Comments: SB County Sheriffs: Two steps back, one step forward

I have no sympathy for the cop in question right now, but it's important to ask what went wrong here. The important thing that went wrong, at least to me, is the (apparent) mental disconnect in the officer's head between "Don't get up" and "Get up".

A high stress situation, after a high speed pursuit, and you see a suspect (which the victim was, for being in a car during a high speed pursuit), who was (speculation here) in good to great physical shape getting out of the vehicle.

Several unknowns to me (but I assume are known to others):
1) was there a second deputy on the scene
2) how much time elapsed from when the chase ended, to when the officer had the suspects/victims get out of the vehicle

I'm not trying to excuse the officer, and I think he's going to suffer for (what I hope is) a mistake made in haste with no judgement. The lesson to be learned here is in how we react the blink of an eye, where our initial impressions take us.

Posted by Bill at March 7, 2006 11:00 PM

I'm not going to say what I really think ought to be done to that cop; because if I did, you'd think I'd dropped straight out of the 13th century. Or maybe straight out of ancient Rome.

Since we live in an effete society, I guess I'll have to settle for hoping they throw the book at that cop. And for the realization that the karma on this one has got to be a bitch.

Posted by Paul Burgess at March 8, 2006 04:49 AM

ok I always do this:
I put other people I care for on that situation so as not to be bias.

What would I think if that person (the one who was shot) be my dad?
What would I think if that person (the one who was shot) be myself?
What would I think if that person (the one who was shot) be my son?
What would I think if that person (the one who was shot) was the POPE?

I guess, I hope this person gets locked for life so as protect people from him. If this guy is out, the next person could be whoever....God knows what else he has done before...he was just caught this time on time...If it were not for the tape, this police officer would be working outside on the streets by know "protecting" the citizens.....GOSH if this is public safety I don't want to know what is not safety for these people....

Posted by gina at March 9, 2006 07:15 PM

Forget the liberal spin that he was an Iraq veteran. The perp was in a high-speed car chase. I don't care what war he was in, nobody gets to terrorize our city streets in THIS country!!

Do you think the DA would have filed charges if the cop had been white?? Do you think the (white) DA is throwing this equally brave, 9-years on the frontlines of crime, policeman "under the bus" because he's black??

Posted by redwhitenblue4evr at March 10, 2006 10:57 AM

Are you fucking insane? He was the fucking passenger and he was trying to comply with the cop. I would hope ANY cop who abused his authority so egregiously would get locked up.

The man went to fucking Iraq. He put his life on the line for 14 months for what? To come home and be shot by an idiot egomaniac cop?

To be clear, the DRIVER of the car was NOT injured. Only the passenger. If I was a cop in this situation, I'd be more worried about the driver who evidently had a reason for not wanting to stop.

Posted by caltechgirl at March 10, 2006 11:58 AM

Sorry for the gramatical errors on my last post.

My dear redwhiteandblue4ever or whatever your name is. Are you out of your mind? this untrained psycho cop shot an innocent person who was following orders. And yes, I don't care if he was a iraq vet or a babysitter, nobody deserve to be treated that way from a police. Period. The guy was on the floor, he surrended.He was an unarmed person. He meant no harm to anybody. There is not such a law out there that says "if you are a cop and there is a car chase, shoot them, and try to kill them please because "nobody gets to terrorize our city streets on this country" so kill them.
And yes the cop got to terrorize the city that day. A car chase is a car chase, the cops job is to stop them and lock them up not to shoot them.
Get over it. Our taxes are going to pay a big settlement because of these untrained hero wannabe.
A car chase is no excuse for killing. You can't fight crime with crime. The police is out there to protect us not to attempt to kill us everytime we do or say something not on the books. This guy could had been paralyzed because of this criminal (thecop)
Get over it.

Gina

Posted by GINA AGAIN at March 10, 2006 12:39 PM

Sorry for the gramatical errors on my last post.

My dear redwhiteandblue4ever or whatever your name is. Are you out of your mind? this untrained psycho cop shot an innocent person who was following orders. And yes, I don't care if he was a iraq vet or a babysitter, nobody deserve to be treated that way from a police officer or whoever. Period. The guy was on the floor, he surrended. He was an unarmed person. He meant no harm to anybody. There is not such a law out there that says "if you are a cop, and there is a car chase, shoot them, and try to kill them please because "nobody gets to terrorize our city streets on this country" so kill them.
And yes the cop got to terrorize the city that day. A car chase is a car chase, the cops job is to stop them, and lock them up, NOT TO SHOOT THEM, THAT IS CALLED "ABUSE OF AUTHORITY" "ATTEMPTED MURDER" (ITS A CRIME, SO YOU KNOW). The fact that your are wearing a uniform doesn't mean you can violate the civil rights of the people, not even the ones who brake the law because they also have civil rights.
Get over it. Our taxes are going to pay a big settlement because of these untrained hero wannabe.
A car chase is no excuse for killing. You can't fight crime with crime. The police is out there to protect us not to attempt to kill us everytime we do or say something not on the books. This guy could had been paralyzed because of this criminal (thecop)
Get over it.

Gina

Posted by GINA AGAIN at March 10, 2006 12:49 PM

I've been following this case, and I am outraged. Police officers should be held to a HIGHER STANDARD than ordinary citizens, because they are empowered with the public trust, and are licensed to use deadly force when REQUIRED and JUSTIFIED.

It seems to me that the police officer is being offered concessions in this case because he is a police officer, and it is Elio and his family that are being "short-changed" here.

Regardless of the situation, this police officer made serious errors which leads me to believe, he left his vehicle, intending to shoot someone out of rage, regardless of what happened when he confronted the vehicle occupants...Likewise, why is he focused on the passenger and not the driver (think about it, if you are stopped for speeding, does the officer approach your passenger and ask for their license and registration?). Being caught up in adrenaline is not a legitimate argument...that's what officers are trained for, to act according to the law in stressful situations, and "Uphold the Public Trust". The argument that's been thrown around between Webb saying "Get Up" and thinking he was saying "Don't get up", is no defense, because like any firearm holder, he is still responsible/liable for EVERY bullet that leaves his gun, and he clearly told Elio one thing, and then acted oppositely when Elio complied with the demands of this Police Officer. Likewise Webb, hours after the shooting, stated he felt Elio was going to "charge" him, and that is why he fired (found in the not-so-public 400 page investigation document, but which has been stated in other news articles)...watching the video clearly shows this "perceived threat" was not justified. Days later, when Webb was interviewed, he states he felt Elio was going to reach for a gun, and that is why he fired...again, the video shows that "perceived threat" was not justified. A justified threat is the same today, as yesterday...why does "Deputy" Webb's story change?

I ask myself, can we trust our law officers. If those upholding the law are no more "trustworthy" than "Johnny Crack-Head". Our Second Amendment right is for protection of self, family and country, by being able to keep and bear arms--The historical case of U.S vs. Emerson established the precedence of that right for individuals, and NOT just members of militias.

Replace the disgraceful police officer with "Johnny Crack-Head". That guy would have been jailed immediately, and would be facing much more serious charges. Likewise, a concealed weapons permit holder (in my state) would be found legal using force against "Johnny Crack-Head" to protect Elio (or any third-party)--not the case in defending him from a "rouge Deputy". Now place back Deputy Webb, who was commiting a Second Degree Felony by trying to kill Elio. replace Elio with anyone (ignore his service in Iraq, ignore his ethnic background), it's still the same. It was unjustified, it was a crime, and By Hell, California better prosecute this bastard to the fullest extent of the "uncorrupted" law (which seems to exist in San Bernardino).

Guns do not kill people. People kill people with whatever weapon is handy, be it a gun, knife, or other make-shift weapon. Our police officers just happen to be granted the right to carry and use loaded guns, and as such, they should be upheld to the highest penalty, and the highest letter of the law, as they are also provided the highest level of trust.

Posted by blc at March 21, 2006 04:31 PM