Officer fatally shoots smoking refugee outside San Jose Starbucks

Monday September 27, 2004
SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) An officer who fatally shot a Bosnian refugee who was smoking a cigarette outside a Starbucks coffee shop acted in self-defense after the man attacked him with a chair and his fists, police said.

Officer Donald Guess was having a coffee break Sunday inside the cafe when an employee complained about the behavior of a customer who was smoking outside, police said.

The man identified by friends and relatives as Zaim Bojcic, 40, who moved to the United States 10 years ago from Bosnia was sitting with three other men. When Guess approached, Bojcic allegedly became confrontational and threw a patio chair, hitting the officer.

The officer reported that he fired his taser, which had little effect on Bojcic, who allegedly began punching and kicking.

The officer then ``pulled out his gun while being beaten and fired several shots,'' said San Jose Police Sgt. Steve Dixon. Bojcic was taken by ambulance to Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

Guess, a nine-year veteran, received treatment at an area hospital for facial cuts and a possible concussion. He will be on paid administrative leave during an investigation by the San Jose Police Department's homicide unit, the Santa Clara County's district attorney's office and the Independent Police Auditor.

Relatives and friends of Bojcic described him as a quiet but increasingly troubled survivor of a Croat-run concentration camp in Dretelj.

According to the Contra Costa Times, he was arrested in 2002 for smashing the windows of a patrol car and attacking police officers with lumber. He had just learned that his impounded car had been sold. He then spent a year at Napa State Hospital, which treats the mentally ill, said his cousin, Sejad Premilovac.

Several Starbucks customers told the San Francisco Chronicle that Bojcic was a regular. They also said the store's new management had recently been cracking down on smoking around the cafe.

I'm sorry for the officer, this is probably gonna bother him quite a bit.

Quoted: Note to myself, don't light up at Starbucks. Of yeah, I don't drink coffee, and if I did I sure as hell wouldn't buy it at some hippy haven where they are gonna freakout because I am smoking outside.

Not a local Starbucks here anyway.  

I was waiting somewhere for someone once and had the cops called on me for having a black coat.

I could see some one getting pissed off like this. Don't blame the cop however was just protecting his own ass.

Sounds like a good shoot.

"Good shoot" for a cop.  A normal citizen would likely receive an extremely long stay in jail.  

Let's face it, he shot an unarmed man.

Tras, you are right, but the problem is with the fact that a non cop would go to jail, not that the shoot was bad.

Quoted: Relatives and friends of Bojcic described him as a quiet but increasingly troubled  survivor of a Croat-run concentration camp in Dretelj. According to the Contra Costa Times, he was arrested in 2002 for smashing the windows of a patrol car and attacking police officers with lumber. He had just learned that his impounded car had been sold. He then spent a year at Napa State Hospital, which treats the mentally ill, said his cousin, Sejad Premilovac.

Sounds like this guy was suffering from PTSD or may have had a brief Psychotic break (DSM-IV, 298.8), which was triggered by seeing the uniformed officer.

Quoted: "Good shoot" for a cop.  A normal citizen would likely receive an extremely long stay in jail.   Let's face it, he shot an unarmed man.

So what?  The standard for the use of deadly force isn't whether the attacker was armed or not.  The standard is "as a last resort when the officer is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury."  I don't know whether the officer's use of deadly force in this instance is justified or not, there isn't enough information in the article.  But to make the blanket statement that the officer should not have shot him because he wasn't armed displays an ignorance of both the law and of the nature of individual combat.

sounds justified to me.  

Sounds like a good case for not switching completely over to TASERs like alot of antis want cops to do.

Quoted: "Good shoot" for a cop.  A normal citizen would likely receive an extremely long stay in jail.   Let's face it, he shot an unarmed man.

SO?  What law limits your use of deadly force to people who are armed?

Quoted: Sounds like a good shoot.

I agree. Don't bring patio furniture to a gunfight.

dont know the whole story, but a patio chair and fists? Tasers suck, end of story. He still should have had OC and a baton to go to before he went to his gun. In fact, pulling a gun while engaged in hand to hand is downright stupid unless you are about to die.

In the end, he may have been totally justified for what he did, but he better not get any commendation medals for this one. Anyone could have shot the guy, I think the true heros might have been able to use a little team work, patience and ingenuity to get this guy without any serious injuries. It wouldnt suprise me if the officer panicked when the taser didnt work, and didnt have a back up formulated, so when the guy went at him, the most natural thing was to draw the gun. I have a feeling tragedy could have been avoided on this one in many places.

My thoughts are with both families... I guess we'll see how this one plays out.

Quoted: dont know the whole story, but a patio chair and fists? Tasers suck, end of story. He still should have had OC and a baton to go to before he went to his gun. In fact, pulling a gun while engaged in hand to hand is downright stupid unless you are about to die. In the end, he may have been totally justified for what he did, but he better not get any commendation medals for this one. Anyone could have shot the guy, I think the true heros might have been able to use a little team work, patience and ingenuity to get this guy without any serious injuries. It wouldnt suprise me if the officer panicked when the taser didnt work, and didnt have a back up formulated, so when the guy went at him, the most natural thing was to draw the gun. I have a feeling tragedy could have been avoided on this one in many places. My thoughts are with both families... I guess we'll see how this one plays out.

How many of these types of situations have YOU handled as a LEO?  

              OFFICER SHOOTS SMOKER!!

Quoted: Officer fatally shoots smoking refugee outside San Jose Starbucks Monday September 27, 2004 SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) An officer who fatally shot a Bosnian refugee who was smoking a cigarette outside a Starbucks coffee shop acted in self-defense after the man attacked him with a chair and his fists, police said.

 Uh, is there a disconnect in the title of the story and the actual event or what?  

 Damn, ...  High School reporters.  

 

"acted in self-defense after the man attacked him with a chair and his fists,"

 ETA:  The officer acted in a humane manner to put the smoking refugee out of his misery quickly and cleanly.  The refugee never knew what hit his smokin' ass.  Saved him years of chemo.  ...

Here we go again.  a Cop does what you are all always clamoring for.  Kill the Muslims Kill the Muslims.  Well a Cop does and now you whine

Serbs are Serbian Orthodox Christians.
Croats are Roman Catholics.
Bosnians are Moslems.
They are all South Slavs (Yugoslavs), and all speak Serbo-Croatian Slavic.  While Tito was in power he held things together and was on his way to a unified peaceful Yugoslavia.  And for many years they peacefully co-existed here in the states.  Unfortunately they hate each other more than anything or anyone else and they all have brought relatives over who have been in the latest war, and the war has reignited festering wounds here.  Let's just put it this way it makes Northern Ireland look like a Saaturday night at Clancy's.

BTW - Did I see some volunteers for seeing how long they last while I smack the shit out of them with a heavy metal chair?  hmm?  I don't see any indications his buddies tackled him to take him out.  

Quoted: Let's face it, he shot an unarmed man.

Hell, I'd shoot an unarmed man if he got stupid like that guy did!  Anyone's who's willing to attack under those circumstances deserves whatever he gets.

Quoted: Quoted: Relatives and friends of Bojcic described him as a quiet but increasingly troubled  survivor of a Croat-run concentration camp in Dretelj. According to the Contra Costa Times, he was arrested in 2002 for smashing the windows of a patrol car and attacking police officers with lumber. He had just learned that his impounded car had been sold. He then spent a year at Napa State Hospital, which treats the mentally ill, said his cousin, Sejad Premilovac. Sounds like this guy was suffering from PTSD or may have had a brief Psychotic break (DSM-IV, 298.8), which was triggered by seeing the uniformed officer.

I think you just said what I was thinking... only intelligently.

He clearly has an issue, not with authority per se, but with uniformed enforcers of any kind.   This can obviously be linked to his history in the camp, etc.

I feel bad for both parties, but the cop was right to defend himself.

- BG

Damn ............

Those CA anti smoking laws are getting tough

More detail...

S.J. cop kills man in scuffle

FRIENDS SAY BOSNIAN REFUGEE SHOWED SIGNS OF MENTAL ILLNESS

By Crystal Carreon and Howard Mintz

Mercury News


A Bosnian refugee who friends say had survived a concentration camp in his war-torn country and recently had shown signs of a mental disorder was shot to death Sunday by a San Jose police officer outside a Starbucks.

San Jose police did not identify the officer involved in the department's fifth deadly shooting this year, but described him as a 10-year veteran of the force. Authorities also did not name the dead man, but a relative identified him as Zaim Bojcic, 40, of San Jose.

San Jose police said Bojcic violently attacked an officer, even after being shot with a Taser, and the matter was still under investigation Sunday night. But neighbors and friends in the local Bosnian community quickly questioned whether the shooting of the unarmed man was necessary.

Police spokesman Sgt. Steve Dixon said detectives were interviewing the officer late Sunday after he was treated at a hospital for facial cuts and a possible concussion from the afternoon confrontation on the 1300 block of Winchester Boulevard.

The incident began about 1:15 p.m., when employees reported to the officer that they were having trouble with a man outside the coffee shop. When the officer approached, Bojcic threw a chair at the officer, Dixon said. The officer called for assistance and fired his Taser, which did not deter the man from attacking. Three witnesses said Bojcic threw the chair after the officer used the Taser. Dixon could not say for sure which happened first.

``The suspect charged at the officer, punching and kicking him,'' Dixon said. ``The officer drew his weapon and fired several rounds.''

Bojcic was taken to Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, where he was declared dead.

Four witnesses said they were sitting outside next to Bojcic when the confrontation with police unfolded.

According to one of the witnesses, the officer approached Bojcic, admonished him about smoking where he shouldn't and asked him to stand up, but Bojcic refused, saying his leg was hurting. When the officer grabbed Bojcic, he resisted, two of the witnesses said.

``He kept saying, very loud, `Don't touch me, don't touch me,' '' said one witness, who would identify himself only as Edo H. ``He got scared. He was scared of police.''

The four Bosnian men, who all knew Bojcic because he frequented Starbucks and smoked cigarettes outside every day, said they offered to speak to their friend, but the officer ordered them to back off.

``They should have handled it differently. They didn't have to shoot him,'' said one witness. ``He didn't have any weapons on him.''

Sejad Premilovac said he and his cousin, Bojcic, survived six months at the Dretelj Prison Camp at a former Yugoslav Army barracks. An International Red Cross refugee placement program brought Bojcic to the United States in January 1994.

Then, friends and relatives began noticing a gradual change in Bojcic's behavior. He stopped working as a machinist in the East Bay and became markedly withdrawn.

``Something changed in his mind, and I tried to help many times,'' Premilovac said.

Premilovac could not say whether Bojcic had been diagnosed with a mental disorder, but noted a doctor had prescribed him medication, which he did not like taking.

In 2002, Bojcic was arrested by Concord police after he tried to reclaim his Honda, which had been seized in a drunken-driving investigation. After learning his impounded car had been sold, Bojcic shattered the windows of a patrol car with a four-foot piece of lumber and smashed a side window with a slab of concrete from a nearby construction site, according to news accounts at the time. A records search showed that Bojcic had been cited or charged at least six times in Contra Costa County beginning in 1996.

But those who knew him thought he was harmless.

``We would hang around the Starbucks for years, and we would feel sorry for him because he's mentally ill,'' said friend Chicho Sofdic. ``He was always laughing and joking, he never fought with anybody.

``He was a quiet guy, smoking his cigarettes.''

It was the fifth fatal shooting by San Jose police this year. They killed two people last year, including Bich Cau Thi Tran, who was slain in her Taylor Street kitchen after an officer mistook a 10-inch Asian vegetable peeler for a cleaver. In that case, the San Jose police officer was cleared of criminal wrongdoing, but it spurred police to arm every patrol officer with a Taser.

www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/9770704.htm

Quoted: "Good shoot" for a cop.  A normal citizen would likely receive an extremely long stay in jail.   Let's face it, he shot an unarmed man.

Define "Armed".        Please, enlighten us.

Left out of this story is that he also shot the mans dog that was tied up and asleep

Seems like a justified shoot to me. I feel sorry both for the refugee and the LEO. A no win situation for sure..

I never said it wasn't a "good shoot."

I just like hilighting and accentuating the double standard where I can, when I can.

Beat me by half a minute.

Exactly my point, TJ.

Quoted: "Good shoot" for a cop.  A normal citizen would likely receive an extremely long stay in jail.   Let's face it, he shot an unarmed man.

True statement there "Tras"
The cops would wip your ass and cuff&stuff you for defending yourself like that!(IF they didn't SHOOT you).
Cops can increase the violence level. Self defence for you would have been to throw a chair back at him.

Tragic. This guy had endured stuff most Americans can't imagine only to end it all with a tirade at a cop who had no clue who/what he was dealing with. Too bad they both couldn't have backed up for a minute and avoided all this.

That's life in the big city...

Its a fact,  if any civilian would have fired a shot in that situation, said civilian would be  going to jail for a long long time.  Fact is I don't think its right that my life is of any less value than the officer's.  Would I have shot in that situation? Maybe.  The news never covers the whole story.  But dealing with the information given, the officer could have handled the situation differently.  I'm not a big fan of a double standard for defense among citizens and officers.  It just isn't logical.  More importantly it shouldn't matter.  Uniformed officer of the law or not.  If the dude was willing to throw a fit like that on ANYONE.  He was dangerous.  As a 9 year veteran officer I'm sure the guy had been through a few difficult takedowns before, odds are he could handle himself in hand to hand.  Theres more to this story than is being told by anyone.

There has to be more to this story than was in the article, and none of us were there so I'm not going to armchair quarterback the play.

I know that here in NYC, thanks to the notorious Eleanor Bumpers incident, the NYPD has a pretty strict protocol on how to deal with violent disturbed people.  The general theory is to contain if at all possible and await specialized help with advanced non-lethal tactics.  That being said, if the EDP is in a public area and a threat, he is to be dealt with immediately.

Decaf Zaim, decaf.

"If you take the uniform off, by law, once the chair was out of the assailants hands, the threat of severe bodily harm was removed. If this was an average Joe who shot this guy, he would be facing manslaughter charges.

"Personaly I don't think anyone should have to take a beating but that's the way it is."

Bare hands have been used to kill many people.  It appears you have a tragically sad situation of a guy who went off on a cop.  The cop, or anyone else, would be justified in using deadly force to get him to stop.

In my home state, the law says that deadly force can be used by an individual if he finds himself in a situation in which "a reasonable person" would feel that he was in danger of serious bodily injury or death.

I feel sorry for the cop.  I hope that God grants His unlimited and merciful peace to that poor, disturbed man who died.  

Shortly after the passage of the CCW law in Texas, a citizen used deadly force to kill a man during a road rage situation.  The dead man had jumped from his car and was brutally beating the shooter through the driver's window using nothing but his bare fist.  The victim shot and killed the guy.  The police told the Grand Jury (an obligatory step in Texas) that they considered the shooting entirely justifiable and recommended a No Bill...and that is what happened.  The shooter, at last report, suffered vision loss in one eye and has chronic headaches from the beating he took from that unarmed man.

If the Bosnian had put down his chair and was still the aggressor, then the cop was justified, IMHO.

Quoted: Its a fact,  if any civilian would have fired a shot in that situation, said civilian would be  going to jail for a long long time.  Fact is I don't think its right that my life is of any less value than the officer's.  Would I have shot in that situation? Maybe.  The news never covers the whole story.  But dealing with the information given, the officer could have handled the situation differently.  I'm not a big fan of a double standard for defense among citizens and officers.  It just isn't logical.  More importantly it shouldn't matter.  Uniformed officer of the law or not.  If the dude was willing to throw a fit like that on ANYONE.  He was dangerous.  As a 9 year veteran officer I'm sure the guy had been through a few difficult takedowns before, odds are he could handle himself in hand to hand.  Theres more to this story than is being told by anyone.

Officers have the legal responsibilty of maintainting order, confronting and arresting criminals, ne-er-do-whells, ruffians, and other unsavory characters. Because they have those responsibilites, the also have the legal authority to initiate contact with people suspected of being disorderly, acting criminally, etc. etc..................

Citizens don't have that responsibility, to maintain order. Since they don't have those responsibilties, they also don't get the authority that is incumbent for carrying out those reponsibilites.

Damned smokers!

     

Quoted: Shortly after the passage of the CCW law in Texas, a citizen used deadly force to kill a man during a road rage situation.  The dead man had jumped from his car and was brutally beating the shooter through the driver's window using nothing but his bare fist.  The victim shot and killed the guy.  The police told the Grand Jury (an obligatory step in Texas) that they considered the shooting entirely justifiable and recommended a No Bill...and that is what happened.  The shooter, at last report, suffered vision loss in one eye and has chronic headaches from the beating he took from that unarmed man. If the Bosnian had put down his chair and was still the aggressor, then the cop was justified, IMHO.

I remember this incident well. The aggressor was a courier, he had tried to slip by the shooters' truck and clipped the mirror off of the truck. The shooter was trying to get the guy to present insurance, the aggressor became upset after a short argument, and proceeded to hit the shooter several times in the face. The shooter pulled a S&W .40 auto, and put three into his chest.

The aggressor was a recent immigrant from Africa or Ethiopia, IIRC. Kinda big big dude, too.

FWIW, I think this is a good shoot. Hard to compare it to a civilian shoot, because most civilians would not be asked to enforce a law as part of their job. If a civilian walked up to a dude smoking outside a coffe shop and tried to force the smoker to quit, it would be seen as escalation of a situation. In that scenario, you should call the cops. That's why they're there...where as an officer asking  the smoker to quit, is doing so because it's his job. That's what he's paid to do. I'm cool with that.

Quoted: Officer fatally shoots smoking refugee outside San Jose Starbucks

SEE??   Cigarette KILL.

if the dude is crazy enough to attack a cop for no apparent reason, well, you get what you deserve...

what happens if he gets said cop down, steals his gun, and starts blasting?

if the cop hadnt stopped him, what else might he have done?

if someone attacks me knowing that i am armed, and ive exhaused all other means of defense, guess what? theyre getting shot too...

better them than me...

I feel sorry for all of you that are emphatic in your statement that a non police officer would have gone to jail.  Simply not the case where I live and work (5th judicial circuit FL).  If you were legally carrying a firearm (which is easy in FL), and the same thing happened (you were attacked), you would have been fine legally.  The ONLY difference in FL between non police and police is that non police have a "duty to retreat" if possible, LEO's do not.  The "if possible" covers; in your house, your family or  others in jepardy, cornered, etc.  It's how you can articulate your "fear for your life or that of another."   Again, a chair is an impact weapon.  LEO's go one step above.  It's not OC, baton, taser etc.  The minute he armed himself with a chair, new ball game.   Starbucks chairs are very heavy by the way.  

Quoted: "Good shoot" for a cop.  A normal citizen would likely receive an extremely long stay in jail.   Let's face it, he shot an unarmed man.

The standard in almost all states is that one can use deadly force to protect oneself from death or grave bodily harm.

Being beaten with a chair (assuming it's a heavy enough chair) while powerless on the ground qualifies most reasonable people to believe they are in danger of having grave bodily harm inflicted on them.

I'm not from TX TJ and we don't use the "Grand Jury" for that here usually.  The State Attorney just decides, and he's elected.

I didnt realize you could shoot a guy for throwing a chair at you and then whipping your ass. I always assumed you had to be in fear for your actual life.

Texas is very pro-self-defense.  If you are an empty-handed aggressor and you attack someone your own size or smaller, you are flirting with death.  The threshold for justification is kept at a well thought out level -- the reasonable fear of serious injury is considered justification for the use of lethal force.

If you are a woman, you actually have greater leeway.  If a man attacks or even presents a serious threat to a woman in Texas, she can shoot him.

If you are 6'6" and 250 pounds and are attacked my some enraged person who is a foot shorter and 100 pounds lighter, you better have a really good reason for using deadly force.  Getting slapped around by some Munchkin isn't going to cut it.  Being threatened by a pygmy with a knife will do, however.

We believe in predator control in Texas.

Quoted: Texas is very pro-self-defense.  If you are an empty-handed aggressor and you attack someone your own size or smaller, you are flirting with death.  The threshold for justification is kept at a well thought out level -- the reasonable fear of serious injury is considered justification for the use of lethal force. If you are a woman, you actually have greater leeway.  If a man attacks or even presents a serious threat to a woman in Texas, she can shoot him. If you are 6'6" and 250 pounds and are attacked my some enraged person who is a foot shorter and 100 pounds lighter, you better have a really good reason for using deadly force.  Getting slapped around by some Munchkin isn't going to cut it.  Being threatened by a pygmy with a knife will do, however. We believe in predator control in Texas.

Bingo.  I can point to three self defense cases that follow almost the same scenario.  CCW holder killing unarmed assailant.  All three declared justifiable.  None of them even arrested after the shooting.

Heck,  in one case the CCW holder chased a car thief for 6 BLOCKS and THEN shot him in the back.  Still ruled justifiable.

If this guy took a hit from a Taser and still had the oomph to attack a cop, there was definitely something wrong with him.  I don't see where the officer had a choice, because if he took a beat down, this crackpot would have the officer's duty weapon.  Not a good thing.

Looks justified to me.

By your comment, you have probably never been before a grand jury.  A grand jury has much more leeway for the state.  A deciding State Attorney looks at the TRIAL, which is much more stringent.  If the State Attorney is undecided, political or otherwise, it goes to the grand jury.  Grand Juries can be ridiculously unforgiving.   I've been there and seen it.  We have people shoot people outside their sliding glass doors (peeping tom's) and it's ruled justified.  LEO's get grilled everytime (rightfully so for all apparent reasons).  You have a MUCH better chance of getting away an a non LEO than an LEO.  I have cases to back it up.  NOT just MHO. HING
I'm just glad we all love AR's!!!!!