The Great Police Work Thread

Oklahoma reserve deputy mistakes gun for Taser, accidentally shoots, kills suspect (video)
Killings By Police Oklahoma

on April 13, 2015 at 1:26 AM






A 73-year-old reserve deputy in Tulsa, Okla., is under investigation after he shot and killed a suspect earlier this month when he mistook his handgun for a Taser, authorities say.

But the incident also is gaining national attention because other deputies can be heard on video berating the suspect, Eric Courtney Harris, 44, after he had been shot by Tulsa County Reserve Deputy Robert Bates.

The shooting occurred on April 2 in Tulsa during an undercover sting operation. Days earlier, Harris, an accused felon, had sold methamphetamine to an undercover officer, CNN reports. During the sting, he tried to sell an illegal handgun to an undercover officer in a vehicle.

As police pulled up on the scene, Harris jumped out of the car and ran. An officer caught up to Harris and Bates arrived moments later. As officers try to restrain Harris, Bates can be heard yelling "Taser" before a shot rings out. Bates then immediately apologizes.


"Oh! I shot him! I'm sorry!" Bates can be heard saying on video.

"Oh, God. Oh, he shot me," Harris yelled.

Harris then complains that he's losing his breath, at which point a deputy can be heard saying "F--- your breath."

Harris was taken to a hospital, where he died about an hour after the shooting, reports the Los Angeles Times.

CNN reports that Tulsa Police Sgt. Jim Clark, who has been brought in to review the case, said Bates "inadvertently" shot Harris and described Bates' actions as "slip and capture":

Quoting Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, Clark further explained: "These are mistakes that are made when you think you are doing one thing but you actually are doing another, and the result often is directly opposite of what you intended. In effect, your intended behavior slips off the path that you want it to go because it is captured by a stronger response and sent to a different direction."

Clark also defended the deputy heard berating Harris, saying that it's likely he didn't hear the gunshot because he was so focused on restraining Harris. He said the deputy thought Harris was out of breath from running.

"It is my opinion, after reviewing all the facts and circumstances of this case, [the state's excusable homicide statute] was applicable in this incident," Clark tells the L.A. Times. "Reserve Deputy Bates did not commit a crime. Reserve Deputy Bates was a victim, a true victim, of 'slips and capture.' There's no other determination I could come to."

The case has been referred to the Tulsa County District Attorney's Office, which will decide whether to file charges, the Times reports.

Harris family said in a statement it doesn't think it's "reasonable" to believe Bates mistook a handgun for a Taser.

"We do not believe it is reasonable for a 73-year-old insurance executive to be involved in a dangerous undercover sting operation," the statement says. "... We do not believe it is reasonable - or responsible - for [the sheriff's office] to accept gifts from a wealthy citizen who wants to be [a] 'pay to play' cop."
 
Sheriff’s Maj. Shannon Clark flatly denied allegations that training records for Bates, a longtime friend of Sheriff Stanley Glanz, had been falsified, but he said the records of Bates’ training could not be provided until a number of things happened.
First, Clark said, the Sheriff’s Office would have to determine who trained Bates so they could be asked for the records. Clark said often those records are kept only by the trainee and the trainer.
Secondly, the records, if they exist, were created before the Sheriff’s Office began filing records digitally, he said. That means it would take an unknown amount of time to find the paper records documenting Bates’ training — if they remain on file at the Sheriff’s Office.
Thirdly, Clark said, it’s unclear how much of the supervised training Bates theoretically was required to have actually happened. That’s because Glanz can, as sheriff, waive any portion of Sheriff’s Office policy.
“The policies within our organization are signed off by the sheriff, but there are also policies that give the sheriff the ability to waive any policy within our organization. That’s part of being a Sheriff’s Office,” Clark said.
Click to expand...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/sheriff-s-spokesman-parts-of-reserve-deputy-s-training-requirements/article_f64077e4-13e8-57b0-9a1c-a88b72fb0226.html
 
Sheriff’s Maj. Shannon Clark flatly denied allegations that training records for Bates, a longtime friend of Sheriff Stanley Glanz, had been falsified, but he said the records of Bates’ training could not be provided until a number of things happened.
First, Clark said, the Sheriff’s Office would have to determine who trained Bates so they could be asked for the records. Clark said often those records are kept only by the trainee and the trainer.
Secondly, the records, if they exist, were created before the Sheriff’s Office began filing records digitally, he said. That means it would take an unknown amount of time to find the paper records documenting Bates’ training — if they remain on file at the Sheriff’s Office.
Thirdly, Clark said, it’s unclear how much of the supervised training Bates theoretically was required to have actually happened. That’s because Glanz can, as sheriff, waive any portion of Sheriff’s Office policy.
“The policies within our organization are signed off by the sheriff, but there are also policies that give the sheriff the ability to waive any policy within our organization. That’s part of being a Sheriff’s Office,” Clark said.
Click to expand...
I remember people getting really pissed at me for saying that cops in rural departments are not trained and educated enough.
 
Clay_Allison said:
I remember people getting really pissed at me for saying that cops in rural departments are not trained and educated enough.
Click to expand...

Not sure how this is relevant to the actual officers training there. This was an old rich guy playing cop. There was definitely some shady shit going on in regards to his training and some heads should roll for him being able to take part in raids just because he broke out the checkbook but I wouldn't classify him as a real cop.
 
L.T. Fan said:
Oklahoma has as good a system as any other state. This appears to be a case of someone extending favors to a Barney Fife wannabee.
Click to expand...

jsmith6919 said:
Not sure how this is relevant to the actual officers training there. This was an old rich guy playing cop. There was definitely some shady shit going on in regards to his training and some heads should roll for him being able to take part in raids just because he broke out the checkbook but I wouldn't classify him as a real cop.
Click to expand...
“The policies within our organization are signed off by the sheriff, but there are also policies that give the sheriff the ability to waive any policy within our organization. That’s part of being a Sheriff’s Office,” Clark said.
Click to expand...

This doesn't strike you as insane, that the Sheriff can waive departmental policy, including things like safety training, at a WHIM? This is a good system?
 
Clay_Allison said:
This doesn't strike you as insane, that the Sheriff can waive departmental policy, including things like safety training, at a WHIM? This is a good system?
Click to expand...

That's one isolated system. You can't assume it is universal state wide. In addition it is more of a misuse of power moreso than a bad policy structure. The culprit is the one who misuses the policy rather than the policy itself.
 
Last edited:
L.T. Fan said:
That's one isolated system. You can't assume it is universal state wide. In addition it is more of a misuse of power moreso than a bad policy structure. The culprit is the one who misuses the policy rather than the policy itself.
Click to expand...

For all I know for sure, Texas is just as bad, but there should be a state law that prevents minimum training requirements from being waived by the sheriff or chief of police of any department, and provides for training records to be kept by the state, not 'lost or misplaced' by the department.
 
Clay_Allison said:
For all I know for sure, Texas is just as bad, but there should be a state law that prevents minimum training requirements from being waived by the sheriff or chief of police of any department, and provides for training records to be kept by the state, not 'lost or misplaced' by the department.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. The conundrum to these kinds of situations is that most companies and organizational structures give waiver authorty of sorts to the heads of the systems as an ordinary course. It goes to all structures including law enforcement. At some level some entity that supersedes all the above would have to enact statutes that trumps everything. The apparent candidate would seem to be at the state congressional level but I am not aware that anyone takes on this role other than the Attorney General's office. Even if they attempted to do so they would probably run into conflicts all the time with private business for trying to set goverenance rules. At best they would be limitex to governmental offices. It's a can of worms.
 
L.T. Fan said:
I agree with that. The conundrum to these kinds of situations is that most companies and organizational structures give waiver authorty of sorts to the heads of the systems as an ordinary course. It goes to all structures including law enforcement. At some level some entity that supersedes all the above would have to enact statutes that trumps everything. The apparent candidate would seem to be at the state congressional level but I am not aware that anyone takes on this role other than the Attorney General's office. Even if they attempted to do so they would probably run into conflicts all the time with private business for trying to set goverenance rules. At best they would be limitex to governmental offices. It's a can of worms.
Click to expand...

In Texas, the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement has the power to regulate police all over the state. They govern things like who has peace officer certification. If there isn't an Oklahoma Commission doing the same thing, there should be.
 
Clay_Allison said:
In Texas, the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement has the power to regulate police all over the state. They govern things like who has peace officer certification. If there isn't an Oklahoma Commission doing the same thing, there should be.
Click to expand...

I really don't know the inner workings of either state but the power they would need is to prohibit any waiver authoriy. Do they have that?
 
L.T. Fan said:
I really don't know the inner workings of either state but the power they would need is to prohibit any waiver authoriy. Do they have that?
Click to expand...

For police training, yes. If you don't get the training you need to be a certified peace officer in Texas, you aren't one, period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom