 50 police officers in the United States were shot and killed in 2014 while on duty.

And how many civilians did police shoot and kill in 2014?

[Terralthra]

Police aren't even in the top ten most dangerous job categories in the US.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Police aren't even in the top ten most dangerous job categories in the US.

Yeah, according to shitty statistical analysis.

And how many civilians did police shoot and kill in 2014?

Over 1000. Now how many police officers were assaulted with firearms in 2013?

[Terralthra]

Police aren't even in the top ten most dangerous job categories in the US.

Yeah, according to shitty statistical analysis.

According to the BLS. Take it up with the Federal government.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Police aren't even in the top ten most dangerous job categories in the US.

Yeah, according to shitty statistical analysis.

According to the BLS. Take it up with the Federal government.

BLS statistics are fine. I'm talking about the conclusions drawn about them. I'll ask you. How many cops were attacked with firearms in 2013? When you have that answer please check BLS statistics to see if that information is included. (It isn't)

[Terralthra]

Police departments don't report that information. Just like they don't report how often they shoot people.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Police departments don't report that information. Just like they don't report how often they shoot people.

With most dangerous jobs, no one is actively trying to kill you. Instead there is an equipment or environmental hazard. Malfunctioning heavy equipment, falls from great height etc.

The last decade has seen 15 thousand police officer injuries from assaults per year, on average.

http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fat ... facts.html

[Simon_Jester]

One point is that the majority of policemen may be in virtually no danger, while a relative handful of officers are in disproportionate danger. Danger is not necessarily distributed evenly and taking a nationwide average can mask effects.

A second point is that as Alyrium says, police work is almost unique in that the risk to your life and limb comes from other people.

When a lumberjack or a fisherman takes steps to minimize the risks to their safety, no one is surprised or concerned- because things like wearing safety equipment don't imperil anyone else's life.

When a police officer takes steps to minimize the risks to their safety, the only things they can really do are wear armor (which they do when situationally appropriate)... and be more alert to detect potential attacks and counter them before they end up on the receiving end of surprise lethal violence.

But do enough of that and the death rate caused by your actions goes up, because you're getting twitchier and shooting faster.

So even if police work is not inherently more dangerous than, say, cutting down trees... police work will create much more conspicuous consequences when the police officers try to minimize the risks they empirically do face.

[TheHammer]

Anyway, "not complying with police instruction" should not be a valid reason to shoot someone.

Neither of these men were shot for "not complying with police instruction", they were shot for "not complying with police instruction, when the police officer has specific reason to believe they are armed".

Not even that. They were shot for "not complying with police instruction, when the police officer has specific reason to believe they are armed, and thinks they are going for a weapon."

Now, perhaps a more... phlegmatic officer might not have shot one of those two men. On the other hand, in the event of a desperate criminal actually reaching for a weapon, a more phlegmatic officer might be dead, whereas Morrison is alive.

There are plenty of unjust police killings in America. I am not convinced these are two of them.

Had to look up what exactly "phlegmatic" meant lol. Quoted as my point to Grumman is also relevant.

Anyway, "not complying with police instruction" should not be a valid reason to shoot someone.

Neither of these men were shot for "not complying with police instruction", they were shot for "not complying with police instruction, when the police officer has specific reason to believe they are armed".

If Ramirez did not know that he was wanted by police as a suspect in a shooting then he may not have realised how precarious his position was, but Shaw's death is entirely his own fault. When you choose to carry an item specifically designed to make you look like you're carrying a gun, you have to act like someone who is carrying what appears to be a real gun.

At first I was thinking along the same lines as Grumman. As in "How the hell could Ramirez be expected to know he was wanted for a shooting, if he were innocent?". However, I got to thinking about it, and really Ramirez knew all he needed to know by virtue of the officer's commands - to raise his hands and keep them raised.

A typical traffic encounter with a police officer doesn't involve the officer demanding that you raise your hands. Even in an arrest situation, it's not a given that someone will be told to raise their hands. Therefore if you are issued a command to raise your hands, then you have to take the stance that officer believes you are armed and potentially hostile, and that any movement other than raising your hands could be viewed as a hostile act.

[Patroklos]

Even if you didn't raise your hands due to confusion surly you wouldn't lower your hands to your waste. I have never had anything but cordial traffic stops, at least as much as you can expect when you are getting a ticket. Even in these "friendly" encounters I still know to keep my hands visible on the steering wheel and ask/tell the officer if I need to reach for something he is asking for.

In the other case I have had firearms in my vehicle during a traffic stop before and all I had to do was tell him so and where they were and it was a non issue from there on out. If I were a cop and I saw a firearm that someone neglected to tell me was there I would note that as an odd and thing to not put on the table. It would make me suspicious.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Police departments don't report that information. Just like they don't report how often they shoot people.

Some do report them. The FBI has them. Also, I strongly believe that police departments should be required to forward all information on their officer involved shootings.

From the report.

I highlighted and underlined important information.

Overview
In 2013, the FBI collected assault data from 11,468 law enforcement agencies that employed 533,895 officers. These officers provided service to more than 247 million persons, or 78.2 percent of the nation’s population.
Law enforcement agencies reported that 49,851 officers were assaulted while performing their duties in 2013.
The rate of officer assaults in 2013 was 9.3 per 100 sworn officers.
More information about these topics is provided in Tables 65, 66, 70, and 71.

Injuries
Of the 49,851 officers who were assaulted in 2013, 14,565 (29.2 percent) sustained injuries.
31.0 percent of the officers who were attacked with personal weapons (e.g., hands, fists, or feet) suffered injuries.
14.6 percent of the officers who were assaulted with knives or other cutting instruments were injured.
10.9 percent of officers who were attacked with firearms were injured.
27.0 percent of officers who were attacked with other dangerous weapons were injured.
More information about this topic is provided in Tables 65, 66, and 70.

Times of incidents
For the fifteenth consecutive year, the largest percentage of assaults on officers (15.1 percent) happened from 12:01 a.m. to 2 a.m.
The smallest percentage of assaults on officers (2.5 percent) occurred between 6:01 a.m. and 8 a.m.
More information about this topic is provided in Table 67.

Circumstances
Of all officers who were assaulted in 2013:

31.2 percent were responding to disturbance calls (family quarrels, bar fights, etc.).
16.3 percent were attempting other arrests.
12.8 percent were handling, transporting, or maintaining custody of prisoners.
More information about this topic is provided in Tables 68, 69, and 73.

Clearances
Law enforcement agencies can clear offenses by arrest or exceptional means (i.e., when they can identify the perpetrator but are unable to make an arrest due to circumstances beyond their control, such as the death or suicide of the subject).

In 2013, law enforcement agencies cleared 91.6 percent of the 49,851 reported assaults on law enforcement officers.
By type of circumstance, agencies cleared the greatest percentage of assaults (93.1 percent) on officers who were responding to reports of civil disorder (mass disobedience, riot, etc.).
Agencies reported that they cleared 92.9 percent of the 15,531 assaults on officers who were responding to disturbance calls.
More information about this topic is provided in Table 68.

Assignments
62.7 percent of the officers who were assaulted were assigned to 1-officer vehicle patrols.
17.3 percent of the officers who were assaulted were assigned to 2-officer vehicle patrols.
4.4 percent of officers who were assaulted were assigned to detective duties or special assignments.
15.6 percent of officers were assigned to other duties when they were assaulted in the line of duty.
More information about this topic is provided in Table 69.

Weapons
In 2013, 79.8 percent of officers who were assaulted in the line of duty were attacked with personal weapons (e.g., hands, fists, or feet).
4.5 percent of the officers were assaulted with firearms.
1.8 percent of the officers were assaulted with knives or other cutting instruments.
13.9 percent of the officers were assaulted with other dangerous weapons.

That is 2243 assaults involving a firearm. 897 with knives and 6929 with other dangerous weapons. Those resulted in 224 injuries from firearms. 130 from knives and 1870 from other dangerous weapons.

That's 10069 officers that had been assaulted with a deadly or dangerous weapon. This means that there were 10069 incidents where police could have shot and killed someone. Of those 10069 incidents 2224 resulted in injury to the officer so even if you only considered instances where an officer was injured as justified then you could have 2224 potentially justified shootings. Yet, we only a bit above 1000.

What's my point in all of this? Playing simple number games does no good for anyone.

[Simon_Jester]

At first I was thinking along the same lines as Grumman. As in "How the hell could Ramirez be expected to know he was wanted for a shooting, if he were innocent?". However, I got to thinking about it, and really Ramirez knew all he needed to know by virtue of the officer's commands - to raise his hands and keep them raised.

A typical traffic encounter with a police officer doesn't involve the officer demanding that you raise your hands. Even in an arrest situation, it's not a given that someone will be told to raise their hands. Therefore if you are issued a command to raise your hands, then you have to take the stance that officer believes you are armed and potentially hostile, and that any movement other than raising your hands could be viewed as a hostile act.

Honestly, if a police officer says "raise your hands," that really should be it. That is a reasonable instruction for them to give, consistent with the police officer's rights and responsibilities. It does not pose an undue burden, it is thoroughly in line with proper procedure for making an arrest.

It would be folly to disobey such an order.

[madd0ct0r]

That is 2243 assaults involving a firearm. 897 with knives and 6929 with other dangerous weapons. Those resulted in 224 injuries from firearms. 130 from knives and 1870 from other dangerous weapons.

That's 10069 officers that had been assaulted with a deadly or dangerous weapon. This means that there were 10069 incidents where police could have shot and killed someone. Of those 10069 incidents 2224 resulted in injury to the officer so even if you only considered instances where an officer was injured as justified then you could have 2224 potentially justified shootings. Yet, we only a bit above 1000.

What's my point in all of this? Playing simple number games does no good for anyone.

Just wanted to say that is a lovely way to present the data. Thank you for sitting down and taking the time to demonstrate it.

[Mr Bean]

Just a point of clarification does it count as assault if I brandish a knife from twenty feet away? Because the ratio of "assault with" VS "injury" is running 9-1.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Just wanted to say that is a lovely way to present the data. Thank you for sitting down and taking the time to demonstrate it.

You're welcome.

Just a point of clarification does it count as assault if I brandish a knife from twenty feet away? Because the ratio of "assault with" VS "injury" is running 9-1.

Under my state code brandishing and assault are two separate charges. So, it shouldn't but I do not know actually know what information the FBI uses to categorize this data.

[Mr Bean]

Just a point of clarification does it count as assault if I brandish a knife from twenty feet away? Because the ratio of "assault with" VS "injury" is running 9-1.

Under my state code brandishing and assault are two separate charges. So, it shouldn't but I do not know actually know what information the FBI uses to categorize this data.

Thanks it's just I don't expect the ratio to run that high unless there's wiggleroom somewhere in the law that says if I resist arrest and I have a knife in my pocket that's assault. Because otherwise your talking nine failed knife attacks for every successful one... somehow. Point is knife fights suck for everyone involved and I don't think we send out officers in power armor or train them in Jujutsu to produce those lopsided a set of numbers. 10,000 assaults fine, 10,000 assaults 1,000 officer injuries? Something's off with either the numbers or the definitions. I'm thinking either charge padding and/or if you try to assault a cop and have a gun on you that goes into the firearm group not the unarmed attack group despite no shots being fired.

Or maybe only 1 in ten criminals is competent, or 1 in 5... whatever.

[Simon_Jester]

Does assaulting someone with a club or other improvised weapon count in these statistics? That might reduce the numbers of injuries somewhat. Maybe.