Lima, Ohio SWAT Officer Acquitted in the Killing of Tarika Wilson

A Lima, Ohio jury has acquitted police officer Joseph Chavalia of involuntary manslaughter in the death of 26-year-old Tarika Wilson.  Chavalia shot and killed Wilson and wounded her infant son during a drug raid last January.  Wilson was unarmed.

During the raid, one of Chavalia's fellow officers shot and killed the two dogs owned by Wilson's boyfriend and the target of the raid, Anthony Terry.  Chavalia testified that he mistook his fellow officer's shots at the dogs for hostile gunfire coming from the bedroom where Wilson was standing with her child.  Chavalia then fired blindly into the bedroom.

The jury concluded that Chavalia reasonably feared for his life when he heard the gunshots.  I guess they were then willing to overlook Chavalia's mistaking an unarmed woman holding a baby for an armed drug dealer, and the fact that he fired blindly into a room without first identifying what he was shooting at.  It's too bad that that same sort of deference isn't given to the people on the receiving end of these raids when they too understandably confuse the police officers who wake them from sleep and invade their homes for criminal intruders.

This case illustrates the low margin for error in these raids, and why they're a bad idea even when the police do hit the correct house.  Anthony Terry may be a bad man.  But these sorts of tactics are too volatile and too dangerous to be using on anyone except for those people who pose an immediate risk to the public.  Even the smallest mistakes can lead to unnecessary casualties.

It also shows how layer upon layer of flawed arguments can allow something as unjustifiable as the shooting death of an unarmed woman and the near-killing of her infant son to be dismissed as mere collateral damage.  The initial argument is that we need to prohibit drugs to protect people from the harm they cause.  That's followed by the argument that we need to use aggressive, paramilitary raids to apprehend drug dealers, because they might dispose of evidence or shoot cops were drug warrants to be served by less confrontational means.  That's followed by the argument that we have to forgive cops who kill innocent people in these raids because the raids themselves are incredibly volatile and dangerous.  Never mind that the police created the danger and volatility in the first place.

Put those arguments together and you get the absurd premise that the government's killing of Tarika Wilson—and all of the drug raid deaths that came before her—is an acceptable consequence of the government's responsibility to protect her (and all of us) from the effects of illicit drugs.

That simply doesn't add up.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Sometimes, this country makes me want to puke.

    That is all.

  • ||

    ....they were then willing to overlook Chavilia's mistaking an unarmed woman holding a baby for an armed drug dealer...



    Maybe that protocol is taught at Quantico?

    Kevin

  • ||

    Can't make an omelet without shooting some innocent people.

  • ||

    I knew the cop who killed her wouldn't be convicted. She was a black woman liveing with a drug dealer. If they've got the right house in a poor neighborhood, cops can kill anyone they want without fear of repercussions. They know it too.

    That says a whole lot about my fellow citizens.

  • Episiarch||

    and the fact that he fired blindly into a room without first identifying what he was shooting at

    This is beyond infuriating. Any one of us who fired blindly anywhere would be immediately charged with the stiffest sentence the prosecutor could dream up--and that's even if we didn't hit anyone. This pig blindly shoots a woman and a baby and walks. Are the cops now allowed to strafe anything the instant they hear a single shot?

    Military tactics without even a semblance of military discipline: that's a police raid.

  • ||

    Chavalia
    Chavallia
    Chavilia

    Hard to keep the characters straight when the names keep changing.

  • ||

    A Lima, Ohio jury has acquitted police officer ...

    Balko has been performing a herculean effort. But this shows how high the mountain is. Most people have completely swallowed every flaw in each layer. It's going to take more than one agitator to move public opinion. What we're suffering from is a lack of outrage.

  • ||

    But these sorts of tactics are too volatile and too dangerous to be using on anyone accept except for those people who pose an immediate risk to the public

  • ||

    A stellar performance by the "prosecution", no doubt. I wonder what the judge's instructions to the jury were; must have been interesting.

  • ||

    The Lima, OH LP should be leading an angry demonstration on the courthouse today. If it isn't, why not? We marginalize ourselves by overlooking involvement in issues such as this one.

  • ||

    Oh, and is anyone here surprised?
    The public has so readily drank the kool-aid of drug war supporters that they will acquit a man who shot an unarmed woman of involuntary manslaughter. INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER! The charge is generous and yet no justice is done.

  • ||

    Will the city be suing the estate of the murdered unfortunate woman for litigation costs?

  • Invisible Finger||

    All that's needed is one police groupie on a jury.

  • ||

    All that's needed is one police groupie on a jury.

    I wish that was all it were. He was acquitted. The jury unanimously said not guilty.

  • Devil\'s Advocate||

    Anthony Terry may be a bad man

    He pled guilty to drug trafficking. A pertinent question is whether Tarika Wilson bears any responsibility whatsoever for shacking up with Terry and, given his profession and the risks that go along with it, is at least partially responsible for the outcome. She can't claim she didn't know her boyfriend was a dealer. She put herself and her child in a dangerous situation. Did she deserve to die for her bad choices? No. Has the drug war created more victims than it has saved? Undoubtedly.

  • bill||

    Cops are assholes.

  • ||

    They couldnt arrest him in the driveway in the morning?

  • ||

    Cops are assholes.

    Hey, watch it!! I come from a law enforcement family: my father is a retired cop, my cousin/godfather is a retired cop, his dad is retired cop, my uncle is an active cop....oh who am I kidding, I actually agree.

  • ktc2||

    So as usual they can shoot at and kill us innocents with impunity and even be given medals for it but if you even say shooting back is the right course of action . . .

  • ||

    Oh, and is anyone here surprised?

    I'm surprised that the prosecutor actually presented the case to a grand jury, got an indictment, and proceeded to try the case.

  • Fluffy||

    A pertinent question is whether Tarika Wilson bears any responsibility whatsoever for shacking up with Terry and, given his profession and the risks that go along with it, is at least partially responsible for the outcome.

    This is a nice bit of devil's advocacy, but here's the problem with that analysis: the underlying law being enforced, and the methods used in the enforcement of that law, have to be just for this to be true. If they're unjust, the responsibility doesn't move to the victim. To give you an example of what I mean, if instead of living with a drug dealer, she was living with a political dissident in Burma, very few people would argue that her death was her own responsibility because she knew the risks.

  • ||

    Logic is not the strong suit of politicians or law enforcement. Their ideas don't add up to anything and their math skills to add have also been shown time and again to be very bad.

    Another life lost and another police state employee geting off with no punishment.

    Had this been any Federal Senators daughter and grandchild I bet we would be hearing about how terrible these raids are and how they need to be stopped. But alas it is just an ordinary citizen who as mentioned must be protected from themselves by the very government that ends up killing her. I don't think many care takers would get another shot at the job had they killed the person they were supposedly protecting and caring for. Insanity plain and simple.

  • ||

    What can I do to increase my chances of being selected for a jury pool? If juries are finding not guilty in cases like these, then I think juries could use a point of view like mine.

  • Windypundit||

    It smells, but it's possible the jury here did the right thing.

    Suppose that instead of a drug-related raid, this was a hostage rescue in which Anthony Terry was holding Tarika Wilson and her son hostage. In the confusion, Chavalia got confused and killed one of the hostages. I think even us cop-distrustful libertarians would probably put that down to good intentions gone awry.

    The thing is, legally speaking, whether we like it or not, a drug raid is just as justified as a hostage rescue. So it's not entirely surprising that the jury did not convict.

    The problem for us libertarians is not so much what a frightened cop does in a confusing situation, but the morally bankrupt policies that put him there.

  • ||

    It's not unlawful for a cop to kill an innocent person on offical duty. Until that changes, none of this will.

    Some actions may be against dept. policy and procedures but those are not crimes.

  • Elemenope||

    Windypundit --

    The situation you described smells very strongly of "involuntary manslaughter", which, incidentally, was what the cop was charged with.

    He killed someone, ostensibly by accident, while acting at least negligently (WHO THE FUCK shoots into a room with no visibility on target?). Please explain why a person in such a circumstance *shouldn't* be criminally liable for the death, perhaps not as a murder, but certainly as manslaughter?

  • ||

    """The problem for us libertarians is not so much what a frightened cop does in a confusing situation,"""

    Actually that is a problem for me. Cops shouldn't fire when they are confused. The amount of time between confusion and clarity when the cop is at risk is part of the job. Cops put their life on the line to protect the innocent, not the other way around.


    """Logic is not the strong suit of politicians or law enforcement."""

    I strongly disagree. It's just they have different priorities to which thier logic applies. Shooting innocent people out of fear is logical if you assume the cop has a greater right to life. A cops life over yours is their priority. Things like shoot first, ask later are logical within that context. Of course that seem illogical to the innocent person because the self is the priority not the cop.

    When can shoot should become law not just department policy and procedure. Only when the cop fears retribution for killing an innocent will things change.

  • Episiarch||

    LMNOP, Windy wasn't saying it shouldn't be criminal, he was saying that under current interpretation of the law, drug raids are justified (no matter how stupid that may seem to us). If they are justified in the eyes of the courts, then a cop fearing for his life could fire in defense.

    It's ridiculous and immoral, but Windy was just pointing out that it is justified in the eyes of the courts because drug raids are considered proper action.

    Now why he said "the jury did the right thing", I don't know; the jury should have convicted regardless because of the indiscriminate nature of his shooting--the justification be damned. NO ONE should ever be firing blindly for any reason.

  • ||

    Windy,

    Horse shit. Would it be acceptable if a cop shot and killed an unarmed driver because he got "confused" during a legally justified traffic stop and started shooting randomly into the car?

    Legal justification isn't the issue; the cop had no reason to be shooting at all during this raid. It isn't a case of mistaken identity.

  • ||

    """Please explain why a person in such a circumstance *shouldn't* be criminally liable for the death, perhaps not as a murder, but certainly as manslaughter?"""

    Not that I'm taking the cops side, but the outcomes of LEO shootings are considered a question of dept policy. Not a matter of law. Until we pass a law that say a police officer can not fire indiscriminately, the courts can't help much.

    The lack of codifying their behavior has created a gap in the right of self-defense. A cop can kill with a perceived threat regardless if the threat is real. Everyone else must be facing a real threat. Except in a few cases.

  • ||

    hostile gunfire coming from the bedroom where Wilson was standing with her child.

    The coroner said she was on her knees or crouching down when she was shot, similar to complying with orders.

  • ||

    Basically, until black people realize that the police are waging a genocidal war against them, and start fighting back, nothing is going to change. There is no legal repercussions for the police killing black people, poor people, etc, so why should the police stop?

  • ||

    I checked with the Drug Czar, he say's you added wrong

  • ||

    Would it be acceptable if a cop shot and killed an unarmed driver because he got "confused" during a legally justified traffic stop and started shooting randomly into the car?

    He could always claim that a passing car's backfire sounded like a gunshot.

  • ||

    ""Would it be acceptable if a cop shot and killed an unarmed driver because he got "confused" during a legally justified traffic stop and started shooting randomly into the car?"""

    You are comparing apples and oranges. Deadly force during a raid has a different expectation in the use of force than a traffic stop. However, if the cop confused reaching under the seat for a driver's licenses as reaching for a weapon, the odds are good the cop would not be found guilty of a crime.


    ""the cop had no reason to be shooting at all during this raid. """

    You do not get to decide when a cop has a reason or not. Your or my thoughts, logic, or understandings are irrelevant, like it or not. It's all about what the law allows.

    Episiarch is correct.

  • Devil\'s Advocate||

    on her knees or crouching down when she was shot, similar to complying with orders

    Also similar to a standard firing position.

  • ||

    The jury system sucks sometimes. But, you have to live with the results. I didn't watch the case or see the evidence so I really can't second guess the jury. Certainly, if someone had shot a cop in one of these raids, no one here would question a jury who aquited the person. If you live with the results when you like it, you have to live with them when you don't.

    That said, the issue still is why are we putting police in situations that create real danger to innocent people? The fact that the cop may have been legally justified in shooting this poor woman, makes the raid all that more loathsome in my view.

  • ||

    FUCK! I was in a good mood.

    I'm trying not to think Very Bad™ thoughts about these clueless fuckwits they managed to stick in the jury.

  • ||

    """Also similar to a standard firing position."""

    It's not a firing position unless your holding a something that fires.

    Jeeezzzz

  • ||

    on her knees or crouching down when she was shot, similar to complying with orders



    Also similar to a standard firing position.



    I thought the baby was loaded!

  • ||

    Standing is a firing position too.

  • ||

    Also similar to a standard firing position.

    Sitting on your haunches might be a standard position to fire an egg if you're a chicken, but I'm unaware of anyone who shoots a gun in that position.

  • DADIODADDY||

    TrickyVic

    Yeah, but that kid might have gone off...inadvertantly

  • ||

    I thought the baby was loaded!

    You've never seen Nero the Hero's death scene in Death Race 2000?

    You do not get to decide when a cop has a reason or not. Your or my thoughts, logic, or understandings are irrelevant, like it or not. It's all about what the law allows.

    That may be so, but Windy's original post was not merely claiming that it was legal, but that libertarians would accept the shooting as justified were it a hostage rescue. I certainly would not accept a cop shooting randomly through a fucking wall during a hostage rescue either.

  • ||

    The real outrage here is not that aquittal. That is the nature of the system; sometimes guilty people get off. The outrage here is that the guy no doubt will go back to work and get a commendation for shooting this woman. This stuff will never stop until a few things happnen:

    1. A national ban on police unions. How many bad cops have to be kept on the job before we realize what a menace these organizations are? We ban unions in the military because the job is too important and strict order and dicipline is more important than due process. Why isn't policing the same?

    2. Impliment a national licensing system for all law enforcement. You have to have a license to be a doctor or a lawyer why not a cop? Set the standard of proof to be by a preponerance of the evidence and ban anyone found to have negligently harmed an innocent person or violated someone's rights from being in law enforcement for life.

  • ||

    """Yeah, but that kid might have gone off...inadvertantly"""

    That's why D.C. requires kids to be locked or disassembled.

  • ||

    I wonder when someone, with nothing to live for, spends a couple of years designing a trap in his house specifically to trap torture and ultimately kill a whole SWAT team on a "drug raid" which is set up as part of the plan.

    The reason I say this could happen is I remember a guy in Grand, Colorado who spent 2 years building a "kill dozer" in his shop and attempted to destroy as many houses of people who were involved in a zoning dispute with his business. The dozer was so well designed with a concrete reinforced double steel wall construction, view ports with bullet proof glass and gun ports.

    I saw the live coverage of this while the cops tried to stop this guy and the cops didn't have a chance. He would have destroyed more things if the tracks didn't get stuck in a building foundation. He killed himself. The LEO's almost had to auction off the dozer, but decided it needed to be destroyed, lest it get into the "wrong hands" (the hands of those who may have a grudge with power hungry, nanny state LEOs).

    //It was tragic, but at the same time I was kind of cheering for the guy for taking on people who were taking away his livlihood through zoning.

  • ||

    The LEO's almost had to auction off the dozer, but decided it needed to be destroyed, lest it get into the "wrong hands"

    I'm surprised they didn't commandeer it for law enforcement use.

  • ||

    The kill dozer driver was also armed with a bolt action .50 caliber rifle, to take care of those pesky SWAT armor wannabee vehicles.

  • anon||

    zig zag: You forgot the kill dozer video.

  • ||

    thx anon

  • Episiarch||

    zig zag, if a few more people go killdozer, the cops will demand--and get--RPGs and shape charges.

  • ||

    I'm not a fan of making LEO anything like the military, including the inability to unionize. The licensing seems like a good idea.


    """Sitting on your haunches might be a standard position to fire an egg if you're a chicken, but I'm unaware of anyone who shoots a gun in that position."""

    Squatting was called a close combat position when I had to qual with the 45 on a combat range. The idea is to make you a smaller target. I've never liked the idea of putting your head where your torso belongs. It was way more fun than the regular target range.

  • ||

    Basically, until black people realize that the police are waging a genocidal war against them, and start fighting back, nothing is going to change. There is no legal repercussions for the police killing black people, poor people, etc, so why should the police stop?

    I amazes me the congressional black caucus is not screaming about the War on Drugs Minorities. They've bought into the insanity as well.

  • Devil\'s Advocate||

    Not one of you was at the crime scene or saw the evidence or sat on the jury. You're probably better qualified to judge whether Brett Favre should sit or be traded. But that's another issue for another day and another armchair quarterback.

  • ||

    "Not one of you was at the crime scene or saw the evidence or sat on the jury. You're probably better qualified to judge whether Brett Favre should sit or be traded. But that's another issue for another day and another armchair quarterback."

    That is true and that is why no one is in a position to question the jury. That said, the fact that an innocent person was killed in this raid, sure as hell raises questions about whether these kinds of raids are justified. If the police had just knocked on the door, this woman would probably be alive now. Why not do the same in every drug warrent?

  • Windypundit||

    Episiarch, thanks for the defense, that's what I meant. And, technically, I only said "it's possible the jury here did the right thing." From what I've read in the media, I thought Chevalia was guilty, but I just haven't seen enough of the testimony or jury instructions to not give some benefit of doubt to 12 people who have.

  • ||

    That is true and that is why no one is in a position to question the jury.

    Horseshit. The uncontested facts in this case would lead to lay-down conviction for anyone not wearing a badge. We are entitled to question why there is one law for the little people and another for Our Armed Masters.

  • Elemenope||

    I amazes me the congressional black caucus is not screaming about the War on Drugs Minorities. They've bought into the insanity as well.

    Not so much bought into the insanity as much as desperately in need of whitey's votes to retain their seats.

    There is nothing (besides dangerous toys!) that terrifies the suburban white mother more than the notion of a black politician who's "soft on drugs".

  • Episiarch||

    That is true and that is why no one is in a position to question the jury.

    John, he fired blindly into a fucking house. There could have been innocent women and childr...oh, wait.

    What next, a SWAT guy walks down the street, hears a firecracker, and unloads on the closest occupied car? This behavior was criminal, and would be from anyone who did it. And he walks.

  • ||

    Not one of you was at the crime scene or saw the evidence or sat on the jury.

    I can speculate, can't I?

    I suspect the prosecutor put significantly less "love" into his preparation for the case than he would have if the defendant had been a "civilian". I further suspect the judge admonished the jury to disregard any pesky notions of fairness or sympathy for the deceased woman (or her maimed and traumatized child), and concentrate on the Pure heart" of a highly esteemed and decorated officer who was Doing His Difficult Job.

  • ||

    Jake Boone | August 5, 2008, 3:06pm | #
    Since it's unlikely that Mr. Balko will be travelling around the nation to have hundreds of steak dinners with people he doesn't really know, I suggest we all do what I just did: go to Radley's site (www.theagitator.com) and throw $25 bucks at him via the "Contribute" section on the left hand side of the page.

    After all, the market (in this case, the market for getting rid of corrupt officials) needs to send some goddamned signals that we want more of this sort of thing.

    I hereby declare a Radley Balko moneybomb!

  • ||

    "John, he fired blindly into a fucking house. There could have been innocent women and childr...oh, wait.

    What next, a SWAT guy walks down the street, hears a firecracker, and unloads on the closest occupied car? This behavior was criminal, and would be from anyone who did it. And he walks."

    You didn't hear the case. Either you beleive in the jury system or you don't. It can't be juries are good until they do something I don't like. I don't like the decision either but sometimes life is like that. I didn't sit through the evidence like they. They are in a better position to judge than I am.

    Further, there is a difference between being factually guilty and legally guilty. Legally guilty means the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Who are you or I to judge the prosecution's case when neither of us saw it.

    Cases like this are a real test of principles. It is real easy to talk about the rights of a defendent and the need for jury system when it is a defendent you like. It takes principle to do that when it is a defendent you don't like and want to see punished.

  • ||

    There is the law, and there is what people think the law should be. It is not illegal for a cop to kill an innocent person under the color of duty. You can bitch like it is against the law, but case after case proves you're wrong. I firmly believe that accepting this premise is a requirement for change. It's not the jury's fault, it's not the cops fault he was aquitted. It's the law's fault for not making such careless acts illegal. Change the law!

  • ||


    There is the law, and there is what people think the law should be. It is not illegal for a cop to kill an innocent person under the color of duty.

    True, but isn't there some accountability? Otherwise, how are we different from Brazil? Doesn't SWAT train its officers for precisely these types of situations? (room full of cardboard cutouts, some of innocents, some of criminals) I don't know all the facts, but it seems to me there is a real possiblity that the officer didn't act according to his training - he heard shots, and instinctively he let off three shots? Hell, you don't need to be SWAT to do that - I can do that. The one law that does need to be changed is decriminalizing drugs - then none of this would've happened.

  • Alice Bowie||

    The law will NEVER change and hold police liabale for careless (and even reckless) acts until a pretty blond child is killed.

    Even then, they may not change the law.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Say YES to DRUGS ... and NO to the SWAT team...

    KEEP DOPE ALIVE !!!

  • Alice Bowie||

    This should be a lession to all of you.

    especially for all of the religious freaks that think god loves them...that people are good...and that random people would not want harm done to other people.

    Here we have
    - a legistlature than can care less
    - a cop that can care less
    - a jury that can care less
    - a government that can care less

    We are by nature mean-spririted people that if given a choice would hinder in stead of help.

  • ||

    It's the law's fault for not making such careless acts illegal. Change the law!

    Which law are we to change?

    The law against murder/manslaughter? What, add "this includes cops, too" to the text?

    The law against drugs? Are you seriously telling me that the fact that drugs are illegal causes the lives of any occupants of a suspected drug house to be automatically forfeit from a legal standpoint?

  • ||

    You didn't hear the case. Either you beleive in the jury system or you don't. It can't be juries are good until they do something I don't like. I don't like the decision either but sometimes life is like that. I didn't sit through the evidence like they. They are in a better position to judge than I am.

    You can believe in the jury system and still think juries get it wrong in a particular case. Just like you can believe in the federal election system at the same time as you think the voters voted for the wrong people.

  • Alice Bowie||

    white juries works for white cops.
    black juries work for OJ Simpson.

    Why do u think that they deny jury duties to felons...to limit the amount of black people on juries.

    a black jury would have convicted this cop
    a white jury would have convicted OJ

    Occam's tootbrush

    Whether u believe in jury system or not...It's Broken. It doesn't really work.

    Cops usually wave their right to a trial by jury when there are BLACKS on Jury. Any lawyer will tell u this.

  • mark||

    so you know what happened and still refuse to believe the officer that he feared he was being shot at and took action. Come on people!

  • ||

    For fun, check the threads on glocktalk. A few idiots there are saying this is what happens when you live in a crack house.

    Some people have never had the cops called on themselves about made up stuff, apparently. People still think they have nothing to fear if they're innocent.

  • johnl||

    Alice is right. The officer was put into a position which requires clear thinking and training. He's a poorly trained and not too smart, so he did something brutally stupid. It's the people who recruited him without screening if he could handle the responsibility, the trainers who supposedly prepared him the this situation, the managers who have been evaluating his performance and finding it satisfactory, ... Those are the people who should have been put on trial.

  • ||

    """True, but isn't there some accountability? """

    Accountability comes from within the department its self. Cops making other cops accountable? No, I don't think so.

    """Whether u believe in jury system or not...It's Broken. It doesn't really work."""

    I've sat on a jury and I disagree. The problem isn't juries, it's bad law. Or lack of law about when a cop can fire in this case.

    """so you know what happened and still refuse to believe the officer that he feared he was being shot at and took action. Come on people!"""

    Come on is right, the department should have never put a guy that would shit his pants and fire indiscriminately into wall at the mere sound of gunfire on a SWAT team in the first place.

  • JGR||

    Devil's Advocate wrote:

    "'on her knees or crouching down when she was shot, similar to complying with orders'

    Also similar to a standard firing position."

    Oh? Which "standard firing position" would that be? And how have I managed to never hear of this "standard firing position," despite my decades as a firearms instructor?

  • ||

    Let's declare the war on drugs won. Legalise them, sell them in National Drug Stores, retire the national debt. A similar killing happened in the Ventura County/Malibu area when a drug enforcement raiding party killed Mr.Scott as they rushed into his house to protect US from "drugs he was farming" no drugs were discovered. (they had already had the ranch appraised for sale).

  • rogue medic||

    If the officer feels that there is gun fire coming from the room (although it was coming from downstairs according to the story), why not wait until there is backup, use concussion grenades, . . . and enter the room as they are trained to? Half a dozen children were in the room, according to the story.

    Is he firing indiscriminately into the room (as was reported in the story) when he sees a figure moving and hears gunfire? They do not report what was hit by the shots he fired. Did all of them hit the woman and the baby in her arms? That is not as indiscriminate as the story suggests. How well lit was the room? From the description in the story, it is not clear that the officer acted recklessly. That does not mean that he didn't act recklessly, just that there are several plausible scenarios for him to feel he is being shot at and that the most appropriate action is to return fire.

    I agree that the officer should not be there. Should the people, who put officers in that situation be prosecuted for creating a hazardous situation? Yes. This is not enforcement of a law that needs to be enforced, nor is it a rational method of enforcing the law.

    How does this officer feel about shooting 2 people? A baby and the mother, depriving that baby of a mother by killing the unarmed mother. I don't think he will ever forget this and no jury decision will ease his guilt over what he did.

  • Bill White||

    There's nothing wrong with shooting nigger crack whores ... and no amount of protest can change that.

  • rogue medic||

    From the very bottom of the page of his web site:

    "Bill White is Commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party."

    This raises the question of how Godwin's Law applies when you are dealing with real Nazis.

    He is misguided enough to believe that a person's religion, or the color of a person's skin, should be used to justify killing a person.

    He provides the best parody of his own beliefs.

    The US Constitution protects his right to make a fool of himself. A lot of what he opposes is also protected by the US Constitution. :-)

  • ||

    Can't always blame the cop. While I do not agree with putting anyone at risk on such entries, the cop in question does not make that decision. He takes orders or gets fired. Be angry at his superiors for such an order.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement