LF: State Trooper Facing Murder Charges After Tasing A Teen Riding An ATV

Title: State Trooper Facing Murder Charges After Tasing A Teen Riding An ATV
Source: TechDirt
URL Source: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2 ... r-tasing-teen-riding-atv.shtml
Published: Apr 25, 2018
Author: Tim Cushing
Post Date: 2018-04-27 09:52:30 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 20239
Comments: 104

from the height-of-unreasonableness dept

More than two dozen hours of recordings and 600 pages of documents obtained by the Detroit Free Press have uncovered disturbing details of the senseless killing of 15-year-old Damon Grimes by Michigan State Trooper Mark Bessner last fall.

Lots of killings are senseless, including many of those committed by officers authorized to use deadly force. But this one was especially senseless. Trooper Bessner decided against all policy and reason to fire his Taser at Grimes while both he and Grimes -- riding an ATV -- were traveling at 35 mph down a residential street. To add to the insanity of his act, Bessner was the passenger in the cruiser. Having initiated the pursuit, Bessner decided to end it by tasing Grimes. The result was the complete, gruesome destruction of a human being.

Grimes had been driving about 35 mph on an ATV when Bessner — a passenger in a moving patrol car — fired his stun gun at the teen during a chase on Detroit’s east side.
Grimes slammed into the back of a parked truck and flew off his ATV. The impact of the crash ripped gashes into his forehead, both cheeks and upper lip and dislocated his skull. Doctors pronounced him dead on arrival at St. John Hospital.

Bessner is now facing murder charges. There's a good chance Grimes never knew he was being pursued. Earbuds were photographed at the scene of the fatal crash. No one involved in the pursuit has been willing to go on record as to whether they appeared to be in use at the time of death. Additionally, obtained footage shows the cruiser's emergency lights weren't activated until 24 seconds after the fatal crash.

What the Free Press has uncovered with this mountain of public records is staggering. Officers arriving at the scene expressed their disgust at Bessner's actions. One officer in particular registered her disbelief at what she was witnessing.

“His pulse is weakening because he was on that fuckin' thing, and you chased his ass,” Detroit Police officer Kimberly Buckner muttered to herself as she stepped out of her vehicle, her body camera recording every step and word.
As she walked toward Grimes, an unidentified Detroit police officer reached out his hand to cover the lens of Buckner's body camera quietly saying: "They fuckin' tased his ass while he was cruisin'."

Buckner showed more compassion than other officers, though. The unidentified officer she spoke with later stated police escorts for ambulances were reserved for injured officers not "bad-ass 15 [year olds]" who ran from the cops. The officer went on to state he had "no sympathy" for the dead teenager. Another unidentified officer is captured saying, "Don't run from the State Police. You'll get fucked up."

Unbelievably, Detroit PD officials had no idea this officer -- still unidentified -- had criticized the cooling corpse of a teen shot by an officer with a Taser while riding an ATV at 35 mph. Only at the prompting of the Free Press was an investigation instigated. The officer has been pulled from patrol duty while the investigation is underway.

The Michigan State Police have a lot to answer for, and reps aren't talking. A pending lawsuit is only part of the reason for its silence. The other part is likely due to its refusal to deal with a problem trooper until he was charged with murder.

Bessner has a history of using excessive force and has been reprimanded before for using his Taser inappropriately, including using the device on handcuffed suspects. The investigation into Bessner's conduct shows that over a four-year span ending in 2017, he had 40 use of force incidents, 17 pursuits and five car accidents.

If the Michigan State Police could be bothered to police themselves, this may have been prevented. Bessner was -- at best -- a lawsuit waiting to happen. This isn't normal behavior, no matter how his lawyer spins it. It appears Bessner is going to lean hard on the Supreme Court's Graham decision, if his lawyer's statements are any indication.

Bessner's attorney, Richard Convertino, agreed to an interview, but then didn't respond to requests to schedule it.
Convertino previously called Grimes' death tragic, noting the teen drove the ATV “recklessly and dangerously” and “actively resisted and evaded arrest.”
“During the pursuit, Trooper Bessner was forced to make a split-second decision under circumstances on the scene and at the moment which was tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving,” Convertino told the Free Press in the email, shortly after the crash.

If the wording in that last paragraph seems familiar, it's because it directly quotes a Supreme Court justice.

The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.

That statement in defense of Bessner's reckless actions is a bit too much on the nose. There was no need for this to be a 'tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving" situation. A teen was riding an ATV and the cops were in cruisers. If the teen posed a risk to others, the solution was not to fire a Taser from a moving vehicle at an unprotected body traveling at 35 mph. That's just a good way to seriously injure someone. In this case, the injuries were fatal and the trooper whose best call under pressure was to commit an act almost every cop would find unreasonable is now behind bars awaiting trial. I'll bet he wishes he'd responded a bit more reasonably.

The State Police gave him every chance to show them what kind of officer he could be. And in the end, he showed them he could be even worse than he was in the four years leading up to his murder rap.

I think murder is pushing it,but the quote above is enough for the kids family to hit the cash jackpot. ANY cop that uses a Taser on handcuffed suspects should not only be fired on the spot,but arrested for torture,misuse of official authority (or whatever the correct wording is),assault,and any other charge they can think of. Any PD that DOESN'T do that is not doing itself or it's other cops any favors.

There are some people who would take that as a license to go hunting cops from that PD,and if I were on the jury,I'd have a hard time voting to convict them.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

I agree with the manslaughter charge,but disagree about not convicting him. I would have no trouble at all voting to convict,and I doubt anyone else that had ever ridden a ATV or motorcycle would have any trouble convicting,either.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

1) Agreed. A reckless act that results in death... Manslaughter. I doubt he intended to kill the urban trash. This officer was just too stupid to realize tazing him, at 35mph would kill.

2) Not sure about your trial by jury comment. Are you suggesting that he deserves a trial by his PEERS, that means 12 random cops? lol

The story has a happy ending. This cop will never cop again... and this was the last time this urban potato will ever break the law.

The legal question is motive. Do you really believe that he intended to deliberately cause the yout's death? Seems unlikely he could have preplanned it (first-degree murder) or that he had lethal intent in the heat of the moment (second-degree murder).

So manslaughter (or the state's equivalent) would seem the only charge you would have a chance to convict him of.

And his lawyer will argue -- probably successfully -- that he had a duty to put a stop to this wild riding of an ATV on city streets where an elderly person or child or pet could easily get run down or where he could cause a fatal car accident or cause injury/death to police trying to stop him from breaking the laws everyone has to live by, etc.

And if acquitted, I wouldn't bet his police career is over. Lots of cops have faced far more daunting charges and got away with it and continued as cops.

Then there is the likelihood of a show trial, which is quite common. They charge and stage a cop trial but the prosecutor goes easy or just throws the case on technical grounds. Uh, oops? The community has vented and, its fury spent, the cop gets off and resumes his career, either on the same force or he has to move to some little burg and run for sheriff or whatnot.

Hopefully, we'll have some coverage of this trial and find out the final outcome. You know what a sucker I am for the ol' followup.

One thing is for certain,and that is that retard needs to be put in a position where he NEVER again wears a uniform and a badge,not even as a mall security guard.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

Yup. Without an actual felony conviction,there is nothing that prevents them from getting hired by another PD that knows nothing about them.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

It's rare even to convict a deputy or a town cop. And it's much much harder to convict any trooper.

I simply can't recall any state trooper in any state ever getting convicted of a murder charge. They stay out of a lot of messy situations involving domestic/drugs/drinking and have no greater hazard than other cops to getting shot by an unknown felon in a routine traffic stop where the felon's identity is not yet known but the felon knows there is a bench warrant out on him that will send him back to prison.

State cops just keep their hands cleaner overall. And prosecutors protect them even more than they do other cops. And the public just loves to believe that their state troopers are cut well above city cops or deputies.

You might get a trooper rarely for an assault charge or false arrest but not much else.

Over the years, G.I. has probably envied the relatively soft and cushy life of a state trooper, how much more the public defers to them, etc. It's a kind of double standard of respect. To the general public, state troopers are just "above" local deputies and town cops and even most sheriffs except for very strong sheriffs in states where they still have real power, like Arpaio was in AZ.

The prosecutor's got it covered. Bessner is charged with second-degree murder and two counts of involuntary manslaughter.

There was that 20-year-old Florida woman who fled police and was tasered. She fell and hit her head on the concrete. She ended up brain dead and in a vegetative state.

"The verdict of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement on his taser use: Justified."

"FHP policy allows troopers to use Tasers when it “reasonably appears necessary to control non-compliant individuals who have escalated their level of resistance from passive physical resistance to active physical resistance (i.e.: bracing, tensing, pushing, or pulling).”

"The policy goes on to say it must be apparent the detained person has the ability to physically threaten others or is trying to flee or escape."

It makes me think the prosecutor intends to throw the case deliberately after he has appeased the mob by staging a trial. All he has to do is fail to disclose some piece of evidence in a timely fashion and an appeals court will throw out the conviction. Then he runs to the cameras and says they can't hope to get a conviction after a mistrial (which is statistically true).

This trooper won't serve a day in jail. Even if convicted, the system will let him off from jail time.

Juries just don't convict state troopers of any major crime. They don't want to.

The murder charge is. I agree. But the jury can still convict on the involuntary manslaughter charge.

There are a lot of incentives for at least one juror to decide not to convict. And that is all he needs.

There are a wide range of forces that will concentrate their influence as a case like this goes to trial and their influence will certainly be reflected in any verdict.

If I were you, I wouldn't bet on a conviction. I'd bet against if I were a betting man.

Maybe for any case that could swing either way, yes, the benefit of the doubt is AND SHOULD BE given to the officer. This case isn’t that. This was an outright non-justified use of deadly force.

This idiot isn’t dumb enough in this day an age to roll the dice for a trial. He’ll take a plea for a VERY light sentence that will cause a potato riot.

You may be right. But I'd like to know what the cop thought would happen after he tased someone on an ATV going 35 mph. Did he think the driver would simply coast to a stop or something? I mean, he had to know the effect of a taser.

Or, was the ATV driver clear of any obstruction, but swerved into the parked car unexpectedly after being tased? Was that foreseeable?

Police tase idiots running, all the time. If they fall and strike their melon, because they are dysfunctional urban asshole potato’s... then chalk that up to Natural Selection. THIS case isn’t anything like that. A reasonable person would assume that tasing an open vehicle operated driver (motorcycle or ATV), at 35 mph on PAVEMENT, could cause death or serious physical injury. The only time this particular tasing would be justified is if the vehicle occupant was endangering people’s lives (like running pedestrians over at 35) or a perceived danger to the officer.

Most states have a grand jury or pre-lim process, to prohibit over or excessive charging. If this officers conduct doesn’t fit the statute, as it was written by elected officials, then the DA risks losing any justice with an acquittal.

A lot of times, they will over charge if the officer can articulate the unlawful conduct fits the crime on the accusatory instrument (commonly known as stretching a charge)... with the idea that if it gets by the grand jury, the defendant is more apt to PLEA to an acceptable lower and more appropriate charge.

It is refreshing that at least ONE of your yella agitate propaganda posts, out of the last 500, is truly worthy of normal discussion, outside of the kook cop hating Paultard ideology.

Those hidden social forces and incentives favor his outright acquittal, probably by a majority on the jury. His lawyer will exploit all of that.

Maybe not. Yeah, the cop fired the taser ... but did he hit the moving target from his moving car? Were the taser probes found in the victims body?

A black Detroit police officer on the scene was recorded as saying, "No sympathy at all for bullshit. Mother fucker wanna be grown, ya' act grown, ya' gotta fucking deal with it."

He might have. Or maybe he thought the kid would freeze up and then fall off the ATV on the ground. If there is any doubt, they can't convict him of any homicidal intent. The prosecutor must demonstrate intent for the second-degree murder charge.

No one here has explained why that cop didn't have a duty to stop a kid from speeding dangerously on city streets with an off-road ATV at 35mph, posing a traffic hazard to vehicles and a hazard to people, pets and property.

What if he blew through an intersection on his ATV at 35mph followed by the cop car and, as a result, some van load of kindergartners swerved into the path of a bus of nuns and hit them head-on, both vehicles going 45mph and with massive injuries and multiple deaths with dead and dying tykes and nuns all over the street? Do you really want to let teenagers violate city traffic laws egregiously and endanger themselves and the general public? Is that what you want the cops to do? Are they just supposed to follow such lawbreakers around, sirens blaring, to try to keep the public safe as the yout' blows through one intersection after the next on busy streets and interchanges and posing a hazard to people and pets?

What if he had run down a toddler that stepped out into his path and the trooper had been just following him but not doing anything to try to stop him? Would people be calling for the trooper's head because he followed the lawbreaker and didn't stop him before he ran down that 85yo woman who happened to step onto the sidewalk in front of her home and got run down by this near-infant on an ATV?

It seems to me that you and GI have been hanging out smoking pot with that smelly Deckard kid, badmouthing your country and hatin' da cops.

Maybe nolu will show up and research the particular statutes and precedents for us. It elevates the discussion and we don't actually have to do all that work for ourselves. : )

But I can't see a way the cop gets out of this one. The irony is, if the cops swerved in front of the ATV driver to slow him down or stop him and he crashed (ie., same net result), we probably wouldn't even read about it.

What about when police use spike strips to stop a car speeding at 90mph or so? Doesn't that also include a lot of risk of a crash with injury/maiming/death? Or shooting out their tires? Or that little nudge maneuver from a pursuit vehicle to try to make a fleeing car spin out? People get injured or killed all the time as a result of these lawful police actions and those are all examples of lawful uses of deadly force in the course of enforcing traffic safety laws against an egregious driver.

I don't think you can say that this trooper went much further than those normal accepted police tactics in this particular situation.

You also don't know yet just how dangerously this kid was riding the ATV. Had he already blown through blind corners where someone on foot or in a vehicle might easily have gotten hit? Did he dodge and blast by someone just getting out of their car, almost hitting them? Maybe his driving provided ample evidence to the trooper that the yout' posed a clear and present danger to the public in the course of the pursuit.

When push comes to shove, most of the public thinks that the police can do most anything to you if you run from the cops. Especially a long high-speed chase.

Does it really mean that much that he was in his mid-teens instead of being 21 or older?

And, keep in mind, this was a taser. It is a weapon designed for non-lethal results. You cannot expect to go to trial by treating a taser use as though he had pulled out a machine-gun and blasted the kid off his ATV. These are not the same things. A taser is, by definition, intended and designed to be non-lethal.

Fast enough to get him killed when he stopped suddenly. A helmet would have helped, but, well, the Damons of this world don't bees wearin' one.

Ah. In which case, he might have killed or paralyzed himself if the ATV had popped over, pinning him underneath.

Cops also have a duty to protect the irresponsible from themselves, including the use of force to do so.

You may not like this line of argument but the trooper's lawyer will muster exactly the same arguments to a jury.

It's a long way from the easy "a kid shouldn't die on an ATV joyride" to "that trooper is a murderer and should be in prison". A very long way.

I'm sure he was "turning his life around", was "planning on going to college", and was "an aspiring nuclear physicist" (with a minor in basketball).

He was "well-loved by everyone who knew him", "would never do anything bad" and "didn't deserve to die".

Well ... maybe more. Maybe driving with no hands and squealing tires. And revving his engine.

If they couldn't convict the Trayvon killer, I don't see how you think they'll convict this trooper.

Yeah,but there is a lot of difference in being tazed when running away by foot,and being tazed while riding an ATV. How can you NOT be in a serious wreck if you are tazed while operating an open vehicle traveling 25 MPH or faster,causing you to lose control over it and fall off?

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

from the height-of-unreasonableness dept