Cops Involved in Questionable Shootings Get Medal-of-Freedomed
Cop shoots, kills unarmed Pace University student. Months later, he gets the police union's "Cop of the Year" award:
The Police Benevolent Association of the Pleasantville Police Department said Wednesday it honored Officer Aaron Hess for his dignity and professionalism since the October shooting and throughout his career.
Hess fired at Henry's car as Henry drove away from a disturbance that spilled out of a bar in Thornwood, just north of New York City, after Pace University's homecoming game on Oct. 17, 2010. Hess was cleared of criminal wrongdoing by a Westchester County grand jury in February.
Autopsy results found Henry was above the legal limit for alcohol, but his family says he wasn't drunk.
Hess, who suffered leg injuries, said he shot at Henry after Henry's car hit him. Some witnesses disputed that.
The Henry family is seeking federal intervention, and the Department of Justice has said it will review the evidence to determine whether there were any civil rights crimes.
Meanwhile, in Las Vegas:
Two Las Vegas police officers who shot and killed Erik Scott in the controversial Costco shooting last year have received honors in a national officer of the year award.
Officers William Mosher and Joshua Stark received honorable mention in the National Association of Police Organizations' Top Cops awards.
A third officer involved in the shooting, Thomas Mendiola, was not honored. In January, Mendiola was charged with a felony for unlawfully giving a handgun to a two-time felon in an unrelated case. He has a preliminary hearing in May.
Chris Collins, executive director of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, is a member of the NAPO board of directors. He said he nominated the two officers and officer Mike Madland, who was shot twice while chasing a robbery suspect in March 2010, for the Top Cop award. Madland nearly lost his leg from the shooting. He did not win a NAPO award.
Collins called the two incidents the "top two heroic events our officers participated in last year."
"I don't see it as a controversial shooting," he said about the Costco shooting. "What potentially could have been a bad situation they brought to an end with no citizens being hurt.
"It was a heroic deed and enough of a heroic deed for the judges to give them an honorable mention."
Scott's father, Bill Scott, called the honor "incredible."
"The arrogance of Chris Collins and the PPA in even nominating these two staggers the imagination," he said.
He called the officers' actions a "mistake" and added, "Now they're being honored for their mistakes?"
Both of these shootings were high-profile, and in both cases witness accounts dispute officer accounts (though in the Scott case there are lots of discrepencies—other witnesses confirm portions of the police version of events).
In any case, it's interesting that the cops who shot and killed Scott and Henry were honored, but not the cop who was shot while chasing a robbery suspect, but didn't actually kill anyone.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Getting shot is passive: shooting somebody shows initiative.
it all makes sense now...
Balko is just plain wrong about the Vegas Costco shooting. Erik Scott had so much Vicodin in his system he should have been dead. Plus he thought it a good idea to remove his gun from his waist band after cops told him to freeze. According to pro conceal carry experts, Erik Scott is wrong as hell and caused his own death. The police did nothing wrong in that case and I suggest Mr. Balko get his facts straight next time.
Actually, he removed his gun after being ordered by an officer to drop it. An officer who swore under oath that he ordered him to put his hands up but was in fact caught on the cops own tape giving the order to drop the weapon. The officers essentially gave this man an order and then shot him for complying.
Did he say Mother May I?
Isn't that why people join the police force?
To get the chance to kill people?
Naturally the ones who do get a chance to put civilians underground will get the honors.
Who cares about chasing robbery suspects. Phewy.
Killing people is where it's at!
Hey, killing people is environmentally-friendly and carbon neutral. We should give him an award for helping the earth heal. (I'm being sarcastic).
Greg, if you are for liberty, you can't be for the king's men-after all, they are parasites who do not make or produce anything.
What potentially could have been a bad situation they brought to an end with no citizens being hurt.
Well, except for the dead guy.
I was going to point that out too.
He wasn't a citzen, he was scum. Just ask the cops.
I read that and then reread that and then re-reread that.
My nuts, oh how they are so.
BALLLLLLKKKKKOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To protect and to serve. . .what?
Themselves. What else?
So if I'm not cop, I'm little people?
Now you're getting with the program. 😉
You got to get your mind right, Pro L.
If you're not cop, you're target practice.
It's a cookbook.
Isn't that why people join the police force? To get the chance to kill people?
I've known two guys who wound up becoming cops. The things they had in common were meth addictions, party-ruining paranoia about who the rat and/or fag at the party is, and a deeply emotional devotion to the cop-metal stylings of Pantera.
Based on that sample?yep.
cop-metal stylings of Pantera.
Uh, WUT?
Check the lyrics to "The Badge" from The Crow soundtrack. Plus probably a bunch of others.
One of my exes briefly dated a cop from Detroit, who drunkenly decided to point his pistol at her head in a bar as a joke.
Yeah, cops are usually real winners.
Cops never win.
If they make a mistake, they're evil.
If they are over cautious and people die, they get blamed.
If they arrest blacks, they're racist.
If they ignore black neighborhoods or take too long to respond to 911 calls from the ghetto? It's "where are those damn cops?"
Now I will stand against those few cops that want gun control, criticize Koran-burning pastors, blame shootings on Rush Limbaugh, and generally act against the constitution.
But when you're dealing with a cop that made the mistake of shooting an unarmed guy that appeared to be armed, I give them a break.
People make mistakes, big whop. Besides, the guy he shot was no saint.
Switzerland stands up to Islam, bans minarets.
http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....am-no.html
Do you give them awards to go with your break, too?
Circle gets the square.
Cops never win.
It looks to me like they never lose.
Shoot an unarmed dude, get a medal. That looks like winning, not losing, to me.
He did other things to win that medal. Seriously, why you hate cops? You got something against law and order? Are you a fan of Sons of Anarchy?
Greg, I hope the police shoot and kill one of your children. And afterwards, I hope that you show the same willingness to get on your fucking knees and fellate the cop's nightstick that you demonstrate here.
Well this is an incredibly distasteful comment, why would you wish that on anyone?
I'm curious if Greg-o would have the same flippant attitude about cops killing people if it was his own blood.
Maybe he cares about the gene pool.
Do you still beat your wife?
He did other things to win that medal.
Yeah, but he still shot an unarmed dude, and still got the fucking medal. Still looks like winning, not losing, to me.
Seriously, why you hate cops?
I try to hate anyone who deserves it. The question is, why don't you hate bad cops?
""Cops never win.""
Gregooooooooooooooooory
Good spoof, whoever this is.
Perhaps you should write them a glowing blog post, then never tell us about it.
That would learn us.
But when you're dealing with a cop that made the mistake of shooting an unarmed guy that appeared to be armed, I give them a break.
Isn't "appearing" armed when you're not a failure on the part of the person who perceived the non-existent armaments? What recovery can a person who is harmed, or killed, expect due to failure of perception by the person who harmed them?
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALKO PUNCH!
You know, I can totally see Balko racing hover vehicles and later fighting giant lizards and tiny singing pink balls.
Meh. We've been giving awards like this for a long time in Minneapolis. Even when everyone agrees that the cops were in the wrong house shooting up a storm.
How can you possibly argue with reasoning like that?
I'd posit that it's done intentionally to burnish the cops' resumes. Shooting someone doesn't look good on your resume. Shooting someone and getting Pig of the Year for it does.
It's that simple.
I agree that that's the reason, individually and collectively. The organiz'ns giving the awards think, probably correctly, that they still have considerable cred, so they figure to bestow some of it so that people will think, "Those cops must've been in the right after all."
The Police Benevolent Association of the Pleasantville Police Department said Wednesday it honored Officer Aaron Hess for his dignity and professionalism since the October shooting and throughout his career.
That word you keep on using... "Benevolent"... I don't think it means what you think it means.
Inconceivable!
Benevolent, would be referring to those marketing calls you get to donate money to the police, regardless of the fact that you're on the do not call list. It's benevolent to the police, but not to citizens.
Ryan Fredericks and Cory Maye were "involved in questionable shootings" with witnesses disputing their stories of what happened too.
Innuendo is a double-edged sword, Mr Balko.
Niether of them were government employees. Standards are different.
It would be nice if the cops had to face the same grand juries as Maye and Fredericks.
Actually it would be nice if Maye and Fredericks didn't have to face any prosecution whatsoever, since there's absolutely no evidence they did anything wrong. I'm merely showing Radley that the innuendo about "questionable shootings" can easily be applied to two of his cause celebres, and the fact that it's being applied to a member of a hated group doesn't make it OK.
I think anytime someone is killed a grand jury isnt unreasonable. The grand jury shouldnt choose to indict in self defense cases, but I would prefer that decision be made there. The prosecutor can suggest self defense to the grand jury and recommend no indictment.
And Im pointing out that government employees should never be involved in questionable shootings.
Government employees don't have a right to self-defense?
That isnt what I said.
Government employees are held to higher standards. Their self defense standards shouldnt be in dispute.
Or, to put it another way, people who carry guns and whose testimony carries greater weight in court should be held to higher standards.
Most people who carry guns aren't government employees.
And testimony shouldn't carry greater weight just because it comes from a govt employee.
True, but it does.
Or less weight if Im on a jury, because I assume be default cops are lying unless there is non-cop evidence agreeing with him.
It would be best if neither was the case.
OK, throw out the greater weight part (though, as a lawyer, I can tell you that it is encouraged by the courts; in many situations an officer can wear his uniform while testifying for the prosecution but not for the defense). You cannot argue that the police have special privileges when it comes to carrying and using a firearm. So long as they have said privileges, they should be held to a higher standard.
Damn typo... "You cannot argue that the police DON'T have special privileges..."
Most people who carry guns aren't government employees.
Most people aren't covered by sovereign immunity either.
Your second sentence contradicts your first.
Thats because it is written poorly.
Their self defense ACTIONS shouldnt be in dispute.
Read what I meant, not what I typed.
Government employees are held to Lower standards. Always remember that. They like to wrap themselves in their public service and their professionalism, but the reality is, they are not held to a higher standard. Their standards are lower than a private citizen. Lower.
Much lower.
Do private citizens get to argue self-defense when they kick in the door to someone's house and the occupants shoot at them?
""Ryan Fredericks and Cory Maye were "involved in questionable shootings" with witnesses disputing their stories of what happened too.""
What witness disputed Fredericks story?
>>Ryan Fredericks and Cory Maye were "involved in questionable shootings" with witnesses disputing their stories of what happened too.
Ryan Fredericks and Cory Maye were "involved in questionable shootings" with witnesses disputing their stories of what happened too.
No one is celebrating the fact that Maye and Frederick killed a cop; only arguing that they shouldn't be in prison for making an honest mistake under impossible circumstances.
These cops are honored and celebrated specifically for having killed someone--and while both shootings might have been justified, that's far from clear right now.
That's the difference.
It's imporant to show you will not back down from anything.
Are you talking about Tulpa, or the cops?
Ouch.
Indeed.
Average citizens who shoot under stressful, impossible (great way to put it) circumstances are prosecuted in virtually identical fashion as someone who planned to kill a cop.
A cop, who is supposedly well trained and experienced, who shoots under much less impossible circumstances is given heavy benefit of doubt.
So, we have average untrained citizens reacting in surprise, less controlled scenarios being held more accountable for their actions then trained professionals acting in more controlled, planned scenarios.
Put yet another way, a citizen who shoots an intruder he believes is a criminal that later turns out to be a cop is basically held out to be a lying cop killer. It doesn't matter what he felt, believed, thought or what the situation was, just that a cop is dead.
On the other hand, belief, thought process, situation,etc. are virtually all that matters when a cop shoots a citizen that he thought was armed and later determined to be unarmed.
In the context of 'questionable' shootings, facts alone are what matters when it's us average citizens doing the killing, while everything but the facts matter when it's a cop doing the same.
Hess' award was for "dignity and professionalism" since the heavily publicized shooting and during his previous career. Not for shooting the kid.
If some libertarian organization gave Ryan Frederick an award for conducting himself with dignity since the raid on his home, would you be blogging about what a terrible injustice it was?
No, of course not. He is a private citizen who has every right to kill state actors who barge into his home without his consent.
You, however, champion the chaos and lack of order and civility which inheres with the state's monopoly on the administration of justice. You just refuse to understand that monopoly does not work and that there is no exception for the state.
More on Erik Scott;Vinsuprynowicz.com.
"Meet The Cops,Go Home in a Box".
Hess fired at Henry's car as Henry drove away from a disturbance that spilled out of a bar
Oops, left out the fact that there was a person stuck to his front bumper while he was driving away. It also curious that the officer's leg injury is just dropped in there at the end as if it was an unrelated occurrence.
And the link for the statement "Some witnesses dispute that" goes to a story about how Henry's father (who wasn't a witness) interpreted a statement by the cop's lawyer (who also wasn't a witness) as meaning that the cop walked in front of the vehicle. The lawyer's statement that supposedly implies this isn't included in the story, and even if it were I don't see even one witness there whose disputing anything, let alone "some" witnesses.
Police said a Pleasantville officer tried to stop him and ended up on the hood clinging for his life. That officer along with a second cop opened fire
Im calling bullshit. You cannot both "cling for life" and "open fire".
I haven't seen any pictures, but I assume the officer in question has two hands.
When clinging for life, you fucking use both.
For one thing, when clinging with one hand and trying to fire with the other, there is no way to guarantee you arent going to fire wildly and shoot an innocent bystander (and consider cops "accidental" shooting rates even under normal circumstances...). He damn well better not be trying to shoot while sliding around on a car hood.
Im pretty sure "never shoot while clinging for life on a car hood" is before "finger outside trigger guard" in safety class.
He was what, four feet away from the target? And you don't have to be sliding around on the hood to be clinging for life.
The BART cop was less than 4 ft from his perp when he screwed up taser and pistol, and he wasnt busy "clinging for life".
And considering, as pointed out, the other 2 guys in the car got shot, that 4 ft didnt seem to help.
You were talking about aim being worse because you're only using one hand. The taser/pistol screw-up (which was probably a lie anyway) has nothing to do with aim.
While they are different situations, the point being in crisis situations, mistakes get made. I trust a cop with feet planted on ground to shoot somewhat accurately, not one "clinging for life" -- which is what Im arguing about, that is bullshit -- if true, he wouldnt have been shooting, he would have been using two hands. He might have been "clinging for health", but he wasnt relying on one hand to protect his life.
When I saw that video, I thought of the times I've thrown a fork in the trash and the napkin in the sink. Only when I fucked up it didn't kill anyone.
How about the fact that the cop did not have to initiate force in the first place?
Not necessarily. If a guy's daughter slides off a cliff and he grabs her with his left hand at the last instant, only to slide over the cliff himself before grabbing a conveniently placed branch growing out of the side of the cliff with his right hand -- would he not be considered to be "clinging for life"?
In this case, there was something the officer could do with his other hand that would end the danger.
Actually, in that case he in minimizing his life in order to maximize his daughters.
The point being, you use every hand available when "clinging for life" - in that goofy case, the 2nd one isnt available, he values his daughter more than the extra benefit of the 2nd hand.
The cop could use the second hand to maximize his clinginess.
In the cliff example I gave, the other hand is completely available. He just has to let go of his daughter and he has the left hand available to support his weight too.
It's only unavailable when you take into account that he has two goals: cling for life and prevent his daughter from falling. Just like the cop had two goals: cling for life and stop the car.
It's only unavailable when you take into account that he has two goals: cling for life and prevent his daughter from falling. Just like the cop had two goals: cling for life and stop the car.
And that is my point. Stopping the car doesnt rank anywhere near saving the daughter. In that case, the cop can focus entirely on saving his life and catch the perp later.
Er, I would think that stopping the car to which you're stuck is an integral part of saving your own life.
He wasnt stuck.
Yes, Tulpa putting a bullet into the guy with his foot on the accelerator is the smart thing to do.
Depending on how stiff the accelerator in the car is, it might be... and it's not like we would expect a person whose life is in immediate danger to instantly devise an optimal strategy taking into account all the variables in the totality of the situation they're in... they just react.
""Depending on how stiff the accelerator in the car is, it might be... ""
So how does the cop outside the car make that judgment?
When you can blame the guy for all the other cops hurt as a result of your actions, and get a medal for it, it doesn't sound too stupid.
Hey guys, can I play too?
Yeah, me too!
I'd like to offer an opinion myself.
I disagree.
Well don't let that stop you.
Tulpa just does not understand that being a libertarian necessarily means that you can't be a cop fellator.
And you don't understand that being a libertarian doesn't mean believing that cops are always wrong.
Of course they are not always wrong.
That does not mean we should take leave of our senses.
Sonny, you've never seen me in action, have you?
I'm more of a Lookwell guy myself...
"Perhaps if you watched a little bit more television you'd be better at your job."
Explain, Mr. Authority, why he had to shoot him in the first place.
Because he had injured him with a deadly weapon and may well have been about to finish the job?
"Finish the job"?!? A drunk guy is going to "finish the job"? You're cramming some serious intent up there, and while I know you have a lot of room where you cram things, it's a stretch.
He didn't know the guy was drunk, not that it matters. Drunk people are fully capable of murder.
Seriously, if someone drove their car into your knees, you fell on their hood, and then they started moving the car again, would you not defend yourself? Or would you politely ask them to stop the vehicular amputation.
""Seriously, if someone drove their car into your knees,""
I would jump out of the way, not stand there with the hit me and see what happens attitude.
Right, anyone who gets hit by a car was just standing there waiting to get hit. I guess we should get rid of those hit-and-run laws from the books, since it's obviously the pedestrian's fault.
"" since it's obviously the pedestrian's fault.""
Only if the pedestrian jumps in front of an oncoming car.
I carry a gun. If someone hit me with a car, the very last thing I would do is pull the gun and shoot them. I would run (if I could) or roll or do anything I could to get away.
Why didn't the cop do that?
He obviously couldn't run with destroyed knees. Rolling off a moving vehicle is extremely dangerous.
Not as dangerous as firing a gun randomly.
"'Rolling off a moving vehicle is extremely dangerous."
So is staying on one.
Where is this evidence of destroyed knees? I dont see it in the links. Seems like the cop that wasnt on the hood was injured worse anyway.
Why didn't the cop do that?
WWTJHD?
WWTJHD?
AWESOME.
Why speculate when TJ made these fine training videos?
Notice him put the pistol away so he could "cling" more effectively
SNL version
Why speculate when TJ made these fine training videos?
Notice him put the pistol away so he could "cling" more effectively
SNL version
Tulpa has this idea that a car is connected to the drivers brain, and if you kill the driver the car magically stops.
He doesn't take into account that if you are on a guy's hood and start shooting at him, even if he wasn't trying to kill you before he sure as hell is now. He also doesn't take into account that people tend to freak out when shot. Meaning that the driver was most likely flailing about, and it's a miracle the cop didn't get flung off of the hood and ran over.
Out of all the scenarios of shooting a driver through his windshield while clinging to the hood, the one where the shooter lives is probably the least likely. I think that the cop watched Die Hard too many times and thought he was John McClain.
Isn't this the case where there was a riot/large disturbance, and one of the cops told the kid to get out of there? Left hand didn't talk to right hand, other cops thought the car was driving at them, and started shooting. Could've sworn that one of the witnesses claimed a cop told the kid to leave.
Anyways, not sure if this is what the po-po do in the NE, but at least around Houston they'll jump in front of a car they wish to have stop. Failure to stop then constitutes attempted assault with a deadly on the peace officer, which entitles them to shoot.
But by all means, keep dissecting this. I had no idea before opening this thread that fault could turn on the stickiness of an accelerator pedal.
""but at least around Houston they'll jump in front of a car they wish to have stop. ""
The I dare you to hit me and see what happens attitude.
He ain't lying. This happened to my dad when I was a kid.
We were coming up from VA and in the middle of the FREEWAY was a cop standing in the road making the 'halt' stance.
Up ahead were some cop cars, so he pulled up to them. He passed a speed trap before and this is how they stop you to ticket you, I guess.
The cop standing in the middle of the road was female and my dad made a crack about them making the lady cops play in traffic... she was not amused.
I hope you didn't have your dog in the car.
The cop should be prosecuted for first degree murder. If found guilty, he should fry, end of story, liberty enhanced.
You still have not addressed the fact that the cop INITIATED FORCE and he has no one to blame but his own rage and insatiable desire to exert power-personality traits which most cops possess.
I guess the other two kids in the car that got shot were just collateral damage, right? I mean, once they killed the driver one of the other two master criminals might have taken the wheel and finished the poor cop on the hood off.
I can't wait till the republicans go after the police unions. Bless those union buster republicans.
The sarcasm is strong in this one.
A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich, but a cop who shoots someone under questionable circumstances walks.
Many cops here in NYC have been indicted, yet they are almost always found not guilty. By judge or jury.
There is no law, that I'm aware of, that says a cop can't shot an innocent person in the line of duty.
Otherwise, you would see more convictions.
According to dunphy, in Washington they have to prove the cop was trying to kill the guy for no reason. No such thing as overreaction or manslaughter. When cops mess up it is just 'a bad shoot'.
And yet I meet so many who suffer under the delusion that only cops should carry guns because they're more accountable, haha.
I wonder if they hand out these awards just so these cops can look good in court if legal action is brought against them.
They have to settle for giving them medals because letting them take trophies from their kills, while more sportsmanlike, might agitate the prey class to the point they collectively became an actual danger to the predators.
You're joking, but if there were a public taxidermist union the trophy thing might be reality.
I must say, I find it somewhat amazing that anyone would say that any shooting where two bystanders (the passengers in the car) were shot was a "good shoot."
And, consider the best case scenario, where the cop manages to kill the driver of a car with two passengers. No chance of the passengers getting injured with a dead guy behind the wheel, is there?
Seriously, Tulpa, do you believe any citizen would walk if they were (a) bumped by a car (b) shot it full of holes (c) killed the driver and (d) injured the passengers?
Self-defense is self-defense. If a citizen can't do it, a cop shouldn't be able to do it.
Hess wasn't "bumped" by the car. He required 4 hours of surgery on his knees.
OK, do you believe any citizen would walk away if they were (a) hit by a car so they needed 4 hours of surgery on their knees, (b) shot it, etc.?
THe cop INITIATED the use of force. Too bad he was not killed.
How dare he hit that moving car with his knee!
A knee to a car probably does more damage than a snowball...
Probably not, but the remedy is not to deprive cops of the right to self-defense, it is to reinstate that right for all citizens.
So, you think that the right of self-defense for all citizens should include shooting at a car, with passengers in it, as it drives away?
The purpose of giving the cops awards is to protect them politically.
Once again, the comments on the article are better than the article itself:
AmericanCabbie
The driver was drunk. Bad things happen when people drive drunk. One thing's for sure: he won't ever drive drunk again.
Jimmy
He put himself in harms way when he put his uniform on that evening. We could be mourning that officer. It's unfortunate but the officer did the right thing to get home to his family. Mr. Henry did not. RIP..
Tony S
And you're comments are drawn on what experience?? What you read sensationalized in the papers. Move to Somalia and live in a world of complete anarchy before taking pot shots at police. You and yours alike paint your criticism with a broad brush and the fact is, the vast majority of police officers make huge sacrifices so the likes of you can sleep at night.
JasonS
How about this ? they leaked the information in order to set the record straight because a lot of typical ghettoid rabble rousers were whipping up anger by saying the cops executed him for no reason. Revealing that he was drunk at least gives us a motive for him bolting when the cop tapped on his window. The theory that he floored his car to avoid getting a DWI is now the most likely theory out there.
"Move to Somalia and live in a world of complete anarchy before taking pot shots at police."
Wait, now I'm confused. Cops build roads?
Thanks