Monday, March 1, 2010

Former California Cop Goes to Trial for Over-reacting

MercuryNews.com reports on the upcoming trial of a former Salinas California police officer who made a big mistake.

MONTEREY, Calif.—A former Salinas police officer will stand trial for shooting at an unarmed couple during a routine traffic stop.

Monterey Superior Court Judge Russell D. Scott says Christopher Swanson grossly overreacted when he and another officer fired 14 shots into a car.

Defense attorney Mike Lawrence says he is confident Swanson will be cleared at trail. He says his 37-year-old client fired after hearing a "pop" and thought he saw a muzzle flash inside the car.

Swanson was relieved of duty after the 2009 incident in East Salinas. He has pleaded not guilty and a jury trial is scheduled to begin March 24.

The city of Salinas last year paid the couple $260,000 as part of a settlement. Neither was injured in the shooting.

He thought he'd heard something and saw something. It can happen to anybody. I mean, let's say a gun owner, any gun owner, hears something and sees something suspicious. If he waits to be sure what it is, it might be too late. Naturally he wants to let his instincts take over, to react instantaneously. It's the survival instinct, after all.

Now let's multiply that by millions. Let's double and triple the number of gun owners and concealed carry guys. What do you think will happen? Certainly there'll be more of this, but I suppose all the thwarting of crime will more than make up for the increase.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

7 comments:

  1. Can you cite an example of a gun owner shooting two unarmed people (who weren't engaged in criminal activity) because they thought they heard a gun shot and saw a muzzle flash?

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, I don't have an example to cite and I'm not going to look for one. Does that prove something?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I mean, let's say a gun owner, any gun owner, hears something and sees something suspicious."

    You're missing the big picture here.

    Non-LEO's are not going around sniffing out suspicious activity. If we're not directly threatened, we're not going to draw.

    LEO's initiate contact with "suspects", we do not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Apples and oranges. How many citizens go around making routine traffic stops? A normal citizen is going to avoid confrontations at all costs. It's the job of a police officer to engage in them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow--14 shots from (presumably) a few feet away, without inuring anyone. That's good news, obviously, but in addition to being W-A-A-A-Y-Y-Y too quick on the trigger, they weren't exactly crack shots, either.

    Of course, the Brady Campaign says police are the only people who should be "allowed" to carry guns in restaurants and coffeehouses, because only they have adequate training.

    I'd sooner trust any of the Bay Area Open Carry folks with guns--never having met any of them--than either of these feckless clowns who have badges and the kind of "authority" that Helmke and his ilk worship.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was going to make a joke about their marksmanship. That alone could be reason for surrendering the guns and riding a desk from now on.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "No, I don't have an example to cite and I'm not going to look for one. Does that prove something?"

    You're positing that "there'll be more of" these events if you "double and triple the number of gun owners and concealed carry guys", but you haven't provided a baseline number of such events.

    ReplyDelete