New Orleans Cop Indicted for Killing an Unarmed Man During a Pot Raid

Last week a grand jury indicted a New Orleans police officer who killed an unarmed 20-year-old man during a pot raid last March. Officer Joshua Colclough shot Wendell Allen shortly after police burst into his home in the Gentilly neighborhood of New Orleans while serving a search warrant aimed at uncovering evidence of marijuana dealing. (They found 4.5 ounces of pot, along with bags, digital scales, and a handgun.) Colclough's attorney, Pat Fanning, describes the circumstances of the shooting this way:

When you serve a search warrant not knowing what's behind that door, you're going in, you place yourself in harm's way. That's what Officer Colclough did.

Then someone steps out on him and startles him and starts raising his hand in his direction. He had to decide in a split second, do I wait to decide if he has a gun in his hand and he shoots me? Or can I assume if he steps out on me, that it was reasonable to fear the guy had a gun and was going to shoot him?

The grand jury evidently deemed it not so reasonable, charging Colclough with manslaughter, defined as a homicide "committed in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection." That seems to fit the facts of the case pretty well. The grand jury reportedly rejected a charge of second-degree murder, which requires a "a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm" and triggers a mandatory life sentence. The indictment came a day after Colclough failed to appear at a hearing where he was expected to plead guilty to negligent homicide (defined as "the killing of a human being by criminal negligence"), which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Now Orleans Parish prosecutors are threatening to invoke a provision that requires a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years for offenders who discharge firearms while committing certain violent felonies, including manslaughter (which otherwise carries an indeterminate sentence of up to 40 years). Not fair, says Fanning:

Frankly, if they do that, that is an abuse of the statute. The statute contemplates a criminal committing an intentional criminal act and choosing to use a firearm, as opposed to a police officer who not only carries a gun in the line of duty, but is required to as a condition of his employment.

Since manslaughter is specifically listed as one of the crimes that triggers a 20-year mandatory minimum when the offender uses a gun, this does not seem like much of a stretch to me. It is surely more reasonable than sending a pot dealer to prison for 55 years because he "used" guns by possessing them for self-defense.

Fanning's plea for lenient treatment of cops who kill reminds me of what Allen's mother said about Colclough after he shot her son:

His police title, that's just a title. He's still a man just like the next man that commits a murder. So my child's crime should be treated the same if he'd gotten killed by a regular man.

Althoug Colclough's indictment is encouraging (and, frankly, surprising), a "regular man" who did what he did would be charged with felony murder: killing someone, even accidentally, while breaking into his home. Thus do the drug laws transform burglary and assault into law enforcement by making peaceful transactions into crimes. In this case, the cops had a warrant, they raided the right location, and they seem to have done everything by the book—except for accidentally killing someone who posed no threat to them. Cops will always be fallible, but the war on drugs unnecessarily multiplies the chances of fatal mistakes like this one.

According to the Drug War Chronicle, which alerted me to Colclough's indictment, Allen's death was the 15th related to domestic drug law enforcement in the U.S. this year. We are now up to 43.

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.

  • John Thacker||

    Wow. The clear man-bites-dog angle is not Orleans Parish police killing an unarmed man, but the officer actually being indicted for it.

  • tarran||

    A word to the wise. If you're wearing a tie, the baseball cap needs to stay home.

  • ||

    You're just jealous that you can't pull that off.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    He had to decide in a split second, do I wait to decide if he has a gun in his hand and he shoots me?

    Yes.

  • Spoonman.||

    That's the part about "putting yourself in harm's way", you see.

  • robc||

    +++++

  • Christina||

    Cops will always be fallible, but the war on drugs unnecessarily multiplies the chances of fatal mistakes like this one.

    I tried to make this point to a pro-drug war Marine I know who hopes to join ICE when he leaves the Corps. He was saying that police militarization and raids such as this are necessary to combat those evil drug dealers who will shoot any cop who merely knocks. Plus, didn't I know that drug dealers now have their dogs' vocal chords removed so that police don't know they're there?

  • ||

    I tried to make this point to a pro-drug war Marine I know who hopes to join ICE when he leaves the Corps. He was saying that police militarization and raids such as this are necessary to combat those evil drug dealers who will shoot any cop who merely knocks.

    I'm sure he see's incidents like this the same way most cops do: Wendell Allen was collateral damage and wouldn't have been killed if he wasn't a drug dealing monster.

  • WTF||

    Well, thank God brave men like Officer Colclough are putting their other people's lives on the line so we don't have to worry about someone getting high.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    A man's tragic death, which hopefully will be avenged by convicting the killer.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    His police title, that's just a title. He's still a man just like the next man that commits a murder. So my child's crime should be treated the same if he'd gotten killed by a regular man.

    It's never "murder" when the man pulling the trigger has a magic piece of metal pinned to his chest.

    hth

  • robc||

    We will get years of Dunphy citing this as the example that police are treated the same (or harsher) than non-cops.

    This gives him TWO examples now.

    So I will call him out now...you can use this ONCE. That is fair.

  • Scooby||

    I wouldn't yield this example to Dunphy just yet.

    Only if there is a zealous prosecution that follows this indictment will it the treatment of this badge-wearing killer be anywhere close to that of a similarly situated non-cop.

  • pi31415||

    Officer Joshua Colclough burst into a home and killed an unarmed man. He should go to jail. So should anyone doing the same thing, wearing a badge or not.

  • RFID||

    Lets pick one sentence at random from that steaming pile of lawyer horseshit...

    Then someone steps out on him and startles him and starts raising his hand in his direction.

    OK, we aren't looking so good.

    Then someone steps out on him

    It was his house. I think he has a right to "step" anywhere he pleases in it. Maybe in this case he chose to "step" towards the loud noise made by the blue costume man?

    and startles him

    Well, when you break into someone's house it is very possible to get "startled" by the owner who wants to know what the hell you are doing there.

    and starts raising his hand

    When I run into heavily armed men breaking into my house the very first thing I'm going to do is raise my hands. It will be involuntary. What else did they expect him to do? Isn't that what they want him to do? Raise his hands? If he lowered his hands would it be reasonable to shoot him? If he kept his hands where they were would it be reasonable to shoot him? I need something to do with my hands that won't get me shot by the cops. Someone tell me, please.

    in his direction.

    OK, quick test. Face a mirror with your hands at your sides and attempt to raise your hands without moving them in the direction of the mirror. I think you will have some trouble unless you do some gymnastics thing.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement