In response to lawsuit, Pittsfield Township says officer who shot suspect feared for her safety
A Pittsfield Township police officer shot a man in January because he "quickly jumped out of his car and reached for something under his coat, and she was in fear that he had a gun and was going to shoot her," a recent court filing by the township says.
The filing was in response to a federal lawsuit alleging Officer Tracy Yurkunas used excessive force when she shot 30-year-old domestic violence suspect Devin Reddick in the abdomen.
Reddick, who was unarmed, filed suit in March against the township and Yurkunas, seeking an unspecified amount of money.
The township claims in the May 20 filing that Yurkunas used “reasonable and necessary" force because Reddick made her fear that she would suffer “imminent bodily injury or death.”
Reddick was shot after he got out of the driver's side of a car Jan. 15 and turned to face Yurkunas in the parking lot of the Rosewood Village condominium complex off Primrose Lane. He was holding a cell phone.
The filing says Yurkunas was unable to tell “what, if anything, plaintiff was holding," when she shot him.
Washtenaw County prosecutors investigated and declined to file criminal charges against Yurkunas. The police department put Yurkunas on desk duty after the incident as it conducted an internal investigation to determine whether any policies or procedures were violated. The status of that investigation is unclear. Police Chief Matt Harshberger did not return a phone call seeking comment.
Reddick is awaiting sentencing after pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges of domestic violence and driving with a suspended license, court records show.
Lee Higgins covers crime and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached by phone at (734) 623-2527 and email at leehiggins@annarbor.com.
Comments
Grimey
Thu, Jun 2, 2011 : 8:38 p.m.
Was Yurkunas mic'ed? You can here her voice at the beginning of the video, and @ 1:51 Yurkunas is speaking to another officer while facing the camera but the conversation can't be overheard.
genetracy
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 8:53 p.m.
So many people here know what was going through Reddick's mind at the time of the shooting. Are you graduates of Dionne Warwick's ESP class?
Ricebrnr
Thu, Jun 2, 2011 : 1:44 p.m.
By the same token, we don't know that it wasn't "today is a goodday to die" coupled with suicideby cop thought either do we? We can be sure that theofficer was thinking, "I'm going home to my family"
trespass
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 8:58 p.m.
We know that it was not "I am going to shoot this officer" because he was unarmed.
walker101
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 4:34 p.m.
Rookie mistake.
walker101
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 4:33 p.m.
Bottom line officer acted too quickly, suspect did not have a weapon nor did he raise his hand like he was about to shot at her, he knew she would shoot if he made her think that he had a weapon. Verdict large payout for the city and the officer will go on disability and cash out.
arearesident
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 9:37 p.m.
He reached towards his waistband, where many people do keep a weapon. That act is a threat, in a situation like this one.
Grimey
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.
One crucial piece of video footage is missing; did officer Yurkunas signal to Mr. Reddick that she was right behind him? Did she use her siren? Yes, her lights were on at the start of the video but not everyone will notice an officer is behind them until they hit the siren.
Grimey
Thu, Jun 2, 2011 : 8:21 p.m.
If indeed the siren wasn't sounded, that would be a lack of proper training or negligence on the part of the officer.
trespass
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 7:39 p.m.
She turned her lights on just as he was approaching the turn into his parking lot. It seems quite likely that he was focused on the turn in front of him and not on his rear view mirror. Notice that she did not pull into view of this rear view mirror when she stopped. The original video has indicators for lights and siren and the siren was not on. The officers actually were told by his girlfriend that he did not have a gun or access to a gun.
Roadman
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 4:21 p.m.
You are correct. The lawsuit alleges that there was no warning and the first time he noticed Yurkunas was after alighting from his vehicle and turning around. There was no signal to halt from officers who were stopped in front of Reddick's oncoming car after he entered the parking lot. There was no need to unholster and point a service revover at Reddick as there was no information received from police that he was armed.
SW40
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 3:18 p.m.
Okay, which ever one of the awesome employees of this terrible rag of a newspaper is moderating this story knock it off. You are letting every nut job with an opinion tear down this police officer but as soon as someone brings into question the suspect, thats rite he is a suspect for domestic violence and R&O not a victim you people take down the comment. This liberal rag of a paper has a long history of protecting suspects and tearing down police and its disgusting. If you want people to have an open dialogue then stop this nonsense. This guys is a criminal and shouldn't be treated better by AA.Com then the police officer who has dedicated her life to serving our community. I'm ok with people making their comments about the officer, but it isn't fair if everytime a comment is made about this Criminal you people take it down.
trespass
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 11:29 p.m.
@SW40- He was never charged with R/O (resisting or obstructing). He was only charged with a misdemeanor assault of his girlfriend. The fact that the police did not ask for a charge of R/O indicates that, in retrospect, the officers perception of resistance or fleeing was not supported by objective evidence.
yourdad
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 3:51 p.m.
I wonder how comments there would be if they actually had to use real names?
fight hunger
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 3:15 p.m.
thank god she is ok and he will be in prison forever i hope
Ricebrnr
Thu, Jun 2, 2011 : 1:48 p.m.
Legitimate perception of danger, i.e. Reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury is a major component of self defense law. Thanks for proving the point and providing the reasonable doubt that will finally put this incident to rest.
trespass
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 11:32 p.m.
@arearesident- you are talking about a perception of danger not any actual danger. He did not actually have a gun so he could not have shot her. There were 5 officers on the scene so even if he approached the officer he would easily have been overpowered but in reality, if you read the police reports they did not allege that he tried to approach the officer, rather they said he appeared ready to flee.
arearesident
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 9:33 p.m.
@trespass - She was in danger. There was a much larger, and aggravated, person making aggressive movements towards the officer, and said person appeared to be reaching for a weapon. How much more danger would you like the officer to be in, before you feel it is acceptable to shoot?
trespass
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 7:35 p.m.
What do you mean thank god she is OK. He was never armed. She was in no actual danger. At most she only percieved that she was in danger. Of course she is OK. Thank god he is OK. He is the one who got shot.
Roadman
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 4:22 p.m.
He will likely be sentenced to probation and get a chunk of insurance funds for his hassle.
grye
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 12:59 p.m.
The more I watch the video, the more I see an individual who was startled at the sight of a police officer positioned behind her car door for safety pointing a gun at him. He makes a quick move, she shoots, and then says "put your hands up". I don't see how she should have feared for her safety since he didn't have a gun nor was a gun being readied and aimed. The suspect may have been in a domestic violence dispute but I haven't heard any information that said he was armed and dangerous. It appears she may have been nervous and slightly heavy on the trigger. Not saying he is an angel, but I don't think the shooting was justified.
arearesident
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 9:28 p.m.
The fact he had the police called on him, for a violent situation, gives the dangerous part of that equation. It takes very little time to draw a firearm from a waistband, which he was reaching towards. How long would you wait, to see if he pulled a weapon, if you were in that officer's shoes?
yourdad
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 3:47 p.m.
"The more I watch the video..." Really??? You wanna change things in the real world based on instant replay. Wake up, she made a decision in split seconds, no replay allowed. This will certainly cost the taxpayers a significant amount of money either way. I wonder how many of these bloggers are on the fieger payroll? I am not on either side but will certainly follow along for the entertaining blog banter.
trespass
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 11:24 a.m.
Imagine if an armed undercover police officer was shot by a citizen who saw his gun and said he looked like he was going to pull his weapon. The citizen felt threatened. Does he have a right to shoot? The same people would be defending the officer as those defending Yurkunas now. The person who really felt threatened was Mr. Reddick. He had a gun pointed at him and he was startled. AA.com should really be taking down all comments that presume that Mr. Reddick knew that he was being stopped by the police before he got out of his car because they assume he is guilty of "running" despite the fact that he has denied this in his lawsuit.
Ricebrnr
Thu, Jun 2, 2011 : 3:07 p.m.
apples to oranges. the continued "debate" reeks of willful ignorance.
trespass
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 11:36 p.m.
@arearesident- The plain clothes officer would not have to actually be drawing his weapon. He would only have to have his hand near his waistband to be a threat according to the rationale used by Officer Yurkunas and many commentors.
arearesident
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 9:24 p.m.
If a plain-clothes officer is drawing their weapon, they will identify themselves. If they have failed to identify themselves, they will be perceived as a crook.
Bradley Pearsall
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 4:59 p.m.
What planet are you from? Comparing police officers and armed civilians is just stupid. Police officers are trained to read the situation and react as they are trained. The guy with the CCW (generally) has no clue. When a police officer draws his/her weapon they have already identified themselves. Secondly, if a cop trains his weapon on you and you are carrying, the LAST thing that you do will draw your weapon. Reddick, AGAIN, was the idiot that made the aggressive movements that prompted the shooting
Billy Buchanan
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 10:52 a.m.
This individual was responsible himself for getting shot. He should be thanking the officer instead for only being wounded and not killed for the type of acitions he induced. The police offficer had every right from all indications that the action taken was a proper way to handle this specific situtation especially since the suspect was committing or had commited a crime in the beginning.
Tru2Blu76
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 8:29 a.m.
I guess a few people don't recognize or understand the instructions for when police pull someone over. NEVER get out of the car without being told to do so by the officer(s) on the scene. Also: keep hands still and in sight of the police until told to do otherwise. That's pretty darned simple: but his guy had to do it his way. Being shot is one of the probable consequences of ignoring or forgetting these two rational requirements - go figure. The only real question is why has this became a federal matter. There's no way this was "use of excessive force" unless the police officer either fired before any suspicious act is committed or use force after securing the suspect. This case is a real waste of tax payers money. And Reddick obviously has learned nothing from the experience. We'll probably be reading about him again before too long - possibly in the obituary list.
Roadman
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 2:52 a.m.
Two things are certain about the outcome of this case: Yurkunas will be reinstated after the internal affairs division clears her. Reddick and the Fieger Firm will get a nice payday after the federal judge hearing the case denies the township its motion for summary judgment on the claims of Reddick.
Roadman
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 1:12 a.m.
The good thing that I can gather from this article is that there is no evidence Tracy Yurkunas has been transferred away from desk duty. Pittsfield Township residents can feel much safer knowing that she remins behind a desk where she cannot be a danger to the public.
arearesident
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 9:20 p.m.
If she is behind a desk, then there is one less officer on the street that I know will pull the trigger, when the situation demands it.
Bradley Pearsall
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 4:52 p.m.
Putting her behind a desk is a waste of good police material. Keep her on the street where she can keep law abiding citizens safe.
Grimey
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 12:04 a.m.
Could someone post the obligation a police officer does have before he/she fires a weapon? And please add the source you are citing along with the obligation.
Matt Cooper
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 3:09 a.m.
My goodness you are reaching. The Sova case is in now way even remotely similar to this case. When lawyers go into court and try to show precedence, they must use applicable law from similar cases. There are no similarities whatever between these two cases. I really, really wish you would at least read the cases you cite before citing them.
Roadman
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 2:21 a.m.
@MattCooper: The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Estate of Thomas Sova versus City of Mount Pleasant reversed an order of summary judgment in favor of police officers involved in a fatal shooting of a college student wielding a knife at his parents' home. The court of appeals held that jury issues existed. Sova had a history of depression and had been apparently drinking .
Matt Cooper
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 1:40 a.m.
roadman, yet again you use a case that has nothing to do with the instant case. Tenn. v. Garner was a fleeing felon case. This case is not anything near a fleeing felon case. Please check your facts from now on before citing case law.
Roadman
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 1:02 a.m.
There are several sources for such authority on the use of deadly force - the U.S. Supreme Court and Michigan Supreme Court on a purely legal level - one case is the federal high court decision in Tennessee versus Garner in 1986. Each police department has its own internal policies on the use of deadly force which must conform with federal and state law - if it does not conform the municipality may be liable under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871 under the Monell decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The individual officer may be held liable under that act even if the policy passes constitutional muster if the officer violated federal and state guidelines set by courts.
trespass
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 11:42 p.m.
The only civilian eyewitness to the shooting gave very different testimony when questioned by Officer Cole (audio recording) immediately after the shooting than what was reported in the report from the State Police Sergeant who investigated the shooting. The State Police officer made no recording of his interview of the witness. Therefore, I will be very interested to hear what the eyewitness says in court under oath.
Matt Cooper
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 11:15 p.m.
John A2, a couple thoughts for you to contemplate: 1. If someone makes a threatening move towards the police, guilt is not even a factor. The cop is under no obligation to worry about wether or not the party is guity of anything, nor does she have to stop and make sure he is in fact reaching for a weapon. 2. The acutal presence of a gun is totally irrelevant when the officer feels her life is in jeopardy, and since you don't know what was in her mind you can offer no insight whatever as to what she was thinking. 3. For you to insinuate that the officer shot this man knowing that he did not have a gun, and then imply that she made it look like he did is simply ignorant of the facts.
Matt Cooper
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 3:20 a.m.
Oh, and just to show just how wrong you are, no, the Feiger law firm wins a lot of cases, sure. But study how many are turned over or significantly reduced on appeal. I'm sure you will be surprised. He's not the great American her you seem to think he is, and would be a fool to take this case.
Roadman
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 2:30 a.m.
@Matt Cooper: Check the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case in Estate of Thomas Sova versus City of Mount Pleasant where a man wielding a knife ignored police commands and was shot dead by police. Thomas Sova was two days short of graduating college and had a history of depression and was drinking just before police shot him. In 1998 the City Council of Mount Pleasant voted unanimously to approve a settlement in the case in lieu of trial. Let the legal experts at the Fieger firm decide if there is a case here. They have a good record of pulling in big settlements. I can almost guarantee you Reddick shall get a payday here.
Matt Cooper
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 1:33 a.m.
trespass, i challenge you to cite me any law, from any state, or any policy from any police department which states that an ofc. must stop, verify that a perp actually has a weapon, and then take action to neutralize the threat. Can you? I'm thinking not, because such laws don't exist. Police ofc's aren't afforded the opportunity to watch a vide and then decide if what they want to do is right or wrong. They act in accordance to their traning and their experience. And for you to claim it was all in the ofc's imagination is moronic and insulting to the experience and training of all police officers everywhere. You are no legal expert. Please stop acting like one.
alan
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 12:20 a.m.
I think the problem though, Trespass, is that she gets something on the order of a second to form a reasoned belief and then make a decision to act in accordance with that belief. That's not much time.
trespass
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 11:37 p.m.
@Matt- an officer's imagination is not sufficient reason to shoot a suspect. It has to be based upon a reasonable belief, which is a higher legal standard than imagining that she is in danger. Since he was in fact not armed it is not unreasonable for a jury to ask if they think she had a reasonable belief that he was armed and reaching for a gun. Also in a civil trial the standard of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt.
John A2
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 11 p.m.
I'm sorry to bust your bubble, but the guy saw the cops gun and his flight, freeze, or flee triggered his response. Does anyone know what you're going to do in that situation? I didn't see a gun at all, what I saw was a scared man. All he did was turn to get back into the safety of his car, like a child would run to his bed and hide under the blanket. This is a normal fear response. Why did the police have their guns out anyway. There was many of them against ONE also. There is no way to know how someone will respond to a gun and an angry, stern voice directed towards them. What it looked like to me is she jumped the gun and shot him, and then made it seem that he had a gun. Why did she shoot him so quickly? After she shot him she was acting like she saw a gun. He was not guilty until proven so. Anyone can charge someone for what ever they want to. That's why we have a court of law. This gives someone way to much power to just be able to call the cops and report an abuse charge, and then the cop gets a grudge about it and doesn't realize the victim told a lie. I say she jumped the gun, and should not ever return to the beat. Keep her working in the jail or something, she can't carry a gun in there. Some people just are not cut out to carry a gun. I just need to stay out of Pittsfield, thats all. The cops have to be able to keep their demeanor while in a crisis. This cop obviously jumped the gun. I say this lawsuit is worthy of a try. I would take the case if I were still a lawyer.
trespass
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 11:40 p.m.
@Bradley- Do you really mean she pulled her gun after he made aggressive moves or do you mean she pulled the trigger. The former is obviously untrue because she had her gun drawn and aimed before he got out of the car.
Bradley Pearsall
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 4:49 p.m.
Again, WATCH THE VIDEO! She pulled her gun AFTER he made aggressive moves and reached for his waistband!
Roadman
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 4:25 p.m.
Agreed. And the Fieger Firm will likely have an expert in police procedure to be critical of Yurkunas' conduct in escalating the situation.
trespass
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 10:02 p.m.
You really have to read the police reports in order to see some of the decisions that were made by the 5 officers responding in 4 cars. They purposely decided to wait until he parked instead of making a traffic stop. The other video shows that the two cars that were waiting at his brother's condo could have turned their lights on and stopped him but the supervising officer told Officer Yurkunas to wait until he pulled into his brother's condo. With four cars it would have been easy to make a traffic stop and be assured that he knew he was being stopped. He claims that he did not know Yurkunas was following him until he got out of his car. I don't see any reason to doubt that. It is indisputible that he was unarmed, that his safety was entirely in the hands of Officer Yurkunas and she misinterpreted what was happening. The only thing in dispute is whether or not her misinterpretation was reasonable or not. A jury finding in his favor could be based on officer Yurkunas' over reacting or it could be based on the improper procedures used in arresting him. Either way, I could see a jury finding in his favor.
Ricebrnr
Thu, Jun 2, 2011 : 3:01 p.m.
so you admit you are trying her not on the facts available to the officer at the time she chose to shoot but upon everything that has come out since? "reasonable" that is not.
trespass
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 11:45 p.m.
@arearesident- Yes that is my point. A perception of danger is evaluated at the time of the shooting but the actual danger is evaluated once you have all the facts. She may have percieved a danger but in retrospect the danger she percieved was not in fact true.
arearesident
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 9:13 p.m.
quoting: It is indisputible that he was unarmed, that his safety was entirely in the hands of Officer Yurkunas and she misinterpreted what was happening. The only thing in dispute is whether or not her misinterpretation was reasonable or not. How was she supposed to know he was not armed? That only becomes indisputable after the fact. If the officer fails to take decisive action, that endangers themselves, their fellow officers, and the general public.
Matt Cooper
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 3:14 a.m.
And you still haven't answered my question, which I suppose is indicative of a lack of expertise in any of the above mentioned issues. Also, 8 seconds or 8 hours, he knew the cop was behind him, contrary to your rather rose colored version of events. Notice how the lights on the top of her car are flashing prior to him getting out of his car? This usually means the cop wants you to pull over. So, now will you enlighten me with the nature of your education and/or expertise in criminal law and police procedure? I am genuinely curious.
trespass
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 2:42 a.m.
@Matt- I saw both videos as well and the supposed chase lasted all of 8 seconds from the time she turned her lights on until he was parked. Is that what you call running?
Matt Cooper
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 1:30 a.m.
No, I am not a police officer. I do however, have a degree in criminal justice, and (YIKES!) in order to earn that degree, you have to know a lot about police procedure, criminal law, etc. Secondly, I have seen the videos, and this was not him voluntarily stopping. He ran and got caught, which in the state of Michigan is in itself a crime called fleeing and eluding. So now, please answer my question, since I answered yours. What experience do you have that makes you so sure that you know what you're talking about?
trespass
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 11:28 p.m.
@Matt- Are you a police officer? If not then why do you have the expertise to say that I do not know police procedure? Do you know if the officers should have made a traffic stop rather than letting him park and surprise him with their guns drawn? Otherwise, I am just saying I could see how a jury might find in his favor. I am not concluding that they should.
Matt Cooper
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 11:10 p.m.
trespass, i don't mind people criticizing police. But if you're going to criticize, please, at least make sure you know exactly what it is you are criticizing. If you don't know police procedures, which, based on this and other statements you've made about this particular situation I don't believe you do, how can you logically offer an opinion of what is appropriate and what is not? And if you don't know the laws surrounding stops, arrests and other police actions, how can you intelligently offer commentary on thos laws? Educate yourself at least a little is all Im saying.
trespass
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 10:44 p.m.
@Matt- I am someone who could be on a jury. Are you saying that juries should not be allowed to judge police officers. If I use that logic then juries should not be allowed to judge doctors in malpractice cases. I only said that a jury could find in his favor not that they will. Some people seem to be unwilling to criticize a police officer for any reason.
Matt Cooper
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 10:20 p.m.
And of course you are an expert on police procedures? And have tons of experience to draw on in your estimation that the ofc. react improperly?
RJA
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 8:59 p.m.
I continue to say Congrats to the officer! When one gets stopped by and officer, hands up and don't reach for anything.
steve h
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 8:35 p.m.
you arm chair cops kill me
Ron Granger
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 7:54 p.m.
The "feared for her safety" excuse is getting old and tired. If a non-cop tried that excuse, they'd likely be facing murder charges. I would not want to be pulled over for a traffic stop by that cop. I'd be very concerned that she might panic and decide her fear was justification for a shooting. In the video, the police officer looked out of control and in over her head. She did not look like someone who should have a deadly weapon in hand. Whether that was due to a lack of training, lack of experience, poor training, or just not having the clarity of thought in an emergency - who knows. Why didn't she stay in her car and use her public address to order him to put his hands up? Isn't that the normal procedure in situations like that? Why didn't she stay behind her car door, and use it as a shield?
arearesident
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 9:07 p.m.
@Ron Granger: Most law enforcement officers are taught to not stay in the car, as it limits your mobility. The person outside now has you pinned down. The only "negative" thing I have to say about the officer's firing is that her shots were not center mass. She did everything else textbook perfect.
Bradley Pearsall
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 5:04 p.m.
Whoe, my bad everyone. She did have her gun out before he got out of the car. I stand very corrected. But I will say that if I choose to get out of a car and move aggressively towards a cop with her gun out AND reach into my waistband under my coat I might get shot.
CPS
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 12:38 p.m.
Ron Granger: There is heavily documented evidence that a car door will not stop a bullet. Movies and television have given us a skewed reality when it comes to gunfights. Most NORMAL people, when pulled over, stay in their car and wait for the Officer's instructions. They move slowly, and keep their hands where the Officer can see them, knowing full well that they are dealing with an ARMED law enforcement official. If you intend to spook the Officer, then you run the risk of being shot. The last time you were pulled over for speeding, did you jump out of the car and quickly advance towards the Officer with an unknown object in your hand? Likely not, as you prefer not to get shot for your stupidity. A recent study has shown that law enforcement officers' chances of being shot by suspects once the suspect has a gun in hand are very high as each person--suspect and officer--will get at least one shot off. [<a href="http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/3705348-New-reaction-time-study-addresses-whats-reasonable-in-armed-suspect-encounters/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/3705348-New-reaction-time-study-addresses-whats-reasonable-in-armed-suspect-encounters/</a>] To say that we, the public, want our law enforcement officers to WAAAAAIT to be ABSOLUTELY sure that their life is in danger DURING THAT *SPLIT SECOND* WHERE THEIR LIFE HANGS IN THE BALANCE is foolhardy. Law Enforcement Officers are not superheroes with X-ray vision or the ability to move faster than their fellow man (or woman). When forced to do so, they will make split second decisions that mean life or death--this suspect forced the Officer to make that decision, and he is lucky to be alive. Move very slowly, keep your hands where the Officer can see them, and follow the directions given to you and you won't get SHOT!
T. Kinks Heiss
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 6:05 p.m.
I'm sorry but I saw no reason for the suspect to be shot in that video. When he got out of his car & saw the police officer was drawn on him it looked as though he was jumping out of the line of fire. He didn't go toward her & she even said she didn't know if he had anything in his hand. Looks like a trigger happy cop to me.
arearesident
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 9:01 p.m.
If you did not see the very clear reasons, I have no idea what video you were watching. This guy was known to be violent, and had just had the police called on him for a violent domestic situation. He, briefly, eluded the patrol vehicles, then comes out of his vehicle, in a threatening stance. It is the officer's discretion, as to when things are too threatening, and when they may use deadly force to defend themselves. Rapidly reaching into your waistband is going to be perceived as an attempt to retrieve a weapon, especially when already in an aggravated state.
PQ
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 7:05 p.m.
um....key word, "jumping" and did you not see him moving his hand low at his waist like he had a weapon there? Did you see how quickly and aggressively he "jumped," out of the car? Who does that? Someone on a suicide mission- that's who- she should get an award for helping to thin the herd- this is called survival of the fittest
outdoor6709
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 5:21 p.m.
If Michigan is such a tough place to win lawsuits, why do I have to put up with all of the advertisements from William Shatner, The laywer family, the ex canidate for governer and countless others saying "Bring me your frivioulus suit and I will make you rich"?
Terrin
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 4:44 p.m.
PS: The cost of the lawsuit is the cost of living in civil society. Everybody gets to have their claim heard. The plaintiff is bearing the cost of brining the lawsuit. If the claim is weak, the case will get thrown out on a summary motion.
Mr. Ed
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 6:59 p.m.
Terrin I'm sure you have been in this very position as the Police Officer. The suspect really is responsible for his actions. Society needs to stop blaming the police officer for doing her job. It would have been very simple for the suspect to sit in his car and give up. But it appears on the video he wanted to ratchet things up a bit. Police Officers play for keeps not until someone says Uncle. It's a dangerous world and the bottom line is the suspect bears 100% for his actions.
Mick52
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 6:37 p.m.
And hopefully, the legal costs of the defendant will have to be paid by the party filing the frivolous suit.
Terrin
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 4:40 p.m.
Let me gets this right, an unarmed guy jumps out of the car and the police officer gets to shot him because she feared for her life? Right. The guy was a domestic assault suspect. You get to be that just by virtual of somebody calling the police on you. If you are going to pull the trigger, you should be sure there is a weapon. If the police officer was afraid and that effected her decision to shoot, she shouldn't be a police officer. For those talking about lawsuit reform, I for one am not for lawsuit reform. Michigan is already one of the hardest places to win a lawsuit like this. Anybody else who says otherwise is uninformed. There is also caps to how much can be won, so millions is way out of the question. If the guy's case is good, he will get his chance in front of a jury, if not his case will get dismissed.
Awakened
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 11:13 a.m.
It is 'virtue' not virtual. One is a desired goal. The other describes a video game. This may explain the remainder of the post.
Matt Cooper
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 9:41 p.m.
So, Terrin, you think it would have been better for the officer to wait and see if the guy really has a weapon or not? And presuming he does, then what? She should get into a close range firefight with him risking not only her own life, but that of the other officers as well? Please, educate yourself before making such ridiculous statements. If a suspect makes ANY threatening moves towards the police, regardless of the seriousness of the initial stop, he takes his fate into his own hands. The officer felt threatened and was by law entitled to use whatever means she felt necessary to neutralize that threat.
PQ
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 7:02 p.m.
R U freakin kidding? Did you see the video where he JUMPS out of the car makes a sudden, jumping motion with his body toward the officer moves his hand toward his waistband all while facing her in an aggressive pose? What would you like her to wait for? A bullet in the head? Oh brother....
outdoor6709
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 3:21 p.m.
For all of you liberals who are upset, Repubilicans are behind lawsuit reform. Maybe now would be the time to fix Michigans lawsuit happy culture. Its a win-win. Michigan would be a better place and liberals would have one more thing to whine about.
alan
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 5:31 p.m.
What are you talking about?
miller lite
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 3:18 p.m.
Great Police work. you do not jump out of a car and then reach for something after a chase. This idiot is lucky to be alive,Police officer did a great job, she could have easily and justifiably killed him. Police officer did not know and it does not matter if he had a gun, because if he had she might be dead!
Matt Cooper
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 9:35 p.m.
T Kinks...so his hand moving rapidly towards his belt line was.....what? Him buttoning up his fly? The officer is always, I repeat ALWAYS, going to err on the side of saving her/her own life, and in dealing with a violent offender is under no obligation to take a 'wait-and-see' approach to dealing with people who appear to be reaching for a weapon.
Mi resident
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 9:25 p.m.
@ T Kinks.... There were 3 other cars there all waiting for him.. Do you really think he didn't NOTICE the cops follwing him or directly behind him? I would't get out of a car that way if the cops were waiting for me. That's for sure.
T. Kinks Heiss
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 6:09 p.m.
@ miller lite, Did you see the same video as I did? He didn't reach for anything. He looked surprised that the cop had her weapon drawn & looked to be jumping out of the line of fire. It is obvious to me the cop over reacted.
Major
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 2:16 p.m.
I will add that, this is outrageous a suit has been brought! This person, who most certainly will lose the suit, should be made to pay back all court and lawyer costs, that's AFTER they serve a long term in prison! Oh..that's right, almost forgot about the AA.com censorship gnomes, um that's if the perp is guilty of course.
Major
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 2:12 p.m.
When an officer shoots a weapon, specifically a gun, it is always to kill. Hence the phrase "use of deadly force". Same as a person who is confronted with a life or death, great bodily harm, or rape situation at home, car, or business (or street if licensed to carry). One does not use a "deadly weapon" to maim or wound, it is a serious and deadly situation at hand, the shot to stop an attacker comes terrifyingly fast and center of mass has the highest probability to stop the attack using multiple shots. This officer reacted properly, as trained, with the lightning fast response needed to save her life, as well as potentially saving other responding officers as well. This ain't Hollywood people, this is the real deal. It's ugly out there and if you are foolish enough to run from the authorities, then "reach" when being confronted, while orders to freeze, stop, halt, don't move, hands where I can see them are loudly screamed at you....then you will get your Darwin award!
arearesident
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 8:49 p.m.
Law enforcement firearms training is to "stop the threat." (SWAT/SOT/SRT training takes that to extremes, with snipers, but the concept applies.)
John B.
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 10:38 p.m.
"When an officer shoots a weapon, specifically a gun, it is always to kill." (Double) huh? What a bizarre thought. Where on earth did you get that idea?
quetzalcoatl
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 2 p.m.
More and more it seems there is very little upside to meeting a police officer on the street, although they have always been friendly to me when they are selling raffle tickets.
John B.
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 10:35 p.m.
Huh? If you fear meeting a police officer on the street, then maybe you have done something that would warrant being fearful? Law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from police officers on the street. Quite the contrary, actually.
RoboLogic
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 1:58 p.m.
Foolish person. Reasonable law abiding citizens comply with police orders. This suspect thinks he is better than any of us and does not have to follow the rules, and now he wants to get paid for his stupid actions. Sorry Mr Reddick...you lose. Next time obey the law and count yourself luck to be alive. He gets nothing.
TinyArtist
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 1:21 p.m.
I would not be seated on a jury for this case, because I think being shot is a pretty fair exchange for driving on a suspended license.
HardWorker
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 12:47 p.m.
I can't believe that the suspect/criminal keeps causing us more expenses: jury for domestic violence, police chase and now this. This is an example of how "court-justice" protects a criminal and works against the heroic job of our cops. If it were only for juries/judges/lawyers, all of Michigan would look like Detroit.
Mick52
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 6:34 p.m.
Governors do not change or make laws. Legislatures do. Governors can sign (agree) or veto (disagree) with proposed legislation.
Mr. Ed
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 12:56 p.m.
The Governor needs to change some laws regarding suing local, County and State governments instead of worrying about raping the old, poor and middle class.
outdoor6709
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 12:44 p.m.
If I were on the jury for this lawsuit, the question I would like to have answered is, "If the shooter was not a police officer, but a civilian with a Concealed Pistol Permit, (Michigans replacement for the old CCW), would , "imminent bodily injury or death" be enough to keep the shooter from being charged with attempted murder?
arearesident
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 8:46 p.m.
Yes. The only place where a law enforcement officer has more leeway is in shooting a subject that is threatening someone that is not the officer.
FredMax
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 12:30 p.m.
When I first read this story I thought "wow, I'd hate to be pulled over for speeding and get shot just for reaching for my cell phone." But then I noticed the phrase "30-year-old domestic violence suspect" in the story. It seems like some context should be given in the article. ...was the suspect fleeing the scene? ...after an assault or other crime?
arearesident
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 8:44 p.m.
So don't reach for your cellphone, or anything else, without talking to the officer about it, before making the movement.
trespass
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 9:40 p.m.
He punched his wife. It is criminal behavior but it was a misdemeanor assault not a felony. The police new who he was and where he was going (to his brothers condo) so it would not do him any good to flee from the police. They would just pick him up later and add charges for resisting arrest. Thus, it seems quite plausible that he did not know she was behind him until he got out of his car and saw her pointing the gun at him.
ChelseaBob
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 12:12 p.m.
Sounds terrible, and then you see the video. 9 out of 10 cops would have shot this guy. If the jury sees the video, he gets nothing.
Mr. Ed
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 11:46 a.m.
The suspect jumps out of the car he's at gun point by the police officer. The suspect is shot because she's in fear of her life. The suspect wants money for a decision he made to force the officer to shot him. I think the officer should sue the suspect for all the emotional stress she has gone through during and after the shooting. Most reasonable people would have sat in the car and followed police orders. If a person were to follow police orders the results could have been different. I hope he gets no money and has to pay for the spent bullet.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 12:28 p.m.
I take exception to the word "jumps". He got out of his car the same way I do at Kroger's. Thats not to say I side with him in the case
zip the cat
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 11:18 a.m.
It will cost millions before its all said and done. Weather she acted too quickly or not.
local
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 11:16 a.m.
I am guessing that until any of us are police officers and are put into this situation, we have know idea how it would feel. If the officer felt danger from the suspect, then I believe her. The video clip clearly shows the suspect reaching for something in his waistband. I am more likely to side with the police, then a domestic assault suspect clearly fleeing from the police. One more thought, the suspect is still alive, officer clearly didn't shoot to kill.
InsideTheHall
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 10:52 a.m.
Pittsfield just passed a public safety millage earlier in the month. It is unfortunate we have ginned up law suits against our police consuming the limited resources we have and the hard earned taxpayer doillar.
Basic Bob
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 2:44 p.m.
This incident was well-reported before the last election. The township administration and voters of Pittsfield have endorsed the thuggish behavior of the police against northeast township residents. The casualties and lawsuits are just collateral damage. Limited resources - is that a joke?
jinxplayer
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 10:43 a.m.
Dude was acting pretty sketchy, but she pulled the trigger awfully quick...
trespass
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 10:42 a.m.
Lee- Could you post the lawsuit and the response?