Des Moines Officer Vanessa Miller will not face charges after a grand jury looked at her shooting of Ryan Bolinger, 28. Miller shot Bolinger from her car after he approached her car by “walking with a purpose.” Miller had chased Bolinger after he got out of his car earlier and began dancing.
After he stopped, Miller said he got out of his car and was walking “with a purpose” toward her car and she concluded that she was being threatened. So she fired through the window of her car and killed him.
The Des Moines police department described the standard governing the use of lethal force as virtually subjective. Police Sergeant Jason Halifax said “It all has to do with how an officer perceives the situation.” Halifax said, “What they’re feeling at the time. It’s what they’re seeing. It’s what they’re experiencing. There’s not a hard fast this is when you shoot and this is when you don’t.” That seems materially different from the objective test established in Tennessee v. Garner in 1985, that a police officer could used deadly force on a fleeing suspect if the officer had probable cause to believe that the suspect poses significant threat of death or injury to the officer or others. However four years later, in Graham v. Connor, the Court emphasized that the standard is whether the officer’s actions are “objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them.”
While these decisions must be made in short period of time, the standard is not a subjective one. It is hard to understand how a man merely approaching the vehicle satisfied that test. Some have suggested that the prosecutors undermined the grand jury proceedings since grand juries tend to overwhelmingly follow the lead of prosecutors. The grand jury obviously saw something objectively threatening in a man approach a vehicle in this circumstance.
The shooting again raises questions about the use of lethal force by officers in the United States. A couple years ago, we discussed how police in Iceland killed a man for the first time in history and compared that remarkable record to our own level of police shootings. This week we have another stark contrast out of Norway where police fired only two shots in 2014. They brandished firearms on just 42 occasions in 2014. Their highest rate was only 75 such incidents in 2005 and 2010. In comparison, this week we had a man shot and killed for brandishing a large metal spoon.
Notably, there is a videotape of the shooting but the police are withholding it from the public during their own investigation. It must have been shown to the jury and could shed more light why a grand jury found such a use of lethal force to be justified. It is difficult to see why the videotape continues to be withheld, particularly after the closing of the criminal case.
Memo to Serfs:
When approaching strangers, walk without purpose.
Aimless meandering may save your life.
When in doubt, Serpentine. SERPENTINE!
Brought to you by The Ministry of Silly Walks (MiniSill).
Just being a female cop these day is is truly scary. She appears to have pehaps noticed the lack of respect and hostility being amped up by professional agitators (for thugs), like the HANDS UP movement.
Generally, the fact that certain evidence was presented to the grand jury may be secret, but it doesn’t eliminate access to information or documents held by the various governmental agencies.
As to the stand your ground laws, they generally include a reasonableness requirement.
Who protects the people FROM their police?
What Spinelli said about prosecutors protecting female cops is a reasonable conclusion and may be true, but protecting cops by secret grand jury in general has to be dealt with. There should be no grand juries indicting cops because prosecutors need cops to make their cases and thus have incentive to protect them. No loyalty from cops means no climbing the political ladder and being boxed into misdemeanor arraignments until he or she, becoming so demoralized, quits.
Walking “with a purpose” as a subjective test for using deadly force in self-defense only works when your boss owns the most cattle in the territory or you’ve got a county prosecutor from Dez Monez.
I’m relieved to know the State of California had enough good sense to this year prohibit secret grand juries in police prosecutions for that very reason.
When real life exceeds the imagination of Hollywood script writers, then you have to stop and take a peek at what the Constitution really says, not just what you want it to mean.
Now, read the ‘stand your ground’ guidelines, same thing; a person only has to ‘fear for their life’.
Perhaps we should all take the advice of Wayne the Peter and arm ourselves to the teeth.
issac – the mantra that the police are taught at the academy is “I was in fear of my life.” Repeat
BillH personally remembers the Battle of Hastings as well.
“Walking with purpose”, now enshrined in The LEO Book Of Special Insights, just after “Driving While Black”.
Sometime in the late 1060’s I met a man at a party who had recently come to this country from Poland, which was still behind the Iron Curtain at the time. I asked him what most impressed him about America and he replied without hesitation, “You don’t have to be afraid of your police.” Interesting times.
Bill H – I happen to live in an area where the cops are pretty kicked back but profession. When I first moved here there were some old style Chicago cops who took most of the fun out of being arrested. However, they should have all died of coronaries by now (they were all over weight).
Folks, this decision is based upon long-standing legal precedent – that the level of perceived threat that a female feels from a man is paramount. Frankly, if she wasn’t a LEO this wouldn’t even be a topic for discussion because outside of domestic situations she wouldn’t likely have even been charged and, if she was, the grand jury would have rendered the same opinion and nobody would care.
Hence, all of you who do care just have deep-seated issues with law enforce…probably stemming from guilt-based fear or a latent racism.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/29/baltimore-and-bolstering-a-police-officers-right-to-remain-silent/the-police-officers-bill-of-rights-creates-a-double-standard
“It’s strange that a law that thwarts transparency and accountability is called a “bill of rights.” The Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights has the same relationship to a real bill of rights that the Patriot Act has to a real patriot. The real Bill of Rights — the one enshrined in the United States Constitution — actually limits the power of government, including the police.”
Inga – the Bill of Rights did not envision a regular police force, nor did it foresee a standing army.
John makes a good point about grand jury evidence. I wonder if this was a standing grand jury or one that was specially assembled. Seems the US needs a paradigm shift on cops and allowing them to inflict lethal force upon anyone at any time. Where does the general public receive education and training about laws applicable to them and the authorities of law enforcement?
What I have learned from this incident? 1. Police officers are not to be approached. 2. Police officers are dangerous. 3. Police officers should not be permitted to carry weapons. 4. If a video tape shows that an officer has misbehaved it will withheld from public view. So much for body cameras being the answer to police abuse of citizens.
I don’t dispute the argument that we could use more evidence to make a final decision on this incident; however, I am pretty sure that if the video confirmed the presence of a threat it would be playing on every news outlet in the city.
I wonder if the prosecutor and Grand Jury weren’t being paternalistic in giving the female cop more latitude in protecting herself.
QUOTE ” It must have been shown to the jury and could shed more light why a grand jury found such a use of lethal force to be justified.”
NOTHING given as evidence to a Grand Jury can be gotten, even with a FOIA. At least that has been my experience.
THAT is why prosecutors use Grand Juries to cover up police abuse.
The Police Officer has a License to Kill. This is driven by a National Paranoia fueled by carefully manufactured delusions held by a minority that you have to protect yourself with a gun against a fellow citizen and especially King George III.
This is an anachronistic “Walter Mitty” existence. America is stuck in a deluded Hollywood interpretation of its past.
Other countries have largely abandoned the lifestyles of 250 years ago. If they want a new dining table they go to a store. They don’t normally go outside and cut down a tree to make it themselves. Most people drive to work in a car rather than go to work on a horse. Most people know the earth rotates around the sun except for 1:4 Americans. Most people don’t take the Law into their own hands and act as lawyer judge and executioner…….
Except in America.
What is worst of all is that the vocal majority of moderate Americans who want gun control can’t get it. So much for Freedom and Democracy.
In the meantime guns are placed in the hands of the irresponsible and the unstable. They are on the streets and armed to the teeth by a multi billion dollar industry with no conscience.
And a lot more Americans are going to be killed.
What is really interesting is that the Courts are now sanctioning this behaviour as the country descends into anarchy.
I don’t know the particular details of this case so I cannot make an informed comment on this shooting. I will say that I would demand a further inquiry because it seems from the information I have read here is that there is a reliance on the notion of what was going on in the head of the officer when the shooting happened.
To me it sounds like over-reliance. I certainly agree that the standard needs to be what a reasonable officer would believe given the facts made available to the shooting officer at the time of the shooting. Yet, I have concerns that this is being made to have more deference than what could be reasonable.
I suspect I might be more clear if I demonstrated this by example.
Scenario 1
Person approaches police vehicle holding what appears to be a handgun, given shape, size, lighting conditions, proximity and has a very menacing and angry gaze at the officer. The person begins to raise the handgun, the officer shoots the person fearing a threat to their life. In the end the person is actually holding a non-lethal BB gun that clearly resembled an actual firearm. Given the totality of the circumstances and the amount of time the officer was given (almost none in this case) the officer would likely be cleared. A reasonable officer could have come to the conclusion that his/her life was in jeopardy.
Scenario 2
Person approaches police vehicle yelling expletives at the officer inside. It is winter, and has hands in pocket. The person then pulls out his hands and the officer shoots him. She states that she felt threatened and she genuinely believed this according to her statements. A reasonable officer would not believe this was an imminent threat to their life. In this scenario She might have argued she felt threatened, but this is not what a reasonable officer would come to as a conclusion. In other words, just because she was afraid, it did not mean that her actions were justified.
I have concerns in this case that the officer was “just afraid” and that statement might have been sufficient for those to exonerate her. Yet, this fear is not necessarily indicative of actual threat.
Again, I do not know what actually was presented to the grand jury, but if there is a pattern in this officer’s use of force documents where she might show inappropriate jumps to assume threats are there when they are actually not it could easily be damaging to her in an Internal Affairs investigation and perhaps a future civil suit. But for the criminal indictment it might not be affective.
Wait, was that Felony Dancing?
I don’t care if you are an ardent supporter of law enforcement or not, The use of deadly force needs clear and unambiguous guidelines in each state, and it should be that the use of deadly force is justified, if and only if a clear and articulatable deadly threat to the officer or the public exists.
A bad feeling should not cut it.
A bad feeling (reasonable suspicion) may entitle someone to draw their weapon and do everything short of pulling the trigger, but until the threat becomes a real & present danger, if you do, you just become a killer.
If you are in a defensible position, as she must have been in her running squad car, while he was a pedestrian, with time to think on her actions – to develop malice aforethought before drawing her weapon and firing through the window at the dance partner who got away.
Today, most cops like you to stay in the car and not approach them. In the ‘olden days’ when I was pulled over I would get out of the car and approach the cop. This stopped the cop from having a reason to examine the interior of the car, not that there was anything illegal in there.
So, under the new ‘unwritten rules’ a person walking with purpose towards the police car is a threat.