John, The Head

July 23, 2007, 6:42AM
Houston man killed after ‘pummeling’ police car
Mother, activist say man’s mental illness known; HPD says he was brandishing a pipe

By MIKE GLENN

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

The mother of a pipe-wielding man killed by Houston police said she
pleaded with officers not to fire at her son because he had a history
of mental health problems.

“I said, ‘My son is schizophrenic, don’t shoot him. He’s bipolar,’ “
said a grieving Joyce Guillory on Sunday, on the front lawn of her home
in the 6600 block of Foster near Yellowstone. “They didn’t listen to
me. They shot him anyway.”

Houston police have not discussed in detail the incident Saturday night that led to the death of Steven Guillory, 39.

In a statement released Sunday evening, Houston Police Department
officials said the incident “did not offer an opportunity” for sending
members of the police departments’ Crisis Intervention Team to the
scene. The statement also said the shooting serves to “highlight the
increasing need for more mental health professionals and earlier
intervention prior to police involvement.” Entire Story

While it is true that police receive training to deal with these situations, the fact that someone is mentally ill does not negate the use of deadly force.  While it is unfortunate that the individual mentioned in this article is theoretically incapable of criminal culpability (a fact that ultimately would be determined by a matter of fact finding by a judge or jury), that does not negate the officer’s right to continue living.

One of the enlightened individuals who left a comment regarding the officer who was accidentally shot said words to the effect of, “That officer would probably have rather gotten a broken nose instead of a gunshot.”  While it is less than ideal, (him being shot), and he could have died from said gunshot (I am not aware of the extent of his injuries, but I do know that at this time he is still alive), I think it might be worthwhile to examine how severely he could have been injured by the mentally ill subject.

It is a commonly known fact that individuals who are suffering from mental retardation and mental illness are often possessed of “super-human” strength.  This is because in a normal, healthy, functioning human being, our standards of limitation for our muscular strength are based, mainly, on pain.  The brain knows that exerting more than a certain amount of force will result in injury.  It is similar to our reflex action when we reach into scalding water.

To simplify things a bit, when someone is mentally ill or mentally retarded, especially in cases where their mental illness is a result of a massive neuro-chemical issue, such as schizophrenia is presumed to be, their pain receptors are often, in essence, ignored by the conscious mind.  This is the basic explanation for the “super-human” strength.

Now, let us add to the equation a blunt object.  While I do not have the technical specifications of the weapon used by the subject, let us assume for the moment that he was armed with a 3/4″ steel pipe.  Let us say that it was approximately 36″ in length.  While he was violently destroying a patrol vehicle he broke his pipe.  Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that said pipe was broken in half, to a length of 18″.

So.  We now have a mentally ill, violent subject, with no real concept of reality, with an 18″ steel pipe.  We also have the factors of time and distance.  An assailant within about 20 or so feet can close with and attack an officer before said officer can draw his service weapon and engage him.

Let us examine how much damage can be done by a steel pipe.  When striking someone about the head, neck, or face, with a steel pipe, there is a likelihood of immediate central nervous system damage.  Permanent central nervous system damage.  Let us now factor in the “super-human” strength of the assailant.  I do not pretend to know the specific forces that would be present in this case, and the variables, such as exact location of the strike, bone tensile of the individual (which can change based upon the amount of calcium in his diet), actual maximum strength of the assailant, hardness of the steel pipe, et cetera.

Let us, in place of actual, hard (no pun intended), scientific data, insert common sense and reason.  I would hope that all could agree on that…

It is absolutely reasonable and logical to assume that a blow to the head, neck, or face would immediately result in serious bodily injury.  There will be a severe concussion, at an absolute minimum.  In all likelihood, the victim will have massive damage to the skull and/or spine.  There will be DIRECT trauma to the brain and/or spinal cord.  Possible results:  Quadriplegia, coma, death.

Were I given the choices above, versus a superficial gunshot wound, I will happily take the gunshot wound.

As for the involvement of Ralph Evans (the man who calls himself “Quanel X”), I would respectfully submit that he should get back in his $100,000 sport utility vehicle (or whatever he chooses to drive now), and leave.  His opinion is that the police could have done something to stop this, and did not.  His opinion is that the police were negligent.

To put it quite simply, they were not negligent.  Negotiations with mentally ill subjects take time.  Getting members of the Crisis Intervention Team on scene takes time.  At a certain point, one must weigh the risk to one’s self, the mentally ill subject, and the innocent bystanders.  You must weigh these risks in a split second.  You must decide what is best in seconds, and then stand by while lawyers, internal affairs investigators, criminal investigators, the press, “community leaders” such as Mr. Evans, the public, a grand jury, and possibly a trial jury, and a civil jury pick apart your decision and actions for months, possibly even years to come.

The job of a Police Officer in this country is not an easy one, but it is not an impossible one.  The first step to doing this job is to be willing to deal with situations, and do things that are not popular, to take action that others are not willing or not able to take.  You must subject yourself to sustained abuse from the public, constant ridicule and conflict.  Then, in the end, you must live with every action you have taken, good or bad, right or wrong.

Certainly, the officer who fired the shots could have injured an innocent third party.  If he had not fired those shots, though, the assailant could also have injured an innocent third party.

My message to law enforcement is this–When you are faced with the possibility of injuring me in the process of protecting me, do what you must.  To be accidentally shot by you, in my view, is preferable to being purposefully shot/stabbed/beaten by another.

Given the facts, as I know them now, I commend the officer who made the decision to shoot, I sympathize with the officer who was accidentally shot, and my most sincere condolences go to the bereaved family of the mentally ill subject who was killed.  Above all else, though, I extend my deepest sympathy and express the utmost regret to that officer who made the decision to shoot.  He has a long and difficult journey ahead of him, for doing no worse than doing his job, and we would all do well to keep that in mind…

While I am generally disheartened by stories of law enforcement officers getting the short end of the stick from the judiciary, I believe that in some cases, justice must be served.

While it is true that law enforcement officers in general have a tough job to do, it is also true that they are held to a high standard of ethics and morals.  To not hold these people to a high standard, would be to disregard the Constitution, and would be another step towards the complete and total moral bankruptcy of our society.

When I first read this commentary I was indeed upset.  It sounds like a couple of Border Patrol Agents, just trying to do their job, got caught up in someone’s political agenda.  Further investigation, however, revealed that this was not the case.  The congressional testimony given by Johnny Sutton indicates otherwise.

There are a few things here that raise big red flags with me.  Thing number one:  They didn’t report the use of force, as is required by Border Patrol policies and procedures.  Thing number two:  They took great care to ensure that the empty brass from the shooting was disposed of.

These two factors indicate to me that these men cannot be trusted.  This further indicates to me that they are probably lying about the subject being armed.

According to the laws in this country, you cannot shoot a fleeing felon in the back.  This violates his rights against unlawful search and seizure, and violates his right to due process of the law.

There are those who state that these men are “soldiers”, deployed to a “war zone”, where the “war on drugs” is fought.  Those things, for lack of a better term, are bullshit.  They are not soldiers.  They are LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS.  Their job, generally, is to enforce the laws of the United States of America.  In doing so, they must also RESPECT said laws.  The “war against drugs” is not a war.  It is a massive societal problem, but not an actual war.  The “combatants” in this alleged “war” are not bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or by the Laws of War, the Geneva Convention, nor even the Articles of the Code of Conduct.  They are bound by the Constitution of the United States of America and by the laws of this country.

In an actual war, you can shoot the enemy in the back as they flee.  This is called the exploitation phase of offensive combat.  But, as I have previously stated, the “war on drugs” is not a war.  It is a bullshit term coined by a politician.

These agents lied about the events of that day.  These agents destroyed evidence.  These agents INTENTIONALLY disturbed a crime scene.  These agents EFFECTIVELY destroyed any possible criminal case against the drug smuggler.

The US Attorney for the Western District of Texas did not go on a witch hunt and find these men.  The evidence was set before him, and he did his job by prosecuting these men.

There is some conjecture as to whether it is appropriate for their sentences being enhanced by the fact that they used guns in a violent crime.  I am rather neutral on this point.  If they had been arrested and charged by the justice system of the State of Texas, under the laws of this great state, they would have been tried for aggravated assault, an offense which carries a punishment of five to 99 years, or life, and a fine of up to $10,000.00.  (Note that aggravated assault is a second degree felony, unless committed by a public servant acting under the color of his office, in which case it is a felony of the first degree.)  They further could have been convicted for destroying evidence, aggravated perjury, et cetera.

In my opinion, these guys got a pretty sweet deal.  They should sit in jail and do their 11 to 12 years, and be pretty damned happy about it.

As far as the US Attorney for the Western District of Texas?  Well, I can find no evidence that he is on a witch hunt.  I can find no evidence that he has negatively affected the Border Patrol organization.  The message he sent was not, “Don’t use your weapons to defend lives,” but, “Don’t destroy evidence and violate procedure, and RESPECT THE LAWS you are SWORN to uphold!”

If that is a problem for Border Patrol, perhaps the problems within that agency run much deeper than it appears.

To the prospective Border Patrol recruit that said that, “Your outfit eats their own,” do your homework before you try to condemn an organization.