Thief awarded $1.2 million

[xsited1]

Oakland settles officer-involved shooting case for $1.2 million

OAKLAND — Oakland will pay $1.2 million to settle a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by a man who was left a paraplegic after he was shot by an Oakland police officer in 2007.

Charles Davis Jr., now 49, was suspected of burglarizing the Koinonia Apostolic Church, at 9429 MacArthur Blvd., when Officer Hector Chavez shot him in the back. Davis was unarmed. The officer mistook some of the items Davis was stealing for a gun, investigators said at the time.

But, Rick Simons, Davis' attorney, said his client offered "no resistance" to police and the shooting was unjustified. The $1.2 million will help Davis with the "basic needs" of living as a paraplegic, Simons said.

Oakland settles officer-involved shooting case for $1.2 million - Inside Bay Area

 

[KittenKoder]

Sadly, this is not new, nor rare.

 

[Xenophon]

He should have went for a head shot.

 

[KittenKoder]

He should have went for a head shot.

Would have saved the city money and gotten rid of a criminal once and for all.

 

[JD_2B]

Oakland settles officer-involved shooting case for $1.2 million

OAKLAND — Oakland will pay $1.2 million to settle a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by a man who was left a paraplegic after he was shot by an Oakland police officer in 2007.

Charles Davis Jr., now 49, was suspected of burglarizing the Koinonia Apostolic Church, at 9429 MacArthur Blvd., when Officer Hector Chavez shot him in the back. Davis was unarmed. The officer mistook some of the items Davis was stealing for a gun, investigators said at the time.

But, Rick Simons, Davis' attorney, said his client offered "no resistance" to police and the shooting was unjustified. The $1.2 million will help Davis with the "basic needs" of living as a paraplegic, Simons said.

Oakland settles officer-involved shooting case for $1.2 million - Inside Bay Area

I agree- GOOD for the judge in deciding this case that way. Even criminals have constitutional rights.. not the least of which should be to be arrested by someone with adequate firearms training.. and not made a cripple for the remainder of his life. The thief was wrong for stealing, but the cop was even more wrong for "jumping the gun"- excuse the pun..

The cop is lucky the guy didn't get killed!! Except that now, this poor jerk has to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair for petit theft.. And that punishment, IMHO, really does not seem to fit the crime.

Excellent article, by the way.

 

[KittenKoder]

Oakland settles officer-involved shooting case for $1.2 million

OAKLAND — Oakland will pay $1.2 million to settle a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by a man who was left a paraplegic after he was shot by an Oakland police officer in 2007.

Charles Davis Jr., now 49, was suspected of burglarizing the Koinonia Apostolic Church, at 9429 MacArthur Blvd., when Officer Hector Chavez shot him in the back. Davis was unarmed. The officer mistook some of the items Davis was stealing for a gun, investigators said at the time.

But, Rick Simons, Davis' attorney, said his client offered "no resistance" to police and the shooting was unjustified. The $1.2 million will help Davis with the "basic needs" of living as a paraplegic, Simons said.

Oakland settles officer-involved shooting case for $1.2 million - Inside Bay Area

I agree- GOOD for the judge in deciding this case that way. Even criminals have constitutional rights.. not the least of which should be to be arrested by someone with adequate firearms training.. and not made a cripple for the remainder of his life. The thief was wrong for stealing, but the cop was even more wrong for "jumping the gun"- excuse the pun..

The cop is lucky the guy didn't get killed!! Except that now, this poor jerk has to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair for petit theft.. And that punishment, IMHO, really does not seem to fit the crime.

Excellent article, by the way.

So ... you expect the cops to just willy nilly say "halt" and expect a possibly armed assailant to not fire ... ever?

 

[KittenKoder]

The cop's lucky he didn't taze the criminal ... or the damages would have been double!

 

[JD_2B]

Oakland settles officer-involved shooting case for $1.2 million



Oakland settles officer-involved shooting case for $1.2 million - Inside Bay Area

I agree- GOOD for the judge in deciding this case that way. Even criminals have constitutional rights.. not the least of which should be to be arrested by someone with adequate firearms training.. and not made a cripple for the remainder of his life. The thief was wrong for stealing, but the cop was even more wrong for "jumping the gun"- excuse the pun..

The cop is lucky the guy didn't get killed!! Except that now, this poor jerk has to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair for petit theft.. And that punishment, IMHO, really does not seem to fit the crime.

Excellent article, by the way.

So ... you expect the cops to just willy nilly say "halt" and expect a possibly armed assailant to not fire ... ever?

Yes- it is not "willy nilly" as you describe it to be- and anyone and everyone should be considered a "possibly armed" suspect.. Not an assailant. An assailant is someone who assaulted someone else..

Also, police are trained to not shoot people who are not presenting them with some type of deadly force.. They arent allowed to shoot someone based on a "possibility" of having a deadly weapon- only when they actually SEE that weapon, and the person is presenting it in a way that causes the officer to think that the person is going to use it to harm him or someone else. I was base security when I was in the Navy and have had police training that is similar to regular police training, so I am telling you this as a fact. Deadly force cannot be used unless there is an actual threat of it.

 

[RadiomanATL]

He should have went for a head shot.

Definitely.

 

[JD_2B]

1.2 million anywhere in California is a drop in the bucket compared to how much he is going to end up having to pay for his life long amount of care..

The next time your favorite celebrity gets caught stealing something, remember what you all are saying about a shot to the head.. It is just unreasonable.

 

[California Girl]

1.2 million anywhere in California is a drop in the bucket compared to how much he is going to end up having to pay for his life long amount of care..

The next time your favorite celebrity gets caught stealing something, remember what you all are saying about a shot to the head.. It is just unreasonable.

Favorite celebrity? WTF? Are celebrities more worthy of life than the rest of society? What a crock of shit "argument".

 

[lawbuff]

Also, police are trained to not shoot people who are not presenting them with some type of deadly force.. They arent allowed to shoot someone based on a "possibility" of having a deadly weapon- only when they actually SEE that weapon, and the person is presenting it in a way that causes the officer to think that the person is going to use it to harm him or someone else. I was base security when I was in the Navy and have had police training that is similar to regular police training, so I am telling you this as a fact. Deadly force cannot be used unless there is an actual threat of it.

I agree. Tennessee v. Garner is the controlling case law.

 

[JD_2B]

Thank- you Lawbuff.. =)

1.2 million anywhere in California is a drop in the bucket compared to how much he is going to end up having to pay for his life long amount of care..

The next time your favorite celebrity gets caught stealing something, remember what you all are saying about a shot to the head.. It is just unreasonable.

Favorite celebrity? WTF? Are celebrities more worthy of life than the rest of society? What a crock of shit "argument".

How so? It is simply a comparison, and a means to make people step back and THINK about why they are saying "A shot to the head would have been better".. That is not REASONABLE, California Girl, to even SHOOT someone who is unarmed.
I do not think that celebrities are worth more- but some people on here seem to think (and agree publicly) that this petty, unarmed thief deserved to die, somehow.

There is a reasonable person doctrine that must ALWAYS be applied.. And suggesting that an unarmed thief be shot in the head is certainly not reasonable.

 

[KittenKoder]

So ... now cops have to be 100% sure they are going to die before they think about their own families being left father/mother-less. At this rate why do we bother with laws?

 

[JD_2B]

So ... now cops have to be 100% sure they are going to die before they think about their own families being left father/mother-less. At this rate why do we bother with laws?

No, they just have to be sure that the person is armed, and that the weapon is in view, really. They also have to announce their presence as police and give the person a warning, if the person is not pointing the gun at anyone, or already shooting..

When it comes to this stuff, like "giving a warning"- other police tend to be likely to vouch for the other cop, if the situation required a shot fired before the other cop could give warning. This is considered reasonable use of deadly force too..

Deadly force is NOT reasonably used when a cop shoots an unarmed person, who, by all intensive purposes, the cop in question may or may not even be sure is actually stealing something in the first place, or committing burglary with mens rea (intent). Sometimes people with mental illness or who are on drugs or drunk, or are having amnesia, etc, might walk into a church or someone elses home, on accident.. without the intent to invade the space of another. And this is why the laws exist as they do- to protect innocent people from unlawful death or injury, or even unlawful incarceration..

In this case, there was definitely standing on the cop's behalf to arrest the guy and incarcerate, just no standing to shoot.

 

[KittenKoder]

So ... now cops have to be 100% sure they are going to die before they think about their own families being left father/mother-less. At this rate why do we bother with laws?

No, they just have to be sure that the person is armed, and that the weapon is in view, really. They also have to announce their presence as police and give the person a warning, if the person is not pointing the gun at anyone, or already shooting..

When it comes to this stuff, like "giving a warning"- other police tend to be likely to vouch for the other cop, if the situation required a shot fired before the other cop could give warning. This is considered reasonable use of deadly force too..

Deadly force is NOT reasonably used when a cop shoots an unarmed person, who, by all intensive purposes, the cop in question may or may not even be sure is actually stealing something in the first place, or committing burglary with mens rea (intent). Sometimes people with mental illness or who are on drugs or drunk, or are having amnesia, etc, might walk into a church or someone elses home, on accident.. without the intent to invade the space of another. And this is why the laws exist as they do- to protect innocent people from unlawful death or injury, or even unlawful incarceration..

In this case, there was definitely standing on the cop's behalf to arrest the guy and incarcerate, just no standing to shoot.

First, a hidden weapon is more dangerous than one in the open. Second, an unarmed person is no less dangerous than an armed person in many situations. Third, a lot of cops get killed because they are too nice.

 

[JD_2B]

So ... now cops have to be 100% sure they are going to die before they think about their own families being left father/mother-less. At this rate why do we bother with laws?

No, they just have to be sure that the person is armed, and that the weapon is in view, really. They also have to announce their presence as police and give the person a warning, if the person is not pointing the gun at anyone, or already shooting..

When it comes to this stuff, like "giving a warning"- other police tend to be likely to vouch for the other cop, if the situation required a shot fired before the other cop could give warning. This is considered reasonable use of deadly force too..

Deadly force is NOT reasonably used when a cop shoots an unarmed person, who, by all intensive purposes, the cop in question may or may not even be sure is actually stealing something in the first place, or committing burglary with mens rea (intent). Sometimes people with mental illness or who are on drugs or drunk, or are having amnesia, etc, might walk into a church or someone elses home, on accident.. without the intent to invade the space of another. And this is why the laws exist as they do- to protect innocent people from unlawful death or injury, or even unlawful incarceration..

In this case, there was definitely standing on the cop's behalf to arrest the guy and incarcerate, just no standing to shoot.

First, a hidden weapon is more dangerous than one in the open.

How do you figure? Many people have concealed weapons PERMITS. Also, the weapon that is in a persons hand, who is in the process of committing a crime, is also one that is more likely to be used to harm or injure another, considering the fact that they are actually committing a crime, at the time.

Second, an unarmed person is no less dangerous than an armed person in many situations.

If you are discussing the use of fists as opposed to guns and knives, I will respectfully disagree.. on the basis of HOW do you figure!! I personally would rather be punched 1,000 times than stabbed or shot even once.. Just doesn't seem all that "deadly" to get punched.. to me at least.

BUT if you are referring to the use of some kind of additional tool like a fork, or a lamp, or whatever- then these are all considered deadly weapons, as long as there is an intent to use them to cause harm. However, I do understand (in this case) what you are getting at, that a person without a knife or gun, can be just as deadly as someone with either- but the law does not generally specify what a deadly weapon is- it is all a matter of one's intent to use it. Rope, for instance, is not traditionally considered a weapon, but a person can easily be killed by strangulation with it.. and if there is an attempt to use such rope, then the rope would be considered a deadly weapon in this case. Like- if someone in a car tries to hit someone else, not in a car- that is assault with a deadly weapon..
However the jury found that this man was unarmed, so really- if a deadly weapon was used against an unarmed thief, then the issue at hand was clearly "was he armed?" and the jury found that no, he was not. I have no doubts that both sides argued what "armed" means, and that the jury was competent in their decision.

Third, a lot of cops get killed because they are too nice.

Too nice, or too stupid? Also, being too nice and easy going is commonly considered a problem or a lapse in judgment especially when one's own life is on the line..

 

[KittenKoder]

JD, you are a lost cause.

 

[JD_2B]

Why do you say that?



Did I explain everything to you adequately, or not?

 

[KittenKoder]

Why do you say that?



Did I explain everything to you adequately, or not?

That's not it, you just used a lot of misinformation really. You have to first think of cops as human beings before you will ever see what danger they are in 24/7.