Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 71

Thread: Officer Shoots Unarmed, Naked Suspect

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,190
    Likes (received)
    350

    Default Officer Shoots Unarmed, Naked Suspect

    This one brings up a lot of issues:

    1) Valid shooting? Yes, its a potentially lethal situation.

    2) Officer's training in Ground Combat/Survival: Would it have made a difference?

    3) Public Perceptions and Skewing by inexperienced "experts" and laymen.



    'I had no choice,' says Ill. cop who shot unarmed, naked suspect

    By Steve Schmadeke
    Chicago Tribune


    CHICAGO — Inside an ambulance moments after fatally shooting a naked Glen Ellyn college student, Officer Jason Bradley began to cry, telling the deputy police chief: "I had to do it -- I had no choice."

    Bradley, now 27 and a state trooper, was responding to a domestic battery call in 2006 at the Iron Gate apartments that he says escalated into a fistfight in which Benjamin Uwumarogie straddled him and repeatedly struck him in the face. The officer drew his weapon and shot the father of two once in the head.


    Tuesday marked the second day of a civil trial in the federal wrongful-death lawsuit brought by Uwumarogie's father, Sunday, principal of Eugene Field Elementary School in Chicago. The family's attorneys argue the shooting was unjustified.

    Bradley said he first tried to restrain Uwumarogie, eventually spraying him five times in the face with pepper spray after the College of DuPage football player, 22, refused to stop.

    "He was almost looking right through me. ... I had a gut instinct that something was wrong," Bradley testified.

    Iron Gate property manager Rick Olsen watched through the apartment's open front door as the two grappled in a narrow hallway.

    "He lunged at the police officer, grabbed him by the arms and pushed him back to the bedroom," he said. "A few seconds later, I heard a shot."

    Copyright © 2009 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy

    Copyright 2009 Chicago Tribune

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    1,590
    Likes (received)
    3

    Default

    Notice that the headline reads, "Officer Shoots Unarmed, Naked Suspect," rather than "Officer Shoots Crazed Attacker" or somesuch. I'm not as familiar as I should be with this area of law, but the facts that he had already tried to use mace unsuccessfully and that the attacker was a college football player (and thus likely to be a rather physically imposing person capable of doing a great deal of damage bare-handed) are obviously important, and just from the description given it seems likely to me that the officer was acting from a legitimate belief that his own life was in danger and I suspect that most courts and jurisdictions would accept that. Even if the issue were very much in doubt, though, the slant of the article title is extremely prejudicial. That is unfortunate, if not surprising.
    David Sims

    "Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - Terry Pratchet

    My opinion is, in all likelihood, worth exactly what you are paying for it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,190
    Likes (received)
    350

    Default

    David, I think you have an excellent grasp of the situation.

    I would point out that in terms of self defense for non LEOs, people should be aware of the same articulatable factors in such a case. While the press bias in the aftermath may not be as blatant (unless a firearm was used..), a defender using martial arts techniques in the same situation would be able to clearly articulate an escalation in force to more damaging tactics, to include weapons use, in order to stop the attack.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    163
    Likes (received)
    3

    Default

    2) Officer's training in Ground Combat/Survival: Would it have made a difference?

    Since we don't know exactly what happened and what training he had-Who knows?

    3) Public Perceptions and Skewing by inexperienced "experts" and laymen.

    ALmost always.

    Five applications of OC-Possibility of the repetitive cycle of failure under stress. I wouldn't be OC'ing a college football player-baton, taser yes. What where the cross contamination problems?-In an apartment probably a great deal. One more reason OC wouldn't be my first choice.
    We both know that naked and violent means bad news-drugs/psychosis or both. Which means greater level of threat of violence and probably a greater level of strength.
    I'm glad the cop lived to tell about it.
    Duane Wolfe

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,190
    Likes (received)
    350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duanew View Post
    2) Officer's training in Ground Combat/Survival: Would it have made a difference?

    Since we don't know exactly what happened and what training he had-Who knows?
    That's a good point! I was thinking more generally, as in a downed officer continuing to be assaulted by a straddling suspect. I know I shouldn't assume that from a news account.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    20
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hissho View Post
    ...wrongful-death lawsuit brought by Uwumarogie's father...
    The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Akron, OH
    Posts
    65
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    The only thing saving this officer's professional future, and the municipality significant finances, is if the toxicology report shows some serious substances in this man's system, or a subpoena of the medical records shows some serious problems with his mental health.
    Terry Miller

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    163
    Likes (received)
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPaladin View Post
    The only thing saving this officer's professional future, and the municipality significant finances, is if the toxicology report shows some serious substances in this man's system, or a subpoena of the medical records shows some serious problems with his mental health.
    That's a big assumption without knowing most of the facts. The presence or absence of either drugs or mental illness won't change whether or not the officer was justified in his use of force since that is judged by the officers perception of the threat at the time of the shooting. While the officer could reasonably assume drugs and/or psychosis from the naked, violent man call the actual toxicology report or release medical records could only confirm or disprove his assumptions.

    Duane
    Duane Wolfe

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    320
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Notice that the headline reads, "Officer Shoots Unarmed, Naked Suspect," rather than "Officer Shoots Crazed Attacker"
    I don't think that was the headline, but rather Kit's title for the thread. I searched the Tribune site and couldn't find an article with that title. Most of the Tribune articles refer to Uwumarogie as a "college student."

    The officer was cleared. Here is the article:

    In defense of the press, I guess I would say that they need to make as sterile a description as possible. The guy was naked and he was shot, so I guess they figure there is no room for a defamation lawsuit there.

    Chracterizations like "crazed attacker" would be making a judgment before the facts were in. (Which the press does all the time, but in this case maybe they were doing the right thing.)

    The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.
    I don't know about that. The guy's son is dead. He is looking for answers. Perhaps somewhere along the line, he screwed up as a dad, but don't we all? My dad certainly did and I'm sure I will. I never wound up naked hitting a police officer, but I'm not sure you can trace that to "bad parenting" at 22 years old. Seems a stern and callous thing to say under the circumstances.

    No doubt that once Uwumarogie was on top of the officer and hitting, Bradley had to do something. I guess the question I would have as a layman is what lead up to that situation in the first place? Did Bradley have all the pertinent facts before he approached Uwumarogie? Should other officers have been there to assist? I would think the department would want to know these things also.

    In other words, could the death have been avoided or did it have to go down like this? Clearly, once the officer's life was in danger, the die was cast. I mean could any actions have been reasonably taken before that to ensure a different outcome?

    Kevin Cantwell
    Last edited by K. Cantwell; 16th February 2009 at 23:19.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    45
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    When I read or hear about this sort of thing, I always try to keep a very open mind and I try not to jump to conclusions and I try to keep my biases out of it. All of which is very hard to do.

    The media is not without its own bias; either pro law enforcement or anti law enforcement. I know that what I read or hear is not the whole story, but one person’s perspective of an event and that they might not know the whole story themselves. We don’t the precursors, we don’t the stressors, we don’t know a lot of things, and we should strive to avoid taking for granted that we do know these things.

    It’s important to remember that LEO’s are not paid to be professional cutting dummies, punching bags, or bullet catchers. As LEO’s there is a lawful system to justify the level of force used. I don’t like the term “Use of Force Continuum” because it implies that we have to go step by step in the level of force we use. The reality is that the use of force used must be measured by the treat we are facing, and it must be appropriate. So many factors come into play in deciding in a split second to use lethal force or not; size and strength disparity, the influence of controlled substances and or alcohol, numbers involved, the assailant’s history of violence… Heck, these factors could be a book in and of themselves. But they might be as simple as the bad guy has superior fight skills and you have to act to protect your sidearm or to avoid sever injury or loss of life, or that of your partner’s.

    Under the right circumstances, even if the assailant is unarmed, if the Officer can articulate that he or she was in fear for their life, that he or she was in fear for someone else’s life or to avoid severe bodily harm, we can use lethal force. I would argue that we should use it as well.

    The rules that were drilled into me at Academy are- Rule #1: come home with the same number of holes in your body you had when you went to work. Rule # 2: your partner goes home with the same number of holes in their body they had when they went to work.

    Be safe!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,190
    Likes (received)
    350

    Default

    The actual headline is the title in bold.

    Certainly the media would never use "crazed attacker," they are more likely to write "crazed police officer" in many cases, frankly. After being involved in enough incidents as an officer you realize that the media generally is biased against police, and that on average you are getting 50-75% of the actual facts in any media report.

    Kevin's analysis is sound, and insightful. Even officers frequently only see the justification for the shooting and don't ask if something could have been done/should have been done to avoid being in a position to have had a shooting in the first place. That does not mean this officer did not do the right thing, or do what he had to do at the time. But a question to be asked is "why was this guy alone?" Some of that may simply be staffing, or another factor out of the officer's control, but it may have been a tactical error (not waiting for a cover officer) or errors that led him to being in a confrontation alone. IF, and that's a big if, this is one of those unfortunate incident, it may be a justified shooting that did not need to happen. I am sure they have debriefed this and learned from it.

    Courts don't judge an officer by a standard of making an ideal decision, because that is not humanly possible. They judge a use of force like this based on whether it was reasonable at the time. Even those of us that are seasoned and handle most things in a tactically sound manner make mistakes.

    He certainly attempted to remedy the matter with a lesser use of force. In fact he may have stuck with that use of force too long - perhaps succumbing to the Force Continuum misunderstanding that Bill mentions and many officers are actually erroneously trained in. The fact that he did goes a long way toward articulating that he did what he could to prevent having to shoot the guy.

    Being straddled by an athletic, powerful attacker and punched repeatedly in the face is very much a threat of serious bodily injury or deadly force. The officer is absolutely justified in using lethal force to defend that - as would any citizen in the same situation. They stop ground and pounding when there is no intelligent defense even in MMA because of the threat of injury. Against hard surfaces (and not a mat), in a combative environment, where weapons of opportunity may also be present, the threat is much greater.

    The officer has an additional factor raising the level of threat - his sidearm. If he is dazed or knocked unconscious he is far more likely to be disarmed, and if he is disarmed, it is likely the weapon will be used against him.

    I mentioned skill at ground combatives; it may or may not have made a difference in this case. It could have made a difference in whether or not this rose to the level of a lethal threat - for instance had the officer been able to control the encounter and maintain or regain a dominant position. Against a highly athletic and highly aggressive adversary, in a combative situation with weapons present, even with honed skill at groud combatives that might be a tall order. This would not be the early UFC style "lay and pray" fights where you get hit for a half hour until the guy gets tired and you choke him out.

    Once the decision is made that a lethal threat needs to be dealt with using lethal force, ground combatives would also allow the positional and weapons access skills that may allow successful and drawing and using of a firearm or other tool. The draw at close quarters is a perilous time when the officer is in danger of being disarmed or his weapon otherwise controlled and rendered unusable, and a liability. We don't know if that could have been the case here, but certainly if you reach a point where you feel you need to use a weapon in a hand to hand fight, deploying it raises the level of threat to you as well as the suspect unless you know how to prevent him from controlling you and your ability to use it.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    20
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by K. Cantwell View Post
    The guy's son is dead. He is looking for answers.
    How does that justify a lawsuit?

    Seems a stern and callous thing to say under the circumstances.
    Should a person's sense of right and wrong be contingent on feelings?

    I guess the question I would have as a layman is what lead up to that situation in the first place? Did Bradley have all the pertinent facts before he approached Uwumarogie? Should other officers have been there to assist? I would think the department would want to know these things also.
    And the only way they'll find out is by a lawsuit? Please explain that.

    In other words, could the death have been avoided or did it have to go down like this? Clearly, once the officer's life was in danger, the die was cast. I mean could any actions have been reasonably taken before that to ensure a different outcome?
    Are you suggesting, should it be discovered the officer didn't act wholly appropriately, that the father should be entitled to a reward because his son wasn't the only one at fault?

    If that's the case, doesn't it logically follow that the municipality and the family of the LEO both sue the father to get answers and, possibly, compensation for whatever inappropriate fathering lead to the incident?
    Last edited by Adam Alexander; 17th February 2009 at 16:38. Reason: typo
    Always the man in whom thought thrusts ahead of thought, allows the goal to move far off.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    45
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Alexander View Post
    How does that justify a lawsuit?... And the only way they'll find out is by a lawsuit?...

    Litigation is America’s #2 most popular indoor sport. Getting sued is no fun, but in this case I am sure the father is very distraught and feels that he nothing to lose by litigating a civil suit against a government agency with deep pockets. It's to be expected. I am often suprised how quickly some people lawyer-up.

    There will be a departmental investigation to determine if the use of lethal force was justified. If the Officer acted within Agency Policy then his state’s AG should represent him and his agency in court. Kit brought up a lot of contingencies that need to be addressed to determine if the Officer did act within agency policy. (For all we know, maybe this guy is a 5%er!)

    Will the father ever feel that his son’s death was justified? Probably not.

    Will there be people who assume the police are always acting wrongly or who are just jackboot thugs who enjoy enacting brutality upon society? Unfortunately, yes.

    This is the world in which we live and work. All things considered, I say we still have the best jobs in the world!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    20
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Sampson View Post
    ...in this case I am sure the father is very distraught and feels that he nothing to lose...
    Exactly. He doesn't have to worry about losing self-respect because, as demonstrated by his son's actions and his effort to overlook his son's poor decision making, he doesn't have a sense of responsibility or righteousness.

    The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.
    Always the man in whom thought thrusts ahead of thought, allows the goal to move far off.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    1,590
    Likes (received)
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Alexander View Post

    And the only way they'll find out is by a lawsuit? Please explain that.
    Well, a lawsuit is a great way to get the truth out into the open. If I walk over to the police station and try to ask questions, the officer may or may not talk to me. I could be stonewalled for years. If I subpoena him, his superior officers, their trainers, etc., then they will all talk, and talk under oath. My attorney can use the discovery process to get access to all sorts of documentation that I would never be able to see otherwise.

    Trials seem to satisfy a fundamental human need for justice. Whatever the result, I'll see my son's killer held up to scrutiny. I'll be able to ask him questions and to demand answers. If he presents an active defense, then I'll hear his side of the story. And at the end of the process, the community-- in the form of the jury-- will give their verdict on whether or not the conduct was justified.

    I don't know if this particular lawsuit is justified or not. I haven't examined the case in any real detail. However, I do know of many cases where people have seen a lawsuit as the only way to get answers from a government agency such as the police and I think that that view can be justified. It certainly isn't a good situation for the officer involved, but his situation has to be weighed against the situation of the family. That's the job of the judge, who will allow the suit if he feels that it is justified and dismiss it if it has no grounds.
    David Sims

    "Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - Terry Pratchet

    My opinion is, in all likelihood, worth exactly what you are paying for it.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •