BC Judge ruling on use of force

promac

promac

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Forum Sponsor
Police should use warning shots or run away? "Take cover in the jungle gym!" :lmao:

Funny, but scary too. Pretty soon, officers across Canada will be disarmed! :rolleyes:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/04/2011BCSC0456.htm

The suspect was off his medication, had set fire to his apartment and had ran from paramedics. When the first PO outran the other two he caught up to the suspect while the suspect was at his vehicle. The suspect was taking things out of the vehicle so the PO drew down on him. The suspect pulled out an iron bar then put it back and looked like he was going to prone out. He then rushed back to the vehicle, pulled out the Iron Bar, Rusted, Hollow, Approximately 24 inch length and a Black Crow Bar, Approximately 15 inch length raised them above his head and ran full speed at the PO. When he got to within 6 feet the PO shot him three times and stepped off to the side. The suspect continued to take steps past where he was standing and then fell.

Despite the fact that a warning shot might have sufficed in the situation, a warning shot was not fired.

Even with one or two potential weapons in Mr. Camasos hands, Constable Dukeshire who weighed almost one hundred pounds more and stood almost a foot taller than Mr. Camaso could not have had a reasonable belief that it was necessary to shoot Mr. Camaso for his own preservation. It was always apparent to Constable Dukeshire that Mr. Camaso did not have a gun in his hands.

Though Constable Dukeshire was attempting to back up quickly, it did not occur to him that turning and running away from Mr. Camaso was a reasonable alternative. Constable Dukeshire had already observed that he could run much more quickly than Mr. Camaso, but he failed to follow that reasonable alternative when Mr. Camaso ran out from behind his vehicle with a weapon or weapons in his hands.

While Constable Dukeshire later stated that there was no cover for him, that view appears to have been based on an assumption that Mr. Camaso had a gun. Even leaving aside the small trees to his left, Constable Dukeshire could have sought cover in the school playground area where there was a jungle gym climbing frame. :lmao:

Constable Dukeshire went immediately to the use of a firearm without considering whether there were alternatives available to him. In particular, he did not activate the police baton that he had with him. :lmao:

Putting myself in the position of Constable Dukeshire or putting a reasonable officer in the position of Constable Dukeshire, it is not reasonable to conclude that it is part of the responsibility of Constable Dukeshire to shoot Mr. Camaso three times and it is not possible on reasonable grounds to conclude that the force he used was necessary for the purpose of protecting himself and others from imminent or grievous bodily harm. Putting myself in the position of Constable Dukeshire or putting even an inexperienced officer in the position of Constable Dukeshire, it is not possible on reasonable grounds to conclude that the force that was used was necessary. Constable Dukeshire did not act on reasonable grounds when he shot Mr. Camaso.
 
... take cover behind the jungle gym....? LOL!

In fact, maybe we should hire anorexic police officers who can make better use of jungle gyms for cover :P

The idea of this purp chasing the PO around a childs playground is hilarious. Reminds me of Benny Hill endings :)
 
Cops are trained to think that everyones trying to kill them. They are supposed to aim for the chest/stomach because it is the biggest target. You'd think with all there shooting practice and the fact that they carry guns with them all the time, they'd be a better shot. Like I don't know, shoot the guy in the leg once, instead of 3 times into his chest? I'm pretty sure the minute you give anyone a loaded gun to walk around proudly carrying, some sense of rationallity has been lost.
 
"The suspect continued to take steps past where he was standing and then fell."

The perp had enough steam, even with three plugs in him, to run past the cop. What effect, exactly, does the judge feel a "warning shot" would have had in that situation? Hon. Justice Burnyeat has been polishing a chair too long.
 
When people are forced into situations like this whether its military or Police, where they fear for there own lives and making split second decisions. How is it that judges can hold them accountable after looking at the situation for weeks where the officer only had seconds. Total BS, same **** happens in the military.

Prove it was premeditated then go to town. Instead we are convicting on instinct reaction.
 
shewie said:
"The suspect continued to take steps past where he was standing and then fell."

The perp had enough steam, even with three plugs in him, to run past the cop. What effect, exactly, does the judge feel a "warning shot" would have had in that situation? Hon. Justice Burnyeat has been polishing a chair too long.
Click to expand...

Agreed with Shewie. Police are suppose to have the upper hand in any engagement. If someone is coming at you with a Tire Iron or a Crow Bar, one good hit to the head and you are out cold with some severe head trauma. I would of plugged this individual too. In a situation like this, I feel a warning shot simply would of spurred him on a little more.

The idea of this purp chasing the PO around a childs playground is hilarious. Reminds me of Benny Hill endings :icon_smile:
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I can't believe a judge would give that advice. A police officer running away from someone with a Tire Iron, who can already hurt or endanger anyone else in the vicinity defeats the entire purpose of his job. Imagine calling a cop because someone is robbing your house, cop gets there, see's the intruder with a Tire Iron, and then sprints away down the road, lovely.
 
This is rediculous!!! They are trained to use appropreate force. A man that is coming at you with a crow bar is going to cause grevious bodily harm or death, there for the cop is justified in using the fire arm. He was in imminate danger as well. 6 feet away is really close there is no time to shoot a warning shot. They say a knife welding man from 20 feet away can stab you a few times before you get your gun out aim and shoot.
 
Was the cop not armed with a tazer? Pepper spray would have also sufficed. Kinda hard to swing at somebody when you can't see. As a last resort, I also think shooting him in the leg with a real gun would have been sufficient to stop his attack. If you can't make split second decisions like that you shouldn't be in those situations and being a cop is not for you.

On another note, the judges ideas are whack. Run and take cover at a playground? What if the guy went after somebody besides the cop once he realized he was RUNNING AWAY? The hell...cops just need better training to deal with people with psychological problems.
 
Interesting case, actually. I don't think it's as simple as you guys are making it out to be. We probably need to know more, but I can see how this might be a very different kind of thing.

This wasn't a guy robbing a house or threatening someone with a tire iron. It's a mentally ill guy who was running AWAY from police. The officer might not have been "forced" into the situation, the officer might inadvertently have created the situation. He also drew his firearm before the suspect had any weapon in his hand. He was "taking things out of the vehicle". Again, did he choose to pick up a weapon because the officer drew his? You're dealing with a mentally ill, unpredictable person here. The approach sounds a little incautious.

It's also customary, I think, in a situation like this, for the officer to issue some kind of verbal warning, and that's not indicated.

Overall, I think officers are trained to de-escalate situations when possible. It looks like this officer MIGHT (and I say might, because we don't know for sure) have done a few things to escalate the situation. If officers are trying to capture/corner a dangerous animal, they often approach with caution, and retreat if threatened. A mentally ill guy with a pipe might warrant the same treatment. Chasing, cornering, and drawing down... I think the only way it could end is with the perp getting shot. Sound like that cop put himself on a course with that inevitable outcome, and I think that's what the judge is trying to say. As the sane party in the transaction, the cop could have made a few different decisions before the crisis moment when he had no choice.

Let's not forget, he had two other colleagues coming up in short order right behind him. The ones that he "outran". That would further multiply their options for a response to the situation.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't have shot him three times in the chest.

The third shot goes in the head.

Police are trained to shoot center of mass as many times as necessary to drop their target.

I'm sure all you super marksmen can hit a moving target in the leg with a pistol because it's so easy to do.... but you aren't trained to be police and know **** all about it. Obviously.

Good kill.

I suppose if the judge was defending his family he would have had a tickle fight with the guy.

Moral of the story: Don't attack police with a deadly weapon if you want to live through it.
 
D23 said:
I wouldn't have shot him three times in the chest.

The third shot goes in the head.

Police are trained to shoot center of mass as many times as necessary to drop their target.

I'm sure all you super marksmen can hit a moving target in the leg with a pistol because it's so easy to do.... but you aren't trained to be police and know **** all about it. Obviously.

Good kill.

I suppose if the judge was defending his family he would have had a tickle fight with the guy.

Moral of the story: Don't attack police with a deadly weapon if you want to live through it.
Click to expand...

I think the moral of the story is pretty different. Keep in mind the court ruled AGAINST the officer.
 
Duster929 said:
I think the moral of the story is pretty different. Keep in mind the court ruled AGAINST the officer.
Click to expand...

Your very correct. The moral is, everyone else is responsible for my actions and need to conform one way or another to help me protect myself from my own actions. In fact if we analyse this in correlation with the moons gravitational pull, its obvious that the officer was completely at fault.

Admittedly thats a little tongue in cheek :) But analyzing blame after the fact is unfair to the PO. The fact that a man who is a judge ruled against him only means that we don't have the whole picture or the judge is human like the rest of us and has his own biases.

Did he do anything completely reckless and unheard of? I don't think so. Maybe if he had a history of shooting first? Was he really panicked for his safety or calm and collected that he decided to shoot the man running at him?
 
Tornique said:
Your very correct. The moral is, everyone else is responsible for my actions and need to conform one way or another to help me protect myself from my own actions. In fact if we analyse this in correlation with the moons gravitational pull, its obvious that the officer was completely at fault.

Admittedly thats a little tongue in cheek :) But analyzing blame after the fact is unfair to the PO. The fact that a man who is a judge ruled against him only means that we don't have the whole picture or the judge is human like the rest of us and has his own biases.

Did he do anything completely reckless and unheard of? I don't think so. Maybe if he had a history of shooting first? Was he really panicked for his safety or calm and collected that he decided to shoot the man running at him?
Click to expand...

Yes, and the responsibility goes both ways. The officer drew his weapon before the suspect did. Maybe that's standard procedure, and I'm not saying it's wrong, because I wasn't there and don't have all the facts. But the judge presumably does have all the facts, and found that the officer is responsible for his actions in having made some mistakes as well.

We all know that in these situations it's not always one guy has done everything right, and the other has done everything wrong. That's too simple. It's easy to say the cop did everything right and this guy deserved it, but the judge didn't think so. So, to me, the moral of the story is - study these situations and these rulings and incorporate it into officer training.
 
Duster929 said:
I think the moral of the story is pretty different. Keep in mind the court ruled AGAINST the officer.
Click to expand...

Yes, the court ruled wrong.

ojsimpson.jpg


But hey, y'all would take a crowbar to the face and laugh it off. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Duster929 said:
We all know that in these situations it's not always one guy has done everything right, and the other has done everything wrong. That's too simple. It's easy to say the cop did everything right and this guy deserved it, but the judge didn't think so. So, to me, the moral of the story is - study these situations and these rulings and incorporate it into officer training.
Click to expand...

+1 Very well said
 
Normally I'm the first to criticize the police for their unprofessional conduct but I think this officer was justified. But I'm also of the mind that any law abiding citizen should be able to use deadly force when threatened in this manner.

It's about time we stop making excuses for the perps and started focusing the blame away from the real victims. But that is also a two way street and sometimes the perps can be the police...
 
Based on the information in this thread, I'd be more likely to side with the cop. If I have a gun and a guy is coming at me with a metal bar/pipe, it's 2 to the center of mass and see if he needs any more. Going for an extremity shot looks good in the movies, but doesn't work so well IRL.
 
Two pieces of metal in hand and lack of medication can make a mentally ill person EXTREMELY dangerous.

A PO "running away" leaves the upper hand to the perp.
What if the perp followed the PO to an area where there are other bystanders and creates a situation where any of the POs wouldn't of been able to use their firearms safely should the perp have given them an acceptable reason to pull the trigger?

As mentioned, we don't know the whole story so we're just making a scenario in our heads and commenting on what we see/understand.
Keep in mind that every single person interprets things differently.

In my opinion:
Is the PO completely in the right? No.
Is the PO completely in the wrong? No.

Things could of been done differently, but at the same time he did keep his safety and others' in mind as well.
In my books: job well done. I wouldn't want an ill person with pipes in hand chasing a police officer in my neighborhood.
 
Duster929 said:
Yes, and the responsibility goes both ways. The officer drew his weapon before the suspect did. Maybe that's standard procedure, and I'm not saying it's wrong, because I wasn't there and don't have all the facts. But the judge presumably does have all the facts, and found that the officer is responsible for his actions in having made some mistakes as well.

We all know that in these situations it's not always one guy has done everything right, and the other has done everything wrong. That's too simple. It's easy to say the cop did everything right and this guy deserved it, but the judge didn't think so. So, to me, the moral of the story is - study these situations and these rulings and incorporate it into officer training.
Click to expand...

The guy was going through his car looking for something, what if he had found a gun, turned around and used it? If the cop had not drawn his weapon first, the results could have been very different.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom