Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Posted: 9/16/2009 6:58:11 PM EST

Is Oakland really this messed up?


Calif. city to pay $1.5 mil in police shooting

By Henry K. Lee
San Francisco Chronicle

OAKLAND, Calif. — The city of Oakland is expected to pay $1.5 million to settle a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by the family of a man who was shot in the back and killed by a police sergeant.

Sgt. Pat Gonzales shot Gary King Jr., 20, of Oakland on Sept. 20, 2007, near 54th Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way in North Oakland. King fit the description of a "person of interest" in a killing that happened the month before, and officers found a loaded gun on him after the shooting, police have said.

But in their lawsuit, King's parents, Gary and Catherine King, said their son "did not pose a significant and immediate threat of death or serious physical injury" to police and that the shooting constituted excessive force.

Gonzales "created the situation where deadly force was used," said the lawsuit, which named the sergeant, the city and former Police Chief Wayne Tucker as defendants. Among the plaintiffs was King's child, who was born last year.

The City Council discussed the settlement in closed session in July and is expected to ratify it Sept. 22.

In a memo to the council this month, Assistant City Attorney Randolph Hall urged that the deal be approved "to avoid the risk of an adverse jury verdict and exposure to civil damages and attorneys' fees."

Police have said King ignored Gonzales' efforts to detain him and shook off the effects of a stun gun before the officer opened fire. Gonzales thought King was reaching for a handgun, police said.

Gonzales has been the supervisor of a police crime-reduction team, a department firearms instructor and a SWAT team member.

He has been cleared of wrongdoing in two other shootings since 2002, one of which was fatal. He was wounded March 21 by a suspect in East Oakland who killed four other officers.

Link Posted: 9/16/2009 7:13:32 PM EST
This is GD. nothing the police does is justified
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 7:17:22 PM EST
Sounds like mom and dad are tying to cash in on their pos sons death to me.
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 7:18:16 PM EST
Honestly I don't know because I was not there.

That being said it most likely was a good shoot.
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 9:15:30 PM EST
Originally Posted By FMJshooter:
Sounds like mom and dad are tying to cash in on their pos sons death to me.


Well, sounds like he's finally good for SOMEthing!
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 9:19:46 PM EST
Sounds like a good shoot, although the article could have a lot more info on the shooting itself.

Link Posted: 9/16/2009 9:21:55 PM EST
Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
Sounds like a good shoot, although the article could have a lot more info on the shooting itself.



This.
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 9:23:43 PM EST
Not enough information to make a call, but if I had to pick one based on what we have to work with, it would be justified.
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 9:26:56 PM EST
Yeah stuff like this does happen. You might get off from criminal court, but the family can sue you in civil court.
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 9:30:10 PM EST
Originally Posted By diverman:
This is GD. nothing the police does is justified

Considering only 18% of the voters agree with you, you're wrong.z
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 9:32:11 PM EST
Is this the one where there are like 3 cops on top of one dude, and the cop has a ND and it kills the guy?
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 9:37:28 PM EST
Originally Posted By xpired:
Is this the one where there are like 3 cops on top of one dude, and the cop has a ND and it kills the guy?


No.
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 9:40:43 PM EST
It's just cheaper to settle.
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 9:56:48 PM EST
This article states that the Sergeant "Thought the man was reaching for a gun" and that a gun was found on the suspects person. I am willing to say that the Sergeant was absolutely right and that the Sergeant doesn't have to wait for the suspect to open fire on him before he can use deadly force, no officer has to wait to be fired upon and then return fire. I have been fired at but didn't know where it was coming from and let me assure you it sucks.
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 10:09:12 PM EST
Originally Posted By Dan_Gray:
Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
Sounds like a good shoot, although the article could have a lot more info on the shooting itself.



This.


Link Posted: 9/16/2009 10:20:21 PM EST
Originally Posted By CRNUMBER:
This article states that the Sergeant "Thought the man was reaching for a gun" and that a gun was found on the suspects person. I am willing to say that the Sergeant was absolutely right and that the Sergeant doesn't have to wait for the suspect to open fire on him before he can use deadly force, no officer has to wait to be fired upon and then return fire. I have been fired at but didn't know where it was coming from and let me assure you it sucks.


The SGT thought he was reaching for a gun.

Whether the shooting is justified depends on what the guy did that made the SGT think that, and whether it was reasonable for the SGT to think that
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 10:42:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2009 10:43:09 PM EST by Harvey041]
Not enough info in that new piece to tell IMO. Only the people who were there will know.
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 10:43:39 PM EST
The last sentence is the article maybe made him a little jumpy?
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:37:46 AM EST
It was a 1.5 million dollar shoot is what it was.

Sounds like a BS mess to me. Cop seems to have been in the A ok.
Id have shot him in the situation the article describes


craptastical at best.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:42:36 AM EST
Really impossible to say if its the cops word alone as testimony.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 3:06:31 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:12:02 AM EST
Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Really impossible to say if its the cops word alone as testimony.


Most of the time, that's all any shooter will have going for them.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:15:36 AM EST
Originally Posted By diverman:
This is GD. nothing the police does is justified wrong


Fixed.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:17:24 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:18:13 AM EST
Originally Posted By StraightShooter7:
Originally Posted By diverman:
This is GD. nothing the police does is justified wrong


Fixed.


Man, people around here know you're special, you really don't have to confirm it on such epic proportions.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:20:33 AM EST
Originally Posted By Barrelburner:
The last sentence is the article maybe made him a little jumpy?


Maybe. But from the sound of it, 4 shootings in his career, that's putting him up there into "ghetto gunfighter" status
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:21:19 AM EST
Details... we need details.

(Although, I'm leaning more towards "good".)


Either way... as someone else said, it's cheaper to settle.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:33:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By FrankSymptoms:
Originally Posted By FMJshooter:
Sounds like mom and dad are tying to cash in on their pos sons death to me.


Well, sounds like he's finally good for SOMEthing!

People seem to have more worth dead than alive, certainly to relatives.

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:35:50 AM EST
Originally Posted By Hedonist:

Originally Posted By FrankSymptoms:
Originally Posted By FMJshooter:
Sounds like mom and dad are tying to cash in on their pos sons death to me.


Well, sounds like he's finally good for SOMEthing!

People seem to have more worth dead than alive, certainly to relatives.



well it is Oakland
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:36:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By operatorerror:
It's just cheaper to settle.

This, unless the level of frivolous is too outrageously obvious AND the deceased was a POS. Problem with civil suits, is that you have to prove your innocence - as opposed to criminal actions where the law has to prove your guilt.

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:39:19 AM EST
Originally Posted By Dan_Gray:
Originally Posted By StraightShooter7:
Originally Posted By diverman:
This is GD. nothing the police does is justified wrong


Fixed.


Man, people around here know you're special, you really don't have to confirm it on such epic proportions.


If you honestly believe that there aren’t guys here that side with the cops regardless of what they do (just as there are guys here the side against the cops regardless of what they do) then you really don’t have a fucking clue.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:44:43 AM EST
Originally Posted By StraightShooter7:
Originally Posted By Dan_Gray:
Originally Posted By StraightShooter7:
Originally Posted By diverman:
This is GD. nothing the police does is justified wrong


Fixed.


Man, people around here know you're special, you really don't have to confirm it on such epic proportions.


If you honestly believe that there aren’t guys here that side with the cops regardless of what they do (just as there are guys here the side against the cops regardless of what they do) then you really don’t have a fucking clue.


You're correct. However, GD tends to be pretty vocally anti cop. Not pro cop.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:58:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2009 4:59:35 AM EST by TrojanMan]
I say it's a cheap price to pay for one less piece of crap in society.

Think about it like this. There are about one million felony convictions per year. A third of them are drug offenses and about one fifth are violent crimes. About 75% of those are repeat felons.

So if it costs $1.5M for each perp you shoot and there are about 150,000 repeat violent felons in any given year, that's a one-time cost of $225 billion to just shoot them all.

Bear with me now. The average cost of incarceration is around $45k per inmate per year. The average age of repeat felons is 32 and the life expectancy in prison is 63. If you ran this program for just one yearand eliminated only the 150,000 inmates, it would save you $6.75 billion every year or just shy of $210 billion dollars over their life expectancy.

While the program doesn't seem to be cost efficient (net loss of $15B, plus interest), you should remember that it would eliminate all repeat violent felons.


The other thing of interest is that the settlement was approximately equivalent to what the state would be paying to keep the guy in jail anyhow.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 6:14:15 AM EST
Originally Posted By Barrelburner:
The last sentence is the article maybe made him a little jumpy?


Nope––-that happened this year, while the shooting for which the city is paying money happened in 2007.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 8:14:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By scotchymcdrinkerbean:
Originally Posted By Barrelburner:
The last sentence is the article maybe made him a little jumpy?


Nope––-that happened this year, while the shooting for which the city is paying money happened in 2007.


Then OPD thinks the shooting was justified: He's still on the force
Top Top