Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: roo_ster on March 23, 2010, 04:19:45 PM
-
Hey, can I got to Georgia, carry a gun & badge, play copper, shoot clerics, and not bother to get any sort of training/certification (not even a CHL)before doing so?
Plenty of links at the web link.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/23/another-senseless-drug-war-dea
Another Senseless Drug War Death
Stunning developments in the 2009 police shooting of Georgia pastor Jonathan Ayers
Radley Balko | March 23, 2010
The Jonathan Ayers story was already outrageous enough. Last September, Ayers, a 28-year-old Baptist pastor from Lavonia, Georgia, was gunned down by a North Georgia narcotics task force in the parking lot of a gas station. Ayers had not been a suspect in any drug investigation. And even today, police acknowledge he was not using or trafficking in illicit drugs. Instead, Ayers had either been ministering to or having an affair with (depending on whom you believe) Johanna Kayla Jones Barrett, the actual target of the investigation.
Ayers is yet more collateral damage in the boundlessly tragic and wasteful drug war, as are his widowed wife Abigail and the child she was carrying at the time of his death. But that's really only the beginning of this mess. In a lawsuit filed last week, Abigail Ayers makes some astonishing new allegations about the competence of the police officers who killed her husband, the supervisors who hired them, and the law enforcement agencies and the grand jury that investigated Ayers' death. Most damning: The police officer who killed Ayers wasn't even authorized to be carrying a gun or a badge.
Hours before Ayers was killed, police say Johanna Barrett sold undercover officer Chance Oxner $50 worth of crack cocaine. According to an interview Barrett gave to the North Georgian newspaper shortly after Ayers' death, the pastor had seen her walking near a gas station on her way back to an extended-stay motel where she was living with her boyfriend. Ayers, who had known Barrett for a number of years, offered her a ride back to the motel and gave her the money in his pocket, $23, to help pay her rent.
The police were trailing Barrett at the time. But instead of apprehending her at the motel, they instead followed Ayers, the stranger they'd just seen give her a ride and hand her some cash.
Ayers then pulled into a nearby gas station to withdraw money from an ATM. Shortly after he got back into his car, a black Escalade tore into the parking lot. Three officers, all undercover, got out of the vehicle and pointed their guns at Ayers. The pastor, understandably, attempted to escape. As he pulled out of the station, Ayers grazed Officer Oxner with his car. Officer Billy Shane Harrison then opened fire, shooting Ayers in the stomach. (You can watch surveillance video of the altercation here.) Ayers continued to drive, fleeing the parking lot for about a thousand yards before eventually crashing his car. He died at the hospital.
Ayers’ last words to his family and medical staff were that he thought he was being robbed. The police found no illicit drugs in his car, and there was no trace of any illegal substance in his body.
If the story ended there, it would merely be enough to boil your blood. These officers jumped from an SUV waving their guns commando-style over a possible $50 drug transaction. Worse, the man they pounced upon wasn't the target of their investigation.
The police claimed they announced themselves, but it isn't difficult to see how Ayers—or anyone else—might have been confused in the commotion. It was a hot, late summer Georgia afternoon. Ayers likely had his windows up and his air conditioning on. The officers were undercover, dressed in shabby clothes and ski-mask caps. The badges they had hanging from their necks, seen in this photo, were far from conspicuous.
Let’s say that you (which would include 99 percent of the people reading this) aren't a drug dealer, or a mobster, or some other sort of career criminal. You've just returned to your car after getting cash from an ATM. An unmarked Escalade pulls up and three men jump out in masks and guns. Confusion and self-preservation is not only understandable, it ought to be predictable, even expected.
This would have been a grossly disproportionate way for these cops to have approached Barrett, their arctual suspect, much less a guy they sought to question only about the 10 minutes he'd just spent in the car with her.
The Stephens County, Georgia Sheriff's Department initially said Ayers was a drug suspect, but later had to retract. In her September interview with the North Georgian, Barrett told the paper that Ayers had been trying to help kick her drug habit, but later, while facing charges related to both the Ayers case and another incident, she told investigators that Ayers had in previous years paid her for sex. This testimony persuaded the grand jury not to indict the officers who killed Ayers. The pastor may have fled the police, the grand jury concluded, because he feared his reputation would be ruined if his relationship with Barrett were exposed.
District Attorney Brian Rickman praised the Georgia Bureau of Investigation for going to "very extraordinary lengths" to insure the investigation into the shooting was fair. But Abigail Ayers' civil suit (PDF) calls that assessment into question. The complaint alleges that Officer Harrison, the cop who shot Ayers, wasn't even authorized to arrest him. On the day Ayers was killed, Harrison had yet to take a series of firearms training classes required for his certification as a police officer. More astonishing, Harrison apparently had no training at all in the use of lethal force.
These allegations have since been confirmed by local TV station WSBTV and, after the fact, by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Despite the fact that Harrison had killed a man suspected of no crime months earlier without having undergone lethal-force training and certification, the officer was still carrying his badge and gun up until the time of the WSBTV report. Once the publicity hit, Harrison was suspended. Abigail Ayers' civil suit also alleges prior disciplinary problems with both officers Oxner and Harrison, including alleged drug use.
The wasteful use of public resources to pursue a petty drug offender and the aggressive and short-sighted apprehension of Jonathan Ayers that led to his death are bad enough. That a police officer untrained in the use of lethal force and unqualified to be holding a badge and gun was put on a narcotics task force, and then placed in a position where he was able to shoot and kill a non-suspect is worse. But the kicker has to be that the subsequent police-led investigations of this high-profile case failed to turn up such a critical piece of information. It ought to cast more doubt on the already dubious notion that police shootings should only be investigated by other police officers.
At the heart of this outrage, though, once again, is our increasingly demented, hysterical, all-too-literal drug war. Until we're ready to dispense with the notion that gun-toting cops in ski masks going commando at a public gas station is an appropriate response to an alleged $50 drug transaction, we're going to see a lot more Jonathan Ayerses.
-
I stopped reading after the second sentence. The phrase "gunned down" is an automatic editorial red flag IMO. I can't trust anyone to be a reliable conveyor of fact if they use that term.
I don't know this case or story. And if I want to learn about it and form an opinion, I want it to be through facts, not writing style. The moment I can tell a "journalist" is trying to get me to not like someone or something, not by facts, but by the words they choose, it automatically makes me skeptical of anything they say.
-
I stopped reading after the second sentence. The phrase "gunned down" is an automatic editorial red flag IMO. I can't trust anyone to be a reliable conveyor of fact if they use that term.
i red flag the words radley balko
shame he likes to shade the truth just enough to help his cause. and lose credibility with me
-
"Gunned-down" is more than fair. "Murdered" is the word I use to describe this case; I've been watching it since it first happened. Ayers was shot as he sped away from what looked like an attempted armed robbery or kidnapping.
-
and this story is no different lets play the radley game where we spot the bs
-
"Gunned-down" is more than fair. "Murdered" is the word I use to describe this case; I've been watching it since it first happened.
I don't really care. The writer is trying to elicit an emotional reaction in me through his selection of words, not be presenting the facts of an incident and letting me come to my own conclusion. I don't even know who Radley Balko is, and his second sentence alone shows me he's a hack not to be taken seriously.
-
and this story is no different lets play the radley game where we spot the bs
District Attorney Brian Rickman praised the Georgia Bureau of Investigation for going to "very extraordinary lengths" to insure the investigation into the shooting was fair. But Abigail Ayers' civil suit (PDF) calls that assessment into question. The complaint alleges that Officer Harrison, the cop who shot Ayers, wasn't even authorized to arrest him. On the day Ayers was killed, Harrison had yet to take a series of firearms training classes required for his certification as a police officer. More astonishing, Harrison apparently had no training at all in the use of lethal force.
These allegations have since been confirmed by local TV station WSBTV and, after the fact, by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Despite the fact that Harrison had killed a man suspected of no crime months earlier without having undergone lethal-force training and certification, the officer was still carrying his badge and gun up until the time of the WSBTV report. Once the publicity hit, Harrison was suspended. Abigail Ayers' civil suit also alleges prior disciplinary problems with both officers Oxner and Harrison, including alleged drug use.
Anything else he says is rather unimportant compared to these points.
If the officer that killed the pastor did not have lethal force training, AND the investigation into this shooting failed to "uncover" that, I have VERY strong doubts about trusting the police to investigate themselves.
Who watches the watchers?
-
"shows me he's a hack not to be taken seriously."
good assesment
-
i red flag the words radley balko
shame he likes to shade the truth just enough to help his cause. and lose credibility with me
Or so you like claiming.
-
I don't really care. The writer is trying to elicit an emotional reaction in me through his selection of words, not be presenting the facts of an incident and letting me come to my own conclusion. I don't even know who Radley Balko is, and his second sentence alone shows me he's a hack not to be taken seriously.
There's no such thing in the universe as unbiased media reporting. Every report is biased. The better journos are just more subtle.
-
I'm not sure what is more apt than "gunned down"? "Shot to death" seems just as loaded a phrase. What is the better term?
-
I stopped reading after the second sentence. The phrase "gunned down" is an automatic editorial red flag IMO. I can't trust anyone to be a reliable conveyor of fact if they use that term.
I don't know this case or story. And if I want to learn about it and form an opinion, I want it to be through facts, not writing style. The moment I can tell a "journalist" is trying to get me to not like someone or something, not by facts, but by the words they choose, it automatically makes me skeptical of anything they say.
Let me help then.
Last summer a pastor was shot by LEO's in GA.
The Pastor was not the target of their investigation, and not suspected of dealing drugs
LEO's were in plain clothes w/ badges around there necks.
They blocked the pastor's vehicle with their unmarked, black Escalade w/rims and got out with pistols drawn.
The pastor tried to flee, and one of the LEO's shot him.
In the course of fleeing, the pastor's car clipped a LEO, who was not injured.
the pastor died claiming he was the victim of an attempted robbery
The LEO that shot him was not trained in use of deadly force or authorized to be carring a weapon.
The GBI's investigation, while being hailed as very complete, failed to turn up that last tidbit.
There you go, no loaded phrases.
-
Thank you. Did the officer fire his weapon before or after the subject hit his vehicle?
-
Or so you like claiming.
want me to go over this or some of radleys other work? his recent piece on the mayor of berwyn heights is a good one to start with. its easy for radley to get away with his typical reader is too busy leaning forward say "yea!" to look for the caca
-
Thank you. Did the officer fire his weapon before or after the subject hit his vehicle?
ahhh you noticed too? lines 5 and 6 in dogmushes chronicle are in reverse order of how it happened. an oversight i'm sure
-
Thank you. Did the officer fire his weapon before or after the subject hit his vehicle?
I believe the report states that he was fired on after.
However, it's a moot point IMO. The core of this is that piss poor overzealous tactics were used.
If you are going to approach someone as if you are robbing/kidnapping/car jacking them don't be surprised when they try to escape. I'd have likely made the same attempt to escape.
-
I believe the report states that he was fired on after.
However, it's a moot point IMO. The core of this is that piss poor overzealous tactics were used.
If you are going to approach someone as if you are robbing/kidnapping/car jacking them don't be surprised when they try to escape. I'd have likely made the same attempt to escape.
Well it's not really a moot point because it's a mitigating factor in how serious to charge the officer. It is a fact that hitting someone or their vehicle with your own vehicle is a deadly force scenario. Should the officer have been carrying? No. So that alone is enough for some disciplinary action. But is he guilty of a crime? Maybe. Not murder as others have said. Perhaps some for of manslaughter as his prohibited carrying of a firearm in the operation could be easily argued to be negligence. The fact that the officer fired after being struck with a vehicle shows that he could reasonable have been in fear of his life, and that pretty much takes murder off the table.
Obviously the officer did a number of things wrong. But after hearing what happened without all the hyperbole, I would NOT say that "officers gunned down a pastor". There is more here than that.
At very least, I think it's a sound policy not to use plainclothes officers for takedowns.
-
Thank you. Did the officer fire his weapon before or after the subject hit his vehicle?
To be clear, he clipped the officer, not his vehicle.
And it's unclear which happened first. The officer's inital reports stated that he tried to flee, making them fear for their (pedestrian) safety, so they started shooting. Exactly where in there the officer standing behind the pastors car was clipped is unclear. (at least to me.)
an oversight i'm sure
Actually it was, as I added line 6 during a proof-read before I hit post. I forgot to restructure line 5. Proof-read, you should really try it sometime.
-
This is the pastor who was helping a guy that was involved with drugs, and the cops thought he was an accomplice?
I could easily see my preacher-man getting into that situation, and that would be a real tragedy.
Still not sure I could blame the cops' screw-up on drug laws, though, but many people seem happy to do so.
-
why in the world would a dept have a guy on the street without certification? how illegal is that?
and the cops routinely go after the person seen giving up the cash as generally they are the ones that then have the dope
-
The fact that the officer fired after being struck with a vehicle shows that he could reasonable have been in fear of his life, and that pretty much takes murder off the table.
Obviously the officer did a number of things wrong. But after hearing what happened without all the hyperbole. I would NOT say that "officers gunned down a pastor". There is more here than that.
Except that he was only in reasonable fear for his life due to an un-needed situation that he created. If they were not justified in creating that threat, they're not justified in responding to it.
If someone breaks into my home and I shoot at them, they're in fear for their life, but not justified in shooting me.
(calm down C&SD, it's an allegory, I'm not calling the cops home invaders. That's for the ones that shot the mayors dog.)
-
This is the pastor who was helping a guy that was involved with drugs, and the cops thought he was an accomplice?
Being involved with a drug user/dealer, regardless of your vocation, is a pretty good reason to be suspected of also being involved with drugs yourself. I'm sorry, but it comes with the territory. And clergymen are not immune to being criminals.
-
lol you must read radley a lot. you spot the radlyisms in that story too?
-
Except that he was only in reasonable fear for his life due to an un-needed situation that he created. If they were not justified in creating that threat, they're not justified in responding to it.
Not quite. Police are justified in arresting someone they have probable cause to believe has committed a misdemeanor in their presence or a felony anywhere. I do think they had this when tying to arrest the pastor. Was the execution of that arrest messed up? Yep. But the arrest itself was not unjustified.
-
And rolling up in an unmarked vehicle and jumping out guns drawn that anyone would assume to be a robbery? I consider that the mediating factor here.
Had they blocked him off with black and white, fine whatever. Had they tapped on his window and showed credentials, great.
But they didn't. They used the same exact tactics a car jacker or robber would have used and he reacted accordingly. He had every right to fear for HIS life in the situation, the cops put themselves there with their piss poor tactics.
Perhaps if they received a stiff consequence for their bad tactics that led to an innocent man being killed other officers might be more encouraged to stop and think of the tactics they choose to employee.
-
Being involved with a drug user/dealer, regardless of your vocation, is a pretty good reason to be suspected of also being involved with drugs yourself. I'm sorry, but it comes with the territory. And clergymen are not immune to being criminals.
;/ I never said they couldn't be criminals, but suspicion would really depend on the nature of the relationship, wouldn't it? Or do you automatically suspect anyone who runs a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter of drug use/dealing?
-
Being involved with a drug user/dealer, regardless of your vocation, is a pretty good reason to be suspected of also being involved with drugs yourself. I'm sorry, but it comes with the territory. And clergymen are not immune to being criminals.
And if these cowboys (there's a loaded phrase for you) had flipped on some lights, called a marked unit, followed him home and then gotten a warant, or in any way not acted like they were recreating "Training Day" they might have a point. But rolling up, guns drawn, dressed as gangsters, in a gangster-mobile? Because he might have bought some crack? How was this proprtional to the suspected customer of a very small time ($50 of crack, remember?) dealer?
-
Not quite. Police are justified in arresting someone they have probable cause to believe has committed a misdemeanor in their presence or a felony anywhere. I do think they had this when tying to arrest the pastor. Was the execution of that arrest messed up? Yep. But the arrest itself was not unjustified.
Really? It's the same standard to search a car as to arrest someone? Why do we bother with warrant's and Terry stops then?
-
Not quite. Police are justified in arresting someone they have probable cause to believe has committed a misdemeanor in their presence or a felony anywhere. I do think they had this when tying to arrest the pastor. Was the execution of that arrest messed up? Yep. But the arrest itself was not unjustified.
Forget here the issue of drug prohibition.
The problem with this situation is not drugs - it is the desire of some law enforcement officers to treat minor or non-violent suspects as if they were Osama Bin Laden and Charles Manson rolled into one that is causing this sort of event.
-
And rolling up in an unmarked vehicle and jumping out guns drawn that anyone would assume to be a robbery? I consider that the mediating factor here.
Had they blocked him off with black and white, fine whatever. Had they tapped on his window and showed credentials, great.
But they didn't. They used the same exact tactics a car jacker or robber would have used and he reacted accordingly. He had every right to fear for HIS life in the situation, the cops put themselves there with their piss poor tactics.
Perhaps if they received a stiff consequence for their bad tactics that led to an innocent man being killed other officers might be more encouraged to stop and think of the tactics they choose to employee.
Well there are a number of issues here that do not negate each other.
Did they have probable cause to make an arrest? Yes.
Is this a "drug prohibition" issue? No.
Did they use good tactics in making that arrest? No.
Did the pastor have a reason to fear he was being carjacked or robbed? Yes.
Did the officers have reason to believe a criminal was fleeing arrest in a vehicle? Also yes.
Should the shooter have been carrying a weapon on the job? No.
Did the shooter have an arguable reason to fear for his life? Yes.
This is not cut and dry. And one issue in favor of the pastor does not negate everything in favor of the officers, and vice versa.
This is not "valiant public servants taking down a hardened criminal" OR "jackbooted thugs murdering innocent civilians". No matter how much either side wants to make it out to be one or the other.
-
The problem with this situation is not drugs - it is the desire of some law enforcement officers to treat minor or non-violent suspects as if they were Osama Bin Laden and Charles Manson rolled into one that is causing this sort of event.
So you're saying it would have been OK, if it turned out to be Charles Manson? >:D [popcorn]
-
Forget here the issue of drug prohibition.
The problem with this situation is not drugs - it is the desire of some law enforcement officers to treat minor or non-violent suspects as if they were Osama Bin Laden and Charles Manson rolled into one that is causing this sort of event.
Exactly. It's not the drugs, it's not that he ran and clipped one, hell in some ways it's not even one of the cops shouldn't have been carrying (that's just icing and nothing more, it's the poor tactics that created a situation in which an innocent man was killed.
Had the officers in this case acted as if they had a brain between them and called in a marked unit or just walked up and displayed credentials the whole thing would have probably been resolved in less time then we've spent here discussing it. There used to be such a thing as presumption of innocence and it took a hell of a lot more then loaning someone a few bucks to break that presumption.
And at the end of the day everyone would be home alive and a child would have had the chance to know their dad.
-
Did the officers have reason to believe a criminal was fleeing arrest in a vehicle? Also yes.
Is that reason enough to fire into the vehicle? No.
-
Is that reason enough to fire into the vehicle? No.
Not quite. That particular issue can be argued either way.
-
Well there are a number of issues here that do not negate each other.
Did they have probable cause to make an arrest? Yes.
This is not cut and dry. And one issue in favor of the pastor does not negate everything in favor of the officers, and vice versa.
Under the circumstances, with the tactics used, I would say it does negate anything in the officers favor. They created a situation immeasurably more dangerous that it had to be with their poor tactics and a predictable result happened.
It's no different then performing a no knock on the wrong house and a man defending himself and young child against what he has every reason to believe are home invaders, and then sending him away when one of the officers is killed. Police should be held responsible when their poor tactics create such situations, else what reason do they have to use any thought or moderation?
-
Under the circumstances, with the tactics used, I would say it does negate anything in the officers favor. They created a situation immeasurably more dangerous that it had to be with their poor tactics and a predictable result happened.
And I think you're wrong. Not much else to say about it.
-
Under the circumstances, with the tactics used, I would say it does negate anything in the officers favor. They created a situation immeasurably more dangerous that it had to be with their poor tactics and a predictable result happened.
This is the problem here.
Nobody is suggesting, I think, that the officers set out to murder the pastor.
But the problem is this: when people who are not trained military or LEO personnel get put into a volatile situation, they do not always act reasonably. Once you create such a situation, someone is going to get hurt.
Because these people set up - through incompetence, and overzealousness - a volatile situation, someone was going to get hurt. That was a result of the situation they created.
-
Nobody is suggesting, I think, that the officers set out to murder the pastor.
In Georgia, and most other places, it is also murder if you end up killing someone during the commission of a felony, whether or not there is premeditation.
The question becomes whether the officers' conduct is far enough outside the bounds of normal police procedure to constitute a felony on their part.
If it is, they should be charged with murder and attempted murder.
If it is not, there is something horribly wrong with the existing bounds of normal police procedure.
-
In Georgia, and most other places, it is also murder if you end up killing someone during the commission of a felony, whether or not there is premeditation. The question becomes whether the officers' conduct is far enough outside the bounds of normal police procedure to constitute a felony on their part.
Bingo. It's called the "felony murder rule". You can also argue that there was premeditation in this case, but it's a weak argument and it's not required for a conviction.
-
you know the non cop witnesses said they identified themselves as cops. this didn't happen outa sight or hearing somewhere
-
I'm sure they did identify themselves to the witnesses. Under the circumstances, wouldn't you?
-
you know the non cop witnesses said they identified themselves as cops. this didn't happen outa sight or hearing somewhere
Yeah, guys in ski masks jump out of a car waving guns and yelling right after I withdrew money from an ATM, I'd A. understand what they said in spite of rolled up windows AC and radio & B. believe them.
It's funny, CSD and RD love to claim the other side is biased, but they conveniently forget their own bias don't they? I really should search up the thread where CSD was saying how wonderful it was when cops beat suspects to teach them respect, how that helped him straighten his life out when it happened to him. A good illustration of his mindset imho.
-
nice balkoism! the eyewitnesses said that they heard the cops identify themselves as cops .
-
nice balkoism! the eyewitnesses said that they heard the cops identify themselves as cops .
Yes and had their target not been in a car with the windows rolled up and AC and radio on he probably would have heard them. If he was so dangerous they needed the guns already drawn and the fast-takedown tactics, maybe they should have put one of these on:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.achidatex.co.il%2Fvar%2F357%2F55249-POLICE.jpg&hash=8e2bdc75e740d6ee7696ed3442eb2bce1a2a3168)
Then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
-
"I really should search up the thread where CSD was saying how wonderful it was when cops beat suspects to teach them respect, how that helped him straighten his life out when it happened to him. A good illustration of his mindset imho."
if you can find that thread let me know post it i won;t hold my breath
-
nice balkoism! the eyewitnesses said that they heard the cops identify themselves as cops .
And you would believe them?
If you were a CHL nearby, you would say "oh, they are cops" and turn the other way? What if they didn't yell "cops" immediately, but wait a few seconds? What if you were in your car waiting in line to fill up and couldn't hear them? That sort of thing bothers me.
I don't know if I would go for murder charges or not, but I would agree that their tactics and procedure suck and any competent investigation should have pointed that out. The presence of even one marked police car with uniform would have changed the whole look of this incident from the view of the target and the witnesses. They could have had a marked unit pull him over down the street then moved in to execute the arrest/search at that time.
I am also curious if they bothered to call in his license plates and find out who he was?
-
Seeing some of the comments like this so soon after going through the thread about executing innocent people just seem very ironic/funny to me. Here we have an innocent guy who was shot and killed by police due to circumstances created by obvious tactical/strategic errors by the police. Yet we find reasons to say this is okay.
-
Oh sweet baby tentacled one. Enough. [barf]