This morning’s Coeur d’Alene Press, our local skewspaper, ran an article headlined Video shows fatal shooting. The article includes a hyperlink to the video recording made from a Coeur d’Alene police officer’s body-worn camera with audio. The video with audio was made during a shooting involving the police officer.
The article contained this line: “The police department released the video in response to public records requests made by Spokane and Coeur d’Alene media outlets.” Hopefully the media outlets’ public records requests also sought and received copies of the investigative reports compiled by the Idaho State Police. To date, the skewspaper articles have not included any references from those reports.
While the video is a useful part of the investigation, it is not the entire body of information developed during the investigation. It is that entire body of information that the Bonner County Prosecutor probably considered in deciding that the shooting by the police officer was “… within the parameters of the laws of the state of Idaho.”
According to the skewspaper story, the deceased’s mother has engaged legal counsel to review the video. That is a wise decision, and it is likely her attorney will want to conduct a thorough review of all of the material available, not just the audio/video recording. That review should help her get a better understanding of what happened.
We are reminded that the various skewsmedia initially reported primarily one side of the death of Otto Zehm in March 2006. It was only after the Center for Justice critically reviewed all the evidence and represented the Zehm estate in a civil action that the facts were revealed. The Zehm case revelations are leading to dramatic improvements in policing in Spokane.
We can only hope that our local skewsmedia thoroughly and impartially review all the material and then write more accurate and complete news reports. What they have reported to date is based only on one part of the story. Much information is missing from their stories.
Complete and accurate reporting about the death of Eric Johnston should either reassure or unsettle the public about the quality of policing in Coeur d’Alene. Better and more complete reporting would also enable the public, the voters, to make a more complete assessment of the competence and performance of the Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney.
Why did the officer have his weapon drawn before he even saw the man? Why was the pistol the officer’s first choice. If he was concerned for his safety why didn’t he chose to wield a taser or a baton instead? The officer was told the man had a knife, not a gun. There was no indication that the man was dangerous to anyone other than himself. The woman had just been in the house with him. The man was the only one in the house. She was afraid for the man’s safety. She was not afraid for her own safety. The officer was standing close to the doorway. Why wouldn’t the officer just back outside? Is this poor training by the department? Is this a case of an officer receiving proper training who, from the beginning when he drew his weapon before even seeing the man, chose to disregard his training? Certainly a clear thinking individual would have dropped the knife upon being told to do so by a police officer who had his weapon drawn and pointed at him. Obviously the man was not thinking clearly. Five shots, seriously? This was a very troubling result. Anyone with answers to share about training and protocol?
Comment by up river — January 16, 2014 @ 12:12 pm
up river,
Those are all very reasonable questions that may well be at least partially answered in the ISP’s reports. They’re also questions that the officer’s department command staff needs to ask and answer to determine what, if any, changes or additions need to be made to department and POST policy, procedure, training, and supervision.
I am critical of the skewsmedia for only showing the video. The video is an important part but not the complete picture of the entire incident.
Comment by Bill — January 16, 2014 @ 12:20 pm
Bill,
From a broader perspective of the incident we are left with City priorities. Hire cheap, young, inexperienced, front-line guys with guns, pay office geeks five-fold to sit a desk to process paperwork, or perhaps the City should invest in some more multi-million dollar parks with exclusive underground entryways into the next row of high-rise condos for the elite.
Coming from a family with many in the law enforcement sector over several generations, I can empathize with the officer, but at the same time I would have retreated with respect to the situation–a drunken hit and run does not warrant an obvious avoidable deadly shooting. All in all a saddening and in my opinion a preventable loss of life and another life that will never ever be the same.
As for the City and it’s budget priorities? I think my point is obvious; last I heard the City hasn’t even paid for the last multi-million $ lawsuit that concluded the City was negligent that led to a death. It’s a sad state of affairs that a civil award due to the loss of a life might be the only thing that forces the City to redefine its role as a City and reshuffle priorities accordingly.
Comment by Old Dog — January 16, 2014 @ 1:21 pm
The “skewsmedia” is hoping that the video is enough to convince the public that it is was justified.
Not surprised that Bonner County decided this shoot and kill incident was within the laws of the state. They have their own pathetic track record. Pretty scary stuff, then they handcuff the friend of the deceased when she inquires about the shooting. That was probably justified, too. Just, wow …
They decide if any imminent danger exists and basically can shoot at any provocation. He might as well have been carrying a rolling pin.
Kootenai County passes any controversial case off to Bonner County – it’s a pact of sort, protecting their own so to speak. It’s the ‘good buddy – you owe me a favor club.’
There was a day when our police force was there for us as a friend and a protector, now we fear them. Nothing like a cop following you, when you know there is nothing you have done wrong, their very presence is not a pleasant or friendly experience.
Very ‘goonish’ and sadly, so predictably, north Idaho.
Comment by Stebbijo — January 16, 2014 @ 2:12 pm
Old Dog and Stebbijo,
There are three issues that the investigation needed to resolve: (1) Was the officer’s shooting and killing the suspect justified by the law and therefore not a criminal act, (2) Was the shooting consistent or inconsistent with department policy and procedure, and (3) Could the shooting have been avoided?
As to (1), the Bonner County Prosecuting Attorney declined to prosecute. Presumably, he concluded the shooting was legally justifiable homicide.
As to (2), we don’t know, because we don’t have enough information. We only have the audio/video recording.
As to (3), again we don’t know because we only have the audio/video recording.
It seems to me that Johnston’s mother is hoping her attorney will be able to get the answers to (2) and (3). If the shooting was outside policy or reasonably avoidable, maybe there’s a civil cause of action even though the prosecutor declined criminal prosecution. Although the states’ laws differ and the facts are completely different, remember that a civil jury found O.J. Simpson was responsible for the death of Ronald Goldman even though Simpson had been acquitted of the criminal homicides of Goldman and Brown.
Comment by Bill — January 16, 2014 @ 3:09 pm