Showing posts with label Michael Cho. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Cho. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Doing your worst

The "case closed" comments at the Orange County Register website regarding the deaths of Michael Cho, Susie Kim, and others, are dismaying. This one sums up the attitude:
although tragic, why is he walking around a market with the tire iron? if the cops show-up you think he would drop it and obey their commands. After all, normal people would drop the tire iron when there are guns pointed at them. Sounds like Mr. Cho choose his destiny. Having guns pointed at me i can either choose to advance at the officers and have them shoot me or drop the tire iron and submit. He choose to be killed.
No doubt, he shouldn't be walking around with a tire iron, he shouldn't have been breaking windows in cars, he should have listened to the police and put down the tire iron instead of walking away from them, etc., etc. But the idea that the police should use deadly force instead of other options — tasers, anyone? — and that this use of deadly force is categorically justified in virtually all cases where a citizen did not follow police directions, is a scary one indeed.

Whenever we say "case closed" to a shooting just because someone didn't do exactly what the cops say, we're creating a situation where excessive force and — in some cases — wrongful death will occur. And in our law-and-order society, it amazes me how many people don't perceive this danger to the citizenry. Maybe they just don't see how it can happen to themselves or their loved ones.

Imagine yourself on the day when you were at your worst. Maybe you were violently drunk, high, emotionally distraught, extremely upset, or some such thing. I'm not asking what that was, only that you imagine it and create in your mind a situation where you can observe yourself and your behavior in that state. Maybe you were highly distressed over a break-up to the point that you were a bit self-destructive. Perhaps you were so drunk and so resistant to others warning you to take it easy or calm down that you had actually become a danger to yourself (and others). Maybe you were high enough that you lost touch with reality for just a little while. Or even so angry about something that you violently reacted to the admonishments or reprimands of others to chill. Whatever the situation, at that time you were not "normal."

Now imagine that, for whatever reason, armed police were on the scene at the time of your worst. Maybe they were called in because of your behavior. Maybe it was a coincidence that they happened to be in the same place you were at the time you were going through your dark episode. But for whatever reason, they are there.

Now in such a case, which do you think provides a better outcome? Cops who feel they are justified to pump eleven bullets into you if you don't do exactly what they say, or cops who have at their disposal the non-lethal tools needed to subdue you and the knowledge, training, and willingness to use them?

Saying Michael Cho "choose to be killed" is, pardon the unintentional pun, a cop-out. The police are there to protect and serve, and that may mean protecting us from ourselves. Michael Cho was, for whatever reason, out of his head on that New Year's Eve afternoon. That's obvious from the reports about what he was doing (smashing car windows with a tire iron) and by what we saw on the tape (a man with a limp walking away from the police who then followed him). He did not deserve to die for that. He did not deserve the death penalty for not being "normal."

God help you if you encounter the police on the day when you are at your worst. God help your loved ones if they encounter the police on the day when they are at their worst. Do you really want them to be facing down cops who think that any perceived wrong move is justification for shoot-to-kill instead of attempts to subdue?

February 2 date set for wrongful death lawsuit in police shooting of Michael Cho

The Orange County Register is reporting that a date has been set for the wrongful death suit filed against two police officers in the northwestern OC community of La Habra over the shooting death of Michael Cho, an artist and UCLA graduate.

Michael Cho's case was discussed at length at The Marmot's Hole in March of last year. There were many complicating things about the case, including the fact that Cho was breaking windows with a tire iron but that he was videotaped walking away from police just seconds before he was shot. He also had reportedly had emotional problems, which led some to suspect "suicide by cop."

Here's some background on the shooting from around the time it happened. Below is local Korean station footage of news of the shooting:



From the OCR:
The case will likely be decided by a jury, said Bruce Praet, attorney for the officers. Praet said the officers are still working for the La Habra Police Department.

The judge dismissed the case against La Habra, which also was named in the suit.

Michael Cho, 25, was shot by police Dec. 31, 2007, outside a liquor store near Whittier Boulevard and Walnut Avenue in La Habra.

On the day of the shooting, police went to a strip mall at Whittier Boulevard and Walnut Street after receiving two calls about a man vandalizing cars. When police arrived, the caller pointed out Cho as the man responsible.

Cho, an artist and UCLA graduate, was holding a tire iron in his hand. Police ordered him to drop the weapon, according to officials.

After Cho ignored multiple requests, turned from the officers twice and made a motion as if to attack one of the officers, the police officers shot Cho 11 times, according to the Orange County District Attorney's Office.

"We don't believe there is liability," said Praet, the officers' attorney. "It is tragic anytime someone dies, but they did nothing wrong."

Shelley Kaufman, the attorney for the Chos, said their son's actions posed no threat to the officers.

"He was walking away from the officers," she said. "He was not wanting to have anything to do with them at all."
This brings to mind a case earlier this year, that of Susie Kim (also discussed at The Hole), who was shot to death after allegedly driving drunk and leading Orange County law enforcement on a multi-city chase. As I mentioned in June, it's disturbing how little information about this case is out there. Shouldn't an investigation have come up with results by now?