Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Unarmed CA Man Shot By Deputy 3 Times--Defense Rests

  1. #1
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    This was about as clear a case of police error in shooting a guy (OK, a drunken guy) I've ever read about.

    Deputy Webb shot this Carrion three times in the back after telling him to "get up" after he'd proned him out.

    Now, they've got an expert telling the court that "get up" means, well, something else. And since Carrion "got up" after hearing the deputy's command, well, ole deputy Webb probably had to shoot him.

    For "getting up." When he was clearly told to "get up."

    Clear?

    Thank God they had the video. Without it, Carrion would be doing time by now.




    Deputy's defense rests in shooting case
    Final witness offers a context for actions by Ivory Webb Jr., but the former San Bernardino County deputy does take the stand.


    By Maeve Reston, Times Staff Writer
    June 22, 2007

    Attorneys for a former San Bernardino County sheriff's deputy who shot an unarmed airman rested their case Thursday without calling the deputy to the stand.

    The defense called just three witnesses during the four-week trial. A forensics alcohol expert testified about the shooting victim's level of intoxication; a tactics expert told the jury the shooting was justified; and Thursday, a psychologist testified that officers often give unclear commands in high-stress situations.

    Ivory John Webb Jr. could face 18 years in prison if convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm for shooting Elio Carrion. Carrion, 23, was a passenger in a Corvette that led Webb on a 100-mph pursuit before it crashed.

    During a confrontation videotaped by a bystander, Webb fired at Carrion three times as the airman appeared to follow orders from Webb to "get up" from the ground next to the car.

    William Lewinski, a psychologist and law enforcement professor at Minnesota State University, Mankato, did not offer his opinions about Webb's thought process when he confronted Carrion and the Corvette's driver.

    But Lewinski testified that a lone officer dividing attention between two subjects — who were not following orders or showing their hands at all times — would create a situation that is "very high stress for any officer."

    Lewinski said he had studied similar situations in which officers did not have control and feared for their lives. "Their analytical process began to collapse," he testified. "They had so much to do that, literally, they were overloaded."

    Lewinski cited an example of an officer who, facing a suspect with a knife, repeatedly shouted "Show me your hands!" even though both hands were visible.

    The officer was trying to say "Drop the knife" but resorted to familiar commands from his training.

    Jurors could begin deliberations as early as Tuesday, and one of their chief considerations may be Webb's state of mind when he ordered Carrion to get up.

    Carrion, who survived the shooting, testified he never threatened Webb and tried to calm the officer down by stating that he and the Corvette's driver were unarmed. In segments of an interview with detectives that was read during the trial, Webb said he felt threatened when he saw Carrion reach toward his jacket — possibly for a weapon.

    At that moment in the video, the airman is seen pointing to his chest in what he said was a gesture for emphasis that Webb should believe him. Webb had repeatedly told Carrion to keep his hands on the ground.

    In the next few seconds, Webb told investigators, he might have said "Get up," but his mind was racing. He was startled by Carrion's rise from the ground, he said, because he recalled giving the opposite command, which does not appear on the videotape.

    Lewinski also rebutted testimony from the prosecution's police tactics expert.

    Joe Callanan, who saw no justification for Webb to fire, had testified that Webb fired three carefully timed shots, which he said suggested the shooting was calculated and not a panicked response to a threat.

    There was 0.63 of a second between the first and second shot and about half a second between the second and third shot.

    Lewinski, who said he had been investigating officer-involved shootings for three decades, said that would be "barely enough time" for the officer to set his target and shoot.

    "There's no mental resources available for judgment within that time frame," he testified.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-airman22jun22,1,6732161.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    495

    Post imported post

    Wow....I remember seeing this on the news awhile back.

    Good to see some justice.

  3. #3
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    Wow... the video's crazy.
    -Unrequited

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Stupid newsies bleeped out the curse words, but I guess it's okay to watch someone get shot.

  6. #6
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    Glad the guy lived. The cop needs to go to jail for a very long time. Lets pretend he didn't TELL the guy to get up, how in the hell is shooting him in the back justified, then tell him to shut the **** up when he cries out in pain. Thats one piece of **** of a human that should have never been in law enforcement.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    998

    Post imported post

    Lets see here.A cop shoots a guyTHREE times, and he lives. Anybody want to bet that it as a 9mm?



    I'm sorry, but it had to be said.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    428

    Post imported post

    VApatriot wrote:
    Lets see here.A cop shoots a guyTHREE times, and he lives. Anybody want to bet that it as a 9mm?



    I'm sorry, but it had to be said.
    We had a cop shoot an unarmed man here (actually in Newport News, right next door) EIGHT times with a .45 before he went down. Fired 8 rounds, reloaded, and fired 3 more, hitting the man 8 times. Granted, the guy wouldn't show his hands, and implied he had a weapon. But a groin shot will drop any man where he stands. It is physically impossible to stand with a broken pelvis. Why 8 times? One groin shot=one downed suspect.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    534

    Post imported post

    VAopencarry wrote:
    Glad the guy lived. The cop needs to go to jail for a very long time. Lets pretend he didn't TELL the guy to get up, how in the hell is shooting him in the back justified, then tell him to shut the **** up when he cries out in pain. Thats one piece of **** of a human that should have never been in law enforcement.
    Severe but pertinent comments from my bootneck friend!

    One wonders just how much latitude a non-cop would receive in court if he behaved in this fashion.

    Can you all say "20 to life", guys and gals?

    I sincerely hope that this blood thirsty lout goes down for a very long time.

    TrueBrit.



  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    Thursday, a psychologist testified that officers often give unclear commands in high-stress situations.
    that statement alone tells me I'd rather deal with issues than calling the cops.

  11. #11
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Among other things, this case illustrates one very important yet sometimes overlooked factor in dealing with police-civilian interactions.

    Sometimes the LEO will lie. Flat out lie.

    Ivory Webb is a proven liar. He'll say anything to try to savehis hide.





  12. #12
    Regular Member Shovelhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NO VA, ,
    Posts
    355

    Post imported post

    Once again, Thank God for Dash Cam Video.



    Assault Weapon (N) Any firearm whose design disturbs the sleep of progressive politicians..

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Among other things, this case illustrates one very important yet sometimes overlooked factor in dealing with police-civilian interactions.

    Sometimes the LEO will lie. Flat out lie.

    Ivory Webb is a proven liar. He'll say anything to try to savehis hide.



    How is this any different than anyone else? Most anyone will lie to save themselves from going to prison. Many people lie for their own convenience. Cops are no different.

  14. #14
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    First off I was just shown this video...that was linked from this site. I have watched it several times...
    The cop was in the wrong ... excessive force is the first thing that came to mind.
    As this victim I am also a Combat Vet I think the US Police force should be like the German Polici with drunk and disorderliness... wack the living crap out of them until they are cuffed.
    I guess I would also been shot because I would have got up...

    Second....

    Lets see here. A cop shoots a guy THREE times, and he lives. Anybody want to bet that it as a 9mm?



    I'm sorry, but it had to be said.

    We had a cop shoot an unarmed man here (actually in Newport News, right next door) EIGHT times with a .45 before he went down. Fired 8 rounds, reloaded, and fired 3 more, hitting the man 8 times. Granted, the guy wouldn't show his hands, and implied he had a weapon. But a groin shot will drop any man where he stands. It is physically impossible to stand with a broken pelvis. Why 8 times? One groin shot=one downed suspect.
    I don’t want to come off as a "know it all" or a smart ass....
    #1 as WE ALL KNOW its shot placement and ammo type
    #2 "bet it was a 9mm"! ???? That must be an ignorant statement.... VIRGINIA TECH shooting 9mm & .22

    Finally.... trust me from experience a 9mm is a MORE than adequate round to incapacitate/kill a human being............. and if ANYONE would like to challenge me on that and would like to volunteer to be a target I will volunteer to be the shooter to test out the 9mm sucks theroy... LOL

    BTW this all can be supervised........... By the coroner. :shock:

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    Thursday, a psychologist testified that officers often give unclear commands in high-stress situations.
    that statement alone tells me I'd rather deal with issues than calling the cops.
    Like, WTF. Are we supposed to read their mind or something?

    Sounds like a training issue to me. My father was taught in Korea how to strip down his weapon, fix a jam, do a quick clean, and reassemble it all while under fire. Your telling me a trained officer can't think on his feet when he/she has the situation somewhat in control? I guess this could be an overreaction, but they are trained in dealing with sitations. I would hope that training would condition professional behavior at all times.

  16. #16
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    ilbob wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Among other things, this case illustrates one very important yet sometimes overlooked factor in dealing with police-civilian interactions.

    Sometimes the LEO will lie. Flat out lie.

    Ivory Webb is a proven liar. He'll say anything to try to savehis hide.
    How is this any different than anyone else? Most anyone will lie to save themselves from going to prison. Many people lie for their own convenience. Cops are no different.

    Well, if you're saying that many people lie, that of course is true. Or that many people lie about many things, that's true too.

    But lots (almost all) of lies don't hurt another person to the extent that they will cover up a killing/shooting or put the blame for something really seriouson someone else. People, as a group, avoid lying when the adverse impact on someone else is very great.

    Cops are inunique position to put blame on people. They pretty much can send someone to jail or physcially injure them based on what they say justifies such action.

    Of course, cops are different. From almost all other professions or categories of people. The vast majority of other professions or categories of persons do not have the power to send a man to prison or to meet his maker. LEOs can do that with one or two sentences or in a couple of secondswith a gun.

    Ivory Webb tried to do both. He is a despicable excuse for a law enforcement officer.

    Even though he was acquitted, he'll never work as an LEO again. Good riddance to bad rubbish.


  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    He was acquitted?? How sickening.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    BB62 wrote:
    He was acquitted?? How sickening.
    Just had a chance to view the actual video footage myself. It is obvious this is entirely out of line on the officers end, I don't know if it is protocol or not, but it seems to me that another officer should have been with him with a taser gun, mace, something less lethal to hit him with first, and I do not even think that was needed.

    This could have been easily avoided. The thing that gets me about all this, is that I would bet money on the fact that his fellow officers supported him in his actions, truly disgusting, maybe more disgusting than the act itself.

    To be aquitted atop all of this is horrendous, I cannot believe a jury let this man walk. To me this tape is irrefutable evidence that the officer was in the wrong here. I don't care how many 'experts' the defense had, the only thing this case should have been based on is the video and that alone -- it was all anyone needed to see to make a sound decision.


  19. #19
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    I do agree that the actions in the video look criminal. However I did immediately see some things that I knew would come up at his trialin his defense. So I'll share a few and perhaps give some perspective.

    I have not heard anything about the trial other then watching the initial news coverage and what has been said here.

    The first thing that I noticed was how close the officer was to the prone passenger after having been involved in a high speed chase. His position was not text book to the end of a pursuit. Why was he so close to the suspect car? Why was the passenger out of the car? Were there any other officers present?

    Ideally the officers use the engine block for cover and instruct the occupants to show their hands and then wait for more back up before attempting to callout the occupants slowly one at a time. This is called a felony t-stop.

    In this case, I'm guessing (I know assuming is not fair but...)the passenger (drunk)got out of the vehicle to 1)flee or 2)attempt to talk with the officers (airman to officer) to save his friend the (drunk) driver from an arrest. This would be an escalation in the eyes of the officer- as we (officers)will assume someone coming out of a car unexpectedly after a chase is likely to be armed (ya I know, nobody is supposed to be armed in public -ourlaw says so!). Now with the passenger coming out of the car, catching the officer by surprise and or alarming him, the officer is advancing, gun drawn, and ordering the passenger to the ground. Tactically it would have been better to still stay with the engine block as you don't knowhow many armed persons could be in a car.

    At some point, and we don't know what happened or how long it took or what wordswere exchanged, the passenger lies on the ground.

    Now what the video shows at this point in time is the officer to the left of and slightly behind the prone individual. More words from the passenger and the officer yelling, "Shut the F - up" etc..., more words from the passenger including "I'm getting up" and at some point we hear the officer say "get up". The passenger moves his arms underneath to lift himself up and his right hand from the officers perspective (or should I say defendant) is out of sight and under the passengers body. Is he reaching for a weapon? Now shots are fired.

    Officers get killed for hesitating in high risk situations. Is it possible the officer took advantage of the situation to administer some street justice to an individual he didn't like? Yes. Were his actionspossibly justified by the perceptions of a "reasonable officer" (theSupreme Court standard for officer use of force)under the circumstances if he was trying to say "don't get up" but only "get up" came out in a high pressure dangerous situation andthe suspect starts to get up and places his hands near his waist band (where weapons are commonly concealed by criminals)?Also yes.

    For some reason a jury didnot just dead lock on a decision but fully acquitted. This tells methat the prosecutiondid not meet the burden of proof needed to convict.

    What are the lessons here. Officers need to follow procedure and not leave their safe zone (car engine block) until sufficient back up arrives even if a suspect might flee. And for the passenger - don't get out of the car until instructed and if an officer is yelling shut the f-up do it and don't move!

    There were plenty of mistakes made on both sides that contributed to the shooting. But if the officer was genuinely in fear for his safety the shooting was not a crime. Now we will never know what discipline the department might have still imposed for this event for violations of policy as I understand the officer resigned shortly after the shooting.

    He can't now get his job back because of the resignation. If I was innocent I would not have resigned and would have fought for my job and reputation if I had won at trial. The fact that he didn't is the most tell evidence I've seen as to his innocence or guilt.






Posting Permissions

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