Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Day 603

Grand Jury will indict two police commanders, says source
Arraignment on involuntary manslaughter charges expected Monday

EUREKA -- The criminal grand jury convened to look into the death of Cheri Lyn Moore will hand up indictments against former Eureka Police Chief David Douglas and incident commander Lt. Tony Zanotti, according to a source familiar with the proceedings.

Zanotti and Douglas are scheduled to be arraigned Monday on charges of involuntary manslaughter, according to the source, who requested anonymity because of the secrecy of the proceedings. If convicted, Zanotti and Douglas could face up to two to four years in prison.

District Attorney Paul Gallegos, who convened the grand jury, did not immediately return a late-evening phone call on Tuesday seeking comment.

Moore, who had a history of mental illness, was shot and killed April 14, 2006, by Eureka police officers in her second-story apartment at Fifth and G streets. During the preceding two-hour standoff, Moore brandished a flare gun, threw items from her window and threatened to burn down the building.

Police have said they believed Moore had put down the flare gun when the decision was made to storm her apartment. Upon entering, officers said they came face to face with Moore, who had the flare gun aimed at them. Officers then shot Moore multiple times.

Neither of the two officers who fired the fatal shots, former EPD Officer Rocky Harpham and Sgt. Michael Johnson, were indicted by the grand jury.

Diane Karpman, an ethics columnist for the California Bar Journal, said the charges suggest jurors found an absence of appropriate leadership in the incident. She said she wasn't surprised that the officers who actually shot Moore weren't indicted, since they were following orders. However, she called an indictment of the commanding officers in such an incident highly unusual.

”It's incredibly rare,” Karpman said.

During a coroner's inquest held in September 2006, Douglas and Zanotti testified about their involvement. Zanotti is still with the Eureka Police Department, while Douglas has since retired.

Douglas testified he did not take over command at the scene, but was ultimately responsible. He said there were concerns about a fire from the flare gun, and that it could move quickly because of a crawl space above Moore's apartment.

Zanotti also testified that he believed Moore's threats to burn down the building to be real, and that they needed to be taken seriously.

”There was a determination that we would have to ... she was an immediate threat to human life, to the building, to the officers and to the civilians surrounding the area,” Zanotti said during the inquest.

Zanotti, who acted as the incident commander, testified that several plans of action were made based on Moore's actions, but there was no discussion about bringing mental health personnel to the scene.

Former Massachusetts State Police commanding officer for ballistics and expert witness Ronald R. Scott said he'd never heard of similar charges being brought against incident leaders who made decisions that led to a shooting.

Most manslaughter charges against police officers are the result of a fatal crash during a high-speed chase, or a spur-of-the moment shooting, he said. Scott said he has reviewed the Eureka case and found the circumstances substantially different.

”This is where the department had control,” Scott said. “This wasn't a spontaneous incident.”

Scott said the case, once resolved, could help other police departments train to prevent similar incidents.

40 comments:

  1. Involuntary manslaughter - Highly unusual?

    This is an embarrasment to this community. No wonder cops are quitting and leaving this county.

    Gallegos has no conscience. This man is sociopathic. People are collateral damage for this ethically barren POS.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kudos to the Grand Jury.This is a clear message sent to law enforcement that citizens and others won't let the police run around like the gestapo when they choose.So many mistakes were made here,and so much could have been prevented.
    So now a jury takes it from here and we'll see where it goes.I'd imagine that this doesn't bode well for the officers involved in the future death at the hands of police investigations,especially the last one.
    And I have nothing against the police and I think that Garr Nielsen is going great.But it was lame that right after this happened and they and their ardent defenders in this incident immediately jumped on anyone who questioned the actions taken.They did virtually nothing to make improvements(although Nielsen came on board soon enough),and not long after a sixteen year old kid,well,wound up dead after an altercation with an officer.
    This should be looked at as a positive thing from here on out by all sides as it shows that some are listening,and that necessary changes will have to made, and that's regardless of what verdict the jury comes up with.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ah, ah ah, mresquan - a 16 year old armed delinquent on meth armed with a knife who lunged at the officer - put it in context. No innocent babe in the woods.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good luck proving that the actual killing was unlawful, as the jury instruction requires.
    To quote the current jury instruction on invol:
    When a person commits an unlawful killing but does not intend to kill and does not act with conscious disregard for human life, then the crime is involuntary manslaughter.
    The difference between other homicide offenses and involuntary manslaughter depends on whether the person was aware of the risk to life that his or her actions created and consciously disregarded that risk. An unlawful killing caused by a willful act done with full knowledge and awareness that the person is endangering the life of another, and done in conscious disregard of that risk, is voluntary manslaughter or murder. An unlawful killing resulting from a willful act committed without intent to kill and without conscious disregard of the risk to human life is involuntary manslaughter.
    The defendant committed involuntary manslaughter if:
    1. The defendant (committed a crime that posed a high risk of death or great bodily injury because of the way in which it was committed/[or] committed a lawful act, but acted with criminal negligence);
    AND
    2. The defendant's acts unlawfully caused the death of another person.

    Since the actual shooters had a flare gun pointed at them, they
    were not unreasonable in shooting.
    If their shooting was not unlawful, the killing was not unlawful and there goes involuntary manslaughter.
    One ponders how that issue was explained to the grand jury, and whether the GJ members were provided with that instruction, since apparently the shooters are not to be indicted.
    Unless PVG runs back and gets them
    indicted.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Obviously the selection process was flawed in the sense that it was comprised of Humboldt County residents. Most likely handpicked for either their low IQ or political affiliation, neither which ever bodes well for law enforcement or those that believe in it. IF this cluster ever goes to an actual criminal trial there will be a change of venue before any of these morons can figure out how to spell it. Oh, and that chill wind you feel is the end of proactive law enforcement in the Eureka area. If you think any poor slob cop is gonna risk his house and his a$$ for these ungrateful bastards, forget it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Since the actual shooters had a flare gun pointed at them, they
    were not unreasonable in shooting."

    They had made the decision to enter her apartment and take physical action well before they had any flare gun pointed at them.They ordered all contact with her to be shut down,so there was no way of having anyone close to her in communication.They entered the building knowing that there was a great chance that they would be using deadly force,as they had never taken other necessary actions as an attempt to end the situation,no tasers,no tear gas,she didn't get smokes,her meds,nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not having an untrained third party, possibly emotionally involved, participate in the negotiations is "by the book" and backfires more frequently than it works. BUT, I do stipulate to the fact that they SHOULD have involved mental health workers, especially since they knew she was local, AND, in my opinion, they did go in too fast. I'm sure at the time it seemed that they would be able to end it simply by rushing her when she put the flare gun down. Obviously, that was tragically wrong. I see no criminal intent but there was some questionable decision making to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mark Konkler - aka mresquan - you are about as bright as a rock. No one is contesting the fact that the call was made to go in. Or that some may have done things differently. That is a red herring bonehead. The problem here is saying it is criminal.

    Was the call to go in an act that posed a high risk of death or great bodily injury because of the WAY in which it was committed?

    or

    was the call to go in then a lawful act, but made with criminal negligence -

    Now defined Criminal negligence means conduct which is more than ordinary negligence. Ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary or reasonable care.

    "Criminal negligence" refers to a negligent act which is aggravated, reckless or flagrant and which is such a departure from the conduct of an ordinarily prudent, careful person under the same circumstances as to be contrary to a proper regard for human life or to constitute indifference to the consequences of those acts. The facts must be such that the consequences of the negligent act could reasonably have been foreseen and it must appear that the death was not the result of inattention, mistaken judgment or misadventure but the natural and probable result of an aggravated, reckless or flagrantly negligent act.

    Your post at 9:17 and 1:17 don’t deal with this problem Mark. You just gloss over it. And your cavalier way of saying well lets just have the guy go thru a trial without dealing with this very large legal problem is cruel, shallow and just plain wrong. These men should not be charged unless the DA can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. That was his ethical problem so he abused the grand jury process (in a very Tim Stoen way) to now blame it on the grand jury when this thing gets thrown out.

    Ahhhh, but its not your life affected by this is it Mr. Konkler - it is not Gallegos’ life either. Douglas, Zanotti, in fact all of law enforcement are collateral damage Gallegos’ quest to be the american idol.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Zanotti and Douglas are scheduled to be arraigned Monday on charges of involuntary manslaughter"

    And that's the correct charge to be made.

    And what really does Gallegos or Stoen have to do with any of this,other than the length of time it took to get here?Did he make the call?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gotta love Paul! Rose you have been proved wrong time after time! Not only is this a win for justice it's a slap in the face to you, Rose. You who only knows the politics of personal attack, innuendo and endless conspiracy. Shame on you Rose.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Many of Rose's critiques of Paul have been fair.In this incident,I feel that he took too long to get to this point.Other than that,he's done what he can do here.This fiasco lies at the hands of the EPD,they made the mess what it is,and immediately went on the defensive when people brought up valid concerns with the actions which took place.A new chief is here and also is a new reality that the EPD needs some oversight.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This must be embarrassing for Rose.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rose is about as likely to feel shame as the Energizer Rabbit.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rose, your arguements are always so one sided

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yep. They are. One sided. Happy?

    I've said all along that Gallegos was between a rock and a hard place on this one - and that he could not make a decision. Thus, he would choose a grand jury proceeding so that he could throw up his hands either way - and that is exactly what has happened.

    No surprise. Not even that it was leaked out of a supposedly secret proceeding, and not confidently stated by the gallant DA himself.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rose, you will have the last laugh!

    ReplyDelete
  17. So wait Rose, he's incompetent or he's savvy... Which one Rose?!?!

    He's too stupid to make a decision and thus gives it to the GJ; or

    He's savvy and hides behind the GJ orchestrating a leak so he doesn't appear to be the one making the decision.

    You can't have it both ways Rose. See, this is why you have lost credibility and have sunk to the level of personal quips and irrelevant innuendo.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's really buggin' you, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Don't be silly,this is no slap at Rose. It is a slap at law enforcement by the prog dummies trying to turn Humboldt into another free peoples republic. Villica won't be the topic for posts now. Very timely don't ya think.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rose, get your conspiracy's straight.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You the day shift or the night shift, 5:17?

    ReplyDelete
  22. It's essential to take any action against police forces to a grand jury, especially in this county where DA politics are so divisive. It also shores up the case for the potential jury pool.

    But ultimately, this case will be decided by the evidence. Or lack thereof. I have my questions, but I'm going to reserve judgment until I've heard something about the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  23. eric - was the evidence not already clearly out there? What will be new?

    ReplyDelete
  24. GAGS is going to loose so bad!!! The EPD officers will be represented by some of the best defence atorneys in the state. The case will also not be heard in this county. The defence attorney will ask for a change of venue and be granted it. This county is way to polluted with idiots to give these soon to be defendants a fair trial. Oh yeah, this will cost the county hundreds of thousands if not millions.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Could somebody please explain to me why, whatever happens during the supposed trial here, means "Gags will look bad"?

    I realize he threw this to the Criminal Grand Jury, but how much does he have to do with that after the CGJ takes charge of this case?

    Seems to me he didn't want much to do with this and made his way out of it as best he could.

    ReplyDelete
  26. How about we dismiss all cops in the county and put Mr. Konkler in charge.
    Anyone ready to buy shares in United Van Lines and U-Haul?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Apparently the old saw that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich is true, especially in the Humboldt soviet.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "How about we dismiss all cops in the county and put Mr. Konkler in charge."

    Now that's the sort of thinking that will move this county forward.Except I wouldn't dismiss the cops,I'd use them to handle my grudges.

    ReplyDelete
  29. at 7:27 Mark Konkler said: "Now that's the sort of thinking that will move this county forward"

    Yeah, forward over the cliff. How long have you lived in Humboldt Konkler?

    ReplyDelete
  30. It's hard to imagine someone as stupid as this Mark Konkler. Is he really that stupid or is he just an A.H. fake progressive?

    ReplyDelete
  31. 1.Stupid
    2.Asshole
    3.fake liberal

    3 out of 3 ain't bad!!!

    ReplyDelete
  32. How is it that I'm not surprised Mark takes being called stupid, an asshole, and a fake liberal as a compliment?

    One thing is for certain, Mark is an asshole.

    My apologies to the blog but that is the nicest thing I can say about Mark.

    ReplyDelete
  33. LOL, I guess we get used to it, eh, Mark?

    You know, Mark and I don't agree on much - in fact he pretty much automatically falls onto the opposite position on just about every issue. Sometimes I can understand it even if I don't agree with it, other times I am completely mystified.

    But I know this - Mark Konkler is a good guy, and however misguided he may be :) sorry mark :) he says his peace, he participates in the discusssion, and he takes the slings and arrows that come his way. He's far more courageous than "heraldO."

    ReplyDelete
  34. "other times I am completely mystified."

    And vice versa here.But I take that as a compliment,and you and I may indeed force one another to look into issues in ways we may not have before.

    ReplyDelete
  35. completely mystified ? does that mean he's half nuts ? a whacko ?

    for some reason Mark enjoys getting dumped on.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I just take most anonymous comments with a grain of salt.Attach your name or easily deciphered pseudonym to your post and I'd likely be more offended,as I'd be more likely to believe that you truly feel the way you do.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Oh I truly beleive it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Seems to me that attaching your name to some of the comments on this blog, and I include Rose in this observation, is like putting a white sheet over your head and pinning on a name badge. Valuable to the reader.

    ReplyDelete
  39. And this is one of the more reasonable discussions in the Humboldt blogosphere. It's not a sandbox most people want to play in.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are closed for the time-being.