danimal151@ wrote:
Tom? Thomas? You could not tell a child from an adult from 5 feet away in a doorway, with a light behind them? Maybe a trip to the optical dept. at Sears is on order for you
my friend.
The FBI agent turned weapons expert, (as you know...all expert witnesses get paid) had aa huge effect on that jury, you can bet the farm on that.
And one round to the head or neck, as you also know, is most likely fatal, even if you had an Abrahms tank around the rest of your body. So your body armor stance is a moot point.
And he did identify the target. An adult, peeking in and out of a room, and from his vantage point, was not heading orders.
And the AUTO setting on a tactical weapon in a SWAT raid is an option all the members had. It is neither here nor there because it is allowed. So drop that, it is moot also.
And fear is something that cannot be gauged by you or I. We can not pretend to know what his fear level was at the time it went down, so we have to believe what he says.
But it was nice to see how you left youself an "out" there at the end of your story.
At least now when/if he is aquited, you can blame the lame prosection.
my friend.
The FBI agent turned weapons expert, (as you know...all expert witnesses get paid) had aa huge effect on that jury, you can bet the farm on that.
And one round to the head or neck, as you also know, is most likely fatal, even if you had an Abrahms tank around the rest of your body. So your body armor stance is a moot point.
And he did identify the target. An adult, peeking in and out of a room, and from his vantage point, was not heading orders.
And the AUTO setting on a tactical weapon in a SWAT raid is an option all the members had. It is neither here nor there because it is allowed. So drop that, it is moot also.
And fear is something that cannot be gauged by you or I. We can not pretend to know what his fear level was at the time it went down, so we have to believe what he says.
But it was nice to see how you left youself an "out" there at the end of your story.
At least now when/if he is aquited, you can blame the lame prosection.
01 August 2008 19:01:30
Scant wrote:
Tom,
I have always wondered through out this whole thing why the LPD did not just go get Terry sooner, or out on the street, instead of going in a house full of kids at night. I don't or anyone else knows the kind of stressfull situation it was that night. I will give Joe the benifit of the doubt. They had body armor on yes, but what about a bullet between your eyes. The Sgt. has had a career without a spot, this is the first time he has had qeustions put on him, that has to count for something. He did shoot an unarmed person that ended up after the fact was not a threat, so by the book, it was negligent, I get that.
Tom you seem so hell bent on crucifying the Sgt, for making a judgement call in the span of a few seconds, not many people face those kind of situations of life and death.
He barked his orders twice, as you say, and was not acting out of suprise. Would it not be resonable to expect after, barking his orders to get down "this is the police" and Tarika poking her head in in out, would not cause him to think, that this person was a threat? Tom, you served in Iraq when you heard gun fire did you stand up and walk around, or did you get low and take a defensive position?
Maybe the prosecutor is doing the minimum, because, that is all he has in this case.
I find him, not guilty.
I have always wondered through out this whole thing why the LPD did not just go get Terry sooner, or out on the street, instead of going in a house full of kids at night. I don't or anyone else knows the kind of stressfull situation it was that night. I will give Joe the benifit of the doubt. They had body armor on yes, but what about a bullet between your eyes. The Sgt. has had a career without a spot, this is the first time he has had qeustions put on him, that has to count for something. He did shoot an unarmed person that ended up after the fact was not a threat, so by the book, it was negligent, I get that.
Tom you seem so hell bent on crucifying the Sgt, for making a judgement call in the span of a few seconds, not many people face those kind of situations of life and death.
He barked his orders twice, as you say, and was not acting out of suprise. Would it not be resonable to expect after, barking his orders to get down "this is the police" and Tarika poking her head in in out, would not cause him to think, that this person was a threat? Tom, you served in Iraq when you heard gun fire did you stand up and walk around, or did you get low and take a defensive position?
Maybe the prosecutor is doing the minimum, because, that is all he has in this case.
I find him, not guilty.
01 August 2008 19:09:19
Lucente wrote:
Danimal,
Chavalia wants it both ways. He wants us to believe from five feet away in the dark, he was able to tell that a small 5-foot woman was an adult instead of a child or teenager. Yet, he could not tell that she was kneeling down holding a child. Nor could he tell that she was not point a gun at him and firing.
I don't buy it. A man with his training SHOULD have known.
~tjl~
Chavalia wants it both ways. He wants us to believe from five feet away in the dark, he was able to tell that a small 5-foot woman was an adult instead of a child or teenager. Yet, he could not tell that she was kneeling down holding a child. Nor could he tell that she was not point a gun at him and firing.
I don't buy it. A man with his training SHOULD have known.
~tjl~
01 August 2008 19:18:02
Lucente wrote:
Scant,
I don't want to crucify Chavalia. I think he should be held accountable for his negligence. You are right, his long public service and lack of a previous criminal record should certainly be considered, but only in the punishment phase.
Let me put it this way. You are driving your car at night and some idiot wearing dark clothes walks in front of your car and you fail to see him, hit him and kill him. He was in the crosswalk. Do you think Chavalia or any other police officer is going to care that you did not intend to hit the victim? Of course not. You will be charged with negligent homicide. And, when the punishment phase comes along, you past record and community service will be considered. That is where it is properly considered. You don't get a pass on a crime because of an honorable life. But you do get a break in punishment.
I think Chavalia should be found guilty, sentenced to probation and ALLOWED to retired from the force with his full pension.
Finally, the prosecutor's passiveness has nothing to do with the case. County prosecutors are notoriously easy on cops because they are elected officials and it is unpopular to attack police officers. Just look at the responses I get. One example. During the trial, Kluge was going on and on proselytizing without asking a question. The prosecutor should have objected but did not. He allowed Kluge to make an argument instead of asking a question. And he did that a lot. He let opportunities to object pass.
I think we need to keep perspective here. No one can be above the law, regardless of how many years they served the public. He broke the law. He acted in a negligent manner and he should be convicted.
~tjl~
I don't want to crucify Chavalia. I think he should be held accountable for his negligence. You are right, his long public service and lack of a previous criminal record should certainly be considered, but only in the punishment phase.
Let me put it this way. You are driving your car at night and some idiot wearing dark clothes walks in front of your car and you fail to see him, hit him and kill him. He was in the crosswalk. Do you think Chavalia or any other police officer is going to care that you did not intend to hit the victim? Of course not. You will be charged with negligent homicide. And, when the punishment phase comes along, you past record and community service will be considered. That is where it is properly considered. You don't get a pass on a crime because of an honorable life. But you do get a break in punishment.
I think Chavalia should be found guilty, sentenced to probation and ALLOWED to retired from the force with his full pension.
Finally, the prosecutor's passiveness has nothing to do with the case. County prosecutors are notoriously easy on cops because they are elected officials and it is unpopular to attack police officers. Just look at the responses I get. One example. During the trial, Kluge was going on and on proselytizing without asking a question. The prosecutor should have objected but did not. He allowed Kluge to make an argument instead of asking a question. And he did that a lot. He let opportunities to object pass.
I think we need to keep perspective here. No one can be above the law, regardless of how many years they served the public. He broke the law. He acted in a negligent manner and he should be convicted.
~tjl~
01 August 2008 19:25:49
HappyG wrote:
I believe we are keping a perspective on this matter. While Sgt. Chavalia is ascending the stairs, he hears shots, thinking they are shooting at him. He had no idea there wer two pitbulls with their voice boxes removed, so didn't know the officers were shooting at dogs. He thought he was being shot at. I heard those seven shots that hit that kid on St. Johns and Third St. I thought the shots came from behind my house, and was calling the cops, when the cops showed up before my call went through. The shots came from down the street to my right, and not behind me. They were very loud, but I was mistaken about the direction. How can you be so sure Chavalia didn't have the same perception as I? He's older, and his hearing might play tricks on him. The echo in those old houses change noises, too. I live in one. (Thankfully, not one of Glenn's shacks).
01 August 2008 19:50:12
wrote:
Thomas, I think you are looking for a bad shoot that just isn't there. He was on the stairway, shots were fired, he responded, she could have began to crouch down since she was also hearing the shots. None of it really matters now. I believe he is a good cop and he made a judgement call to protect his own life. I also think it is extremely stupid that we are spending all of this time holding a police officer accountable for what he thought was right at the time, while there are gangs running around shooting up the community. Why don't you write a column about them and the message this is sending them when we take a police officer to trial for doing his job.
02 August 2008 11:38:20
Susan wrote:
Tom said, "You are driving your car at night and some idiot wearing dark clothes walks in front of your car and you fail to see him, hit him and kill him. He was in the crosswalk. Do you think Chavalia or any other police officer is going to care that you did not intend to hit the victim? Of course not. You will be charged with negligent homicide. "
I beg to differ.
If a person is driving along (obeying the speed limit) and someone walks in front of his car, more often than not, they will NOT be charged with anything. The police (and 99.9% of all thinking rational people) realize that a driver has no way of controlling whether or not someone will step off the curb and into the path of a car when it is completely impossible for the car to stop in time, crosswalk or not. However, if the pedestrian is already IN the crosswalk crossing the street and for whatever reason, dark clothing, dark night, whatever, the driver does not see him and hits him, then he would most likely be charged. But even then, I don't honestly think that the cops will be so eager to charge a person for hitting someone if that person is dressed from head to toe in black clothing walking across an unlit street in the dark of night.
I beg to differ.
If a person is driving along (obeying the speed limit) and someone walks in front of his car, more often than not, they will NOT be charged with anything. The police (and 99.9% of all thinking rational people) realize that a driver has no way of controlling whether or not someone will step off the curb and into the path of a car when it is completely impossible for the car to stop in time, crosswalk or not. However, if the pedestrian is already IN the crosswalk crossing the street and for whatever reason, dark clothing, dark night, whatever, the driver does not see him and hits him, then he would most likely be charged. But even then, I don't honestly think that the cops will be so eager to charge a person for hitting someone if that person is dressed from head to toe in black clothing walking across an unlit street in the dark of night.
02 August 2008 13:16:03
danimal151@ wrote:
Well Tom, at least we agree on the outcome. I said the same thing. Probation, retire w/ pension. But he has to play this out and not plea bargin. Otherwise the civil trial that the crack head mother, etel will bring would have more weight if he did. He needs to be found not guilty, or else his whole pension and life savings could be in greater jeopordy. I don't believe he needs to be sued for every penny by a fammily that realy didn't care enough to anything for Tarika while she was alive. Same reason that her mother wants custody. $$$$$$$ to the tune of what did I hear? 8K a month for those kids? I only hope the kids have a chance. Time will tell.
02 August 2008 13:39:12
Bill543@ wrote:
Your analogy about the pedestrian in the crosswalk is a great example of what is needed to prove criminal negligence. And completely counter to your argument about Chavalia. In your example, you state some idiot walks in front of your car, you hit him and kill him and are guilty of negligent homicide because he was in a marked crosswalk. Actually, given that fact pattern you are not guilty of negligent homicide just a Chavalia is. Why? Because of Ohio Revised Code 4511.46. A pedestrian can not suddenly leave the curb into the path of a car and constitute a hazard regardless of being in a crosswalk or not. In other words, the pedestrian has some responsibility for his own safety when crossing the street. The driver is not negligent. The pedestrian was negligent for not obeying the law. Now if the driver ran a red light and hit the pedestrian in a crosswalk, then the driver would be negligent and guilty of negligent homicide. See? The driver took an action outside of the scope of his legal duty which resulted in the death of another person.
I know this is a dead horse, but let's give it one more beatin'. Chavalia believed his life was in danger. This was because of Wilson's actions--ducking in and out of a doorway and not obeying verbal commands--and the sound of gunfire. I know you spend your Monday mornings strapping on the old helmet getting ready to play quarterback, but it is irrelevant as to if she was an actual threat to him or not so long as it was reasonable for him to believe she was. Now, if Wilson were completely compliant with verbal commands, and Chavalia were going to handcuff her and in so doing, tripped, fell and squeezed off a round which killed Wilson, I would agree with you 100% that Chavalia is guilty of negligent homicide. But that's not what happened here.
Like the guy who stepped off the curb into traffic, Wilson made some dumb choices which resulted in her death. Dumb Choice #1- hooking up with a convict. Dumb Choice #2- not obeying an officer's verbal commands. Dumb Choice #3- ducking in and out of the doorway. Given her actions, coupled with the sound of gunfire, it was reasonable for Chavalia to believe his life was in danger.
I know this is a dead horse, but let's give it one more beatin'. Chavalia believed his life was in danger. This was because of Wilson's actions--ducking in and out of a doorway and not obeying verbal commands--and the sound of gunfire. I know you spend your Monday mornings strapping on the old helmet getting ready to play quarterback, but it is irrelevant as to if she was an actual threat to him or not so long as it was reasonable for him to believe she was. Now, if Wilson were completely compliant with verbal commands, and Chavalia were going to handcuff her and in so doing, tripped, fell and squeezed off a round which killed Wilson, I would agree with you 100% that Chavalia is guilty of negligent homicide. But that's not what happened here.
Like the guy who stepped off the curb into traffic, Wilson made some dumb choices which resulted in her death. Dumb Choice #1- hooking up with a convict. Dumb Choice #2- not obeying an officer's verbal commands. Dumb Choice #3- ducking in and out of the doorway. Given her actions, coupled with the sound of gunfire, it was reasonable for Chavalia to believe his life was in danger.
02 August 2008 14:05:45
Scant wrote:
Tom,
I don't have a whole lot more to say about this trial untill the verdict is in. I understand what your saying and you make some good points. By the book, yes, he was negligent but I just see it a little differently.
On a lighter note, I have to say I have not seen you take so much criticism on a subject as this one. I hope you have some, thick skin, cause you really have touched a nerve with alot of people on here. Gotta give it to you though, you got guts to come out with your stance on this, even though you are wrong.
There are no winners here, a woman is dead, a baby missing a finger and a cop will leave his carrer in a cloud of suspision and disgrace. Alot of healing needs to take place. Citizens of Lima you all have a responsibility to work with the police to help end the violence. The shootings latley that have happened, and nobody knows or sees anything? Come on. Take the lead from Jesse Lowe, he is setting the example of what to do.
I don't have a whole lot more to say about this trial untill the verdict is in. I understand what your saying and you make some good points. By the book, yes, he was negligent but I just see it a little differently.
On a lighter note, I have to say I have not seen you take so much criticism on a subject as this one. I hope you have some, thick skin, cause you really have touched a nerve with alot of people on here. Gotta give it to you though, you got guts to come out with your stance on this, even though you are wrong.
There are no winners here, a woman is dead, a baby missing a finger and a cop will leave his carrer in a cloud of suspision and disgrace. Alot of healing needs to take place. Citizens of Lima you all have a responsibility to work with the police to help end the violence. The shootings latley that have happened, and nobody knows or sees anything? Come on. Take the lead from Jesse Lowe, he is setting the example of what to do.
02 August 2008 18:36:25
wrote:
How can you say that he did not fear for his life? How the heck would you know? And why else would he have pulled the trigger? The possibility of someone SHOOTING you is terrifying whether you have armor on or not. Let's put some riot gear on you and start firing and see if you're scared for your life. Doesn't matter that he's experienced, bullet wounds can be fatal and should especially be feared by someone who has training on the subject.
Weakest. Argument. Ever.
Oh and thanks for suggesting that the jury will be unfair since they're all "white, older, and living in the suburbs", this community really needs that.
As we know the race card usually only comes out when all other points are too weak to persuade.
You make some decent points, and I haven't decided what I think happened yet, but jeez dude, it's like you're just trying to agitate the situation. I thought you were better than that.
Weakest. Argument. Ever.
Oh and thanks for suggesting that the jury will be unfair since they're all "white, older, and living in the suburbs", this community really needs that.
As we know the race card usually only comes out when all other points are too weak to persuade.You make some decent points, and I haven't decided what I think happened yet, but jeez dude, it's like you're just trying to agitate the situation. I thought you were better than that.
03 August 2008 12:54:43
wrote:
"Finally, those of you blaming the victim rather the officer disgust me. Was she a bad mom or a bad role model? Perhaps, but that is irrelevant. There is no law against stupidity. She was not breaking any laws so you can't blame her. Besides, everyone is responsible for his or her own actions."
Not disagreeing with you Tom, but isn't keeping a disorderly house breaking the law? If she came out of this instance alive she most likely would've been charged with that, and possibly extradited on her warrant from Indiana.
Not disagreeing with you Tom, but isn't keeping a disorderly house breaking the law? If she came out of this instance alive she most likely would've been charged with that, and possibly extradited on her warrant from Indiana.
04 August 2008 14:39:10
jmueller002@ wrote:
It seems like everyone keeps forgetting the fact that he lied, and she was not ducking in and out of doorways. Everyone keeps reiterating he feared his life cuz she was ducking in and out of doorways when physical evidence shows that she was kneeling down. Why does everyone want to ignore the facts and keep on and on and on about her in and out of doorways. IF the physical evidence is accurate, what WAS he so afraid of? Maybe a ghost in the house???
04 August 2008 14:59:46
danimal151@ wrote:
jm
You'r right. IF is the word. We have testimony from one person that she was most likely kneeling. I seldom am swayed by one persons beliefs in a case like this. To many ways to misread evidence. However, she did have all the children in that room with her. Maybe some of the older ones were peeking in and out....not to hard to grasp that. Kids want to see whats going on. And from the stairs he was on a lower plane, and looking up at those angles, things apear a bit larger. Least we forget how much time he had to make the choice. OK. The worst that happend was he did not identify his target properly. And to some, that means he was negligent. Lets see where this jury takes it.
You'r right. IF is the word. We have testimony from one person that she was most likely kneeling. I seldom am swayed by one persons beliefs in a case like this. To many ways to misread evidence. However, she did have all the children in that room with her. Maybe some of the older ones were peeking in and out....not to hard to grasp that. Kids want to see whats going on. And from the stairs he was on a lower plane, and looking up at those angles, things apear a bit larger. Least we forget how much time he had to make the choice. OK. The worst that happend was he did not identify his target properly. And to some, that means he was negligent. Lets see where this jury takes it.
04 August 2008 15:12:42
danimal151@ wrote:
Some other things to ponder. Early on the Rev. Arnold Manely told me the children told him that Tarika was pleading don't shoot, don't shoot. If this were TRUE...it would have been in the trial in some form or another. But it was not. I overheard another black lady say that Chavalia was DATING Tarika and wanted her dead!!!!!! And when I doubted her she went nuts-o. I think that would have been in the trial also...don't you?
I have talked to many law enforcment people aboutt this and a good 3/4 of them say it was a bad outcome to a bad situation, but fear they would have responded the same way as the Sgt. did. Does that make it right? NO. But does that make him guilty? No.
I have talked to many law enforcment people aboutt this and a good 3/4 of them say it was a bad outcome to a bad situation, but fear they would have responded the same way as the Sgt. did. Does that make it right? NO. But does that make him guilty? No.
04 August 2008 15:21:27
SgtGideonsDad wrote:
What ever happened to "THIS IS THE POLICE WE HAVE YOU SURROUNDED
COME OUT WITH YOUR HANDS UP" that always worked in the past before!
COME OUT WITH YOUR HANDS UP" that always worked in the past before!
04 August 2008 16:16:15
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.lucente.org/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Chavalia trial day 4: Testimony was unpersuasive
Sgt. Joe Chavalia's testimony Thursday was unpersuasive. In fact, parts of it seemed to contradict expert testimony as well as the physical evidence.
Given the choice between believing the suspect and the physical evidence, the choice is clear. I am sure all you cops reading this would agree that you would not believe a suspect if his or her statements contradicted the physical evidence, unless of course the suspect was one of your own. Then it's time to circle the wagons.
At one point, Chavalia flat-out lied on the stand when he said he properly identified his target. He clearly did not. If Chavalia had identified his target, he would not have fired. If he identified his target and still fired his weapon, he would have crossed the line from negligent homicide to murder. I don't believe that happened.
At another point in his testimony, Chavalia said he kept seeing this shadowy figure appear in and out of the doorway. However, the physical evidence shows without a doubt that Tarika Wilson was in a near prone or kneeling position when she was shot. She was not moving in and out of the door frame in that position while holding an infant.
Chavalia also admitted that he did not see hands, a weapon, or muzzle flashes coming from Wilson's room. The wood around him was not splintering, which would have happened because Chavalia was behind a wooden railing and, when he shot Wilson, had to fire through the railing and he even splintered the wood.
Also, he was unable to explain why the officer directly behind him, one with less experience, was able to determine that the gunfire was from downstairs.
Nor did he adequately explain his inability to see Wilson. She was in a lit room and Chavalia had a flashlight on her from only five feet away. In fact, he said he was able to tell she was an adult. I don't know about you, but I would not be able to tell the difference between an adult and a child based simply on a silhouette or shadow.
That Chavalia had the time to twice bark orders to Wilson tells me that he wasn't acting out of surprise.
After hearing Chavalia testify, I am more convinced than ever that the charges filed against him are appropriate and justified. He negligently discharged his firearm without adequately identifying his target. There was no excuse for him not waiting another second or two to properly identify his target, especially in a house in which he knew children were living. The odds of him getting hurt were astronomical.
His claim that he feared for his life does not hold water. He's done hundreds of these raids. He knows that his body armor would stop most small-arms fire. Additionally, he was in the dark. What are the odds that an untrained drug dealer could hit a target in the dark? And even if he did get hit, his vital organs were protected. He could take a center-mass hit without injury.
The only thing I can't figure out is if he really did fire his weapon intentionally, or if he accidently fired and is now trying to cover that slip. After all, it is better, at least reputation wise, to have fired wrongly thinking you were under attack than to admit you flinched and accidentally pulled the trigger.
And his explanation about using automatic when every other member of the team except one was using semiautomatic was inadequate. And it is probably no surprise that the other man with his weapon on automatic is the only other officer on the force to have killed someone in the line of duty.
Finally, those of you blaming the victim rather the officer disgust me. Was she a bad mom or a bad role model? Perhaps, but that is irrelevant. There is no law against stupidity. She was not breaking any laws so you can't blame her. Besides, everyone is responsible for his or her own actions. Terry is being punished for his. Chavalia needs punished for his. Wilson did not pull that trigger, Chavalia did. Regardless of why she was there, she did not shoot herself.
If we want to blame someone, blame the SWAT commander who conducted absolutely no preraid intelligence operation. It is the height of irresponsibility to spend months waiting to arrest this person and then conducting the raid on the spur of the moment without even determining possible threats in the execution of the operation. It appears to have been a purely amateur operating from beginning to finish.
Or, perhaps, we can blame the officers who continued to buy drugs from his person time and again without arresting him for his crime.
Perhaps the judge is responsible for issuing a warrant to raid a house where no drug activity has ever been reported and for allowing that drug to be a no-knock, nighttime operation.
No, in the end, the decision to pull that trigger was Chavalia's alone and he is the one who has to answer for his negligent actions.
Fortunately for him, his attorney is doing a good job defending him, the prosecutor appears to be doing the bare minimum and the jury is all white, older and living in the suburbs. Seems like the stars are aligning for Chavalia.
category | War on Drugs
author | Lucente