PDA

View Full Version : AZ-Remember that unarmed man shot in the back by cops with rifles while holding his 2 y/o?




Anti Federalist
08-16-2012, 07:52 PM
I'm pretty sure I posted about this when it happened.


Cops Liable for Shooting Man in Odd Standoff

By TIM HULL

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/16/49377.htm

(CN) - Police officers in Arizona used excessive force when they shot a distraught man in the back three times while he held his 2-year-old daughter, a federal judge ruled.

David Hulstedt had a history of mental-health problems when he got into a standoff with police in 2008 after arguing with his parents at their Scottsdale home.

Hulstedt had called 911 and demanded to see former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, and a dispatcher marked the call as a high priority because background noise of yelling and a crying baby indicated that others may be in danger.

Fearing that the officers who responded to the scene would shoot him, Hulstedt refused to come out of the house with his 2-year-old daughter, D.H.

(Crazy, maybe not so much, eh? - AF)

At one point Hulstedt threatened to "pile drive" the child unless police negotiators sent his brother into the house.

About 30 minutes into the standoff, Hulstedt left the house, unarmed, with the child in his arms. But he turned around after only a few steps and walked back toward the front door, holding D.H. over his head. Scottsdale Police Sgt. Richard Slavin, about 96 feet away, yelled, "Put that child down!"

Within seconds of the warning, Officer James Dorer fired his rifle twice at the small of Hulstedt's back. Slavin fired twice as well. Three bullets hit Hulstedt, causing him to drop D.H. headfirst onto a concrete path. Doctors later treated the little girl for a skull fracture. The gunshots left Hulstedt paralyzed.

Hulstedt and his parents filed a federal complaint against Scottsdale, Slavin, Dorer and others, claiming that the officers had used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Slavin and Dorer defended their actions as reasonable and claimed qualified immunity.

Based partly on a close viewing of a video recording of the incident, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow granted summary judgment to the Hulstedts on their excessive-force claims in a ruling signed last week. Slavin, Dorer and more than a dozen other defendants have since filed an appeal in the 9th Circuit.

"The officers fired at an unarmed man who was walking away from them," Snow wrote. "Although he had issued threats against D.H. earlier, nothing he did after walking outside would suggest to a reasonable officer that he was placing D.H. in imminent danger of suffering any more harm than falling to the ground. By shooting David, the officers caused the very harm that a reasonable officer could believe that David posed to D.H. Considering 'the totality of the facts and circumstances in the particular case,' no reasonable officer could have believed that shooting David without warning, while he calmly walked back towards his house with D.H. over his head, was a proper means of protecting D.H.'s safety."

Several other allegations ended in summary judgment for the defendants, but Snow refused to rule on excessive-force and battery claims related to the dragging of the injured Hulstedt from the scene, and on some municipal liability claims.

aGameOfThrones
08-16-2012, 07:59 PM
I want an apologist in this thread!!!

asurfaholic
08-16-2012, 08:06 PM
Wow what hell that family is going through ...this may be a temporary victory but the fact that the officers are still walking free is a loss for everyone.

cjm
08-16-2012, 08:29 PM
I want an apologist in this thread!!!

I'll give it a go....

When you are accustomed to people obeying your commands, deviation from this pattern is unsettling. In a disturbed condition, failure to obey is easily confused with a threat to one's person and one can easily find himself fearing for his life. Once you are in a state of fear for your life, and you have a badge, you can do whatever you want.

phill4paul
08-16-2012, 08:36 PM
Once you are in a state of fear for your life, and you have a badge, you can do whatever you want.

Good job!

Pericles
08-16-2012, 08:37 PM
I'll give it a go....

When you are accustomed to people obeying your commands, deviation from this pattern is unsettling. In a disturbed condition, failure to obey is easily confused with a threat to one's person and one can easily find himself fearing for his life. Once you are in a state of fear for your life, and you have a badge, you can do whatever you want.

Nice try, but not as good as azxd.

Anti Federalist
08-16-2012, 08:42 PM
Nice try, but not as good as azxd.

Like Fire11 imitations, none can compare to the original.

But I'd give it an A for effort.

AFPVet
08-16-2012, 10:12 PM
WTF... dumbasses didn't realize that shooting the man would cause him to drop the kid? Morons. The cops should be charged with excessive force and criminal recklessness.

sparebulb
08-16-2012, 10:30 PM
Nice try, but not as good as azxd.

Don't forget "Lethal"miko.

anaconda
08-16-2012, 10:35 PM
Pile drive?

cjm
08-16-2012, 10:35 PM
Nice try, but not as good as azxd.

Apples and oranges, brother. I still have my amateur status ;)

Anti Federalist
08-16-2012, 10:38 PM
WTF... dumbasses didn't realize that shooting the man would cause him to drop the kid? Morons. The cops should be charged with excessive force and criminal recklessness.

Nice to see you AFPVet!

Origanalist
08-16-2012, 10:43 PM
I want an apologist in this thread!!!

Where's Rabit Man when you need him?

AFPVet
08-16-2012, 10:44 PM
Nice to see you AFPVet!

You too :)

youngbuck
08-16-2012, 11:54 PM
a reasonable officer ... reasonable officer ... no reasonable officer


Why is it automatically assumed that officers are reasonable? Every day officers across the US are proving themselves to be more and more unreasonable.

AFPVet
08-16-2012, 11:59 PM
Why is it automatically assumed that officers are reasonable? Every day officers across the US are proving themselves to be more and more unreasonable.

We always used the verbiage "reasonable person". Everyone who makes an arrest, either on the job or civilian, is an officer performing a duty. The thing to remember is what would a "reasonable person" do? if it's not within reason, then it is unreasonable correct? Yes, many appointed enforcers are becoming unreasonable. The us v. them mentality, and viewing the public as mere servants to the system rather than the other way around....

Origanalist
08-17-2012, 01:10 AM
We always used the verbiage "reasonable person". Everyone who makes an arrest, either on the job or civilian, is an officer performing a duty. The thing to remember is what would a "reasonable person" do? if it's not within reason, then it is unreasonable correct? Yes, many appointed enforcers are becoming unreasonable. The us v. them mentality, and viewing the public as mere servants to the system rather than the other way around....

The "My taxes pay your salary" thing doesn't cut it. If they need more money they will just write more tickets and confiscate more property. True malicious parasites.

youngbuck
08-17-2012, 04:47 PM
The "My taxes pay your salary" thing doesn't cut it. If they need more money they will just write more tickets and confiscate more property. True malicious parasites.

Yep, that seems to be becoming truer and truer everyday.