In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Ex-officer not indicted in training fatality

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited September 2001 in General Discussion
Ex-officer not indicted in training fatality By Tanya EisererStar-Telegram Staff Writer Although some Arlington police officers say they are pleased by the decision, the Cushman family's lawyer said the district attorney's office let them down. FORT WORTH - A Tarrant County grand jury Tuesday declined to indict former Arlington police officer Blane Shaw for the accidental fatal shooting of a fellow officer.Cpl. Joey Cushman was killed during a training exercise in June.The grand jury deliberated for just over an hour before reaching a decision shortly after noon Tuesday, Assistant District Attorney Mike Parrish said.Shaw declined to comment, but Arlington police officer Garth Savage, Shaw's brother-in-law, said Shaw told him: "It's a relief, but in no way a celebration. There were really no winners in this."Shaw testified before the grand jury for more than an hour Aug. 29.Cushman, 27, was fatally shot June 7 when Shaw drew his loaded 9 mm semiautomatic service weapon from his holster instead of picking up a handgun loaded with fake ammunition. Cushman had volunteered to demonstrate that a plastic safety helmet would deflect the fake bullet during active-shooter training at Ousley Junior High School. Both Shaw and Cushman were instructors.Cushman's parents, Jim and Jeri Cushman, have previously called for Shaw to be indicted. When asked about the grand jury's decision Tuesday, Jeri Cushman said: "We're just trying to digest it."Dwain Dent, the Cushmans' attorney, said the Cushmans were very upset."They expected our criminal justice system to work for them and to at least have officer Shaw stand before a Tarrant County jury and be accountable," Dent said. "They feel that the district attorney's office has let them down."Dent said there have been civilians indicted in similar situations when they failed to determine that a weapon was loaded or whether it was a real weapon."How can that be a standard for citizens and not be the standard for Arlington police officer Shaw?" he asked.Parrish declined to say what evidence jurors heard or whether anyone else testified. Grand jury testimony is secret.The prosecutor previously said the grand jury would have to consider that instructors routinely kept loaded weapons in their holsters during training.Richard Carter, Shaw's attorney, said Shaw's priorities now are to continue his emotional recovery and to try to regain his job."The last thing on earth he needed after losing his friend and losing his job was to endure a criminal prosecution," Carter said. "... I believe Blane Shaw has already been punished with the turmoil and with the mental anguish."Shaw's wife, Betsy, just learned she is pregnant, Carter said.Shaw is scheduled to appear before a deputy city manager Friday to appeal Police Chief Theron Bowman's decision to fire him. Shaw's firing was effective Aug. 27.Bowman declined to comment on the grand jury's decision.A sergeant also was demoted and a lieutenant received a written reprimand for their roles in the training exercise. Both are appealing. A deputy chief who was to be demoted to lieutenant retired.Although there is debate among officers about Shaw's firing, "the individuals who have communicated with me have overwhelmingly believed that he shouldn't be indicted for this," said officer Randle Meadows, Arlington Police Association president.The association has publicly opposed Shaw's firing.Other Arlington officers said they were pleased with the decision.Officer Joe Garofano said he hopes Shaw can move forward with his life, now that the threat of criminal prosecution no longer hangs over his head."I just know that he's relieved," Garofano said. "He's still got the other emotions to deal with."Officer Tom White said: "They saw it for the tragic accident that it was. Our hearts are still with the Cushmans" and Cushman's fiancee, Pia Lederman. http://web.star-telegram.com/content/fortworth/2001/09/05/topstory
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • Free N TXFree N TX Member Posts: 165 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This just goes to show that cops get special treatment and are "exempt" from the laws that they are sworn to uphold.The gun that is used in the training is marked with bright orange markings. Only an idiot, or someone wanting to get rid of someone else, could or would not notice the difference in the training weapon with rubber bullets and a real gun loaded with live rounds.This whole thing stinks, I feel sorry for the family of the slain/murdered officer. They will not get to see justice served by the same justice system their son was working for.I know I will get flamed for my statements by LEO's who will say that it was an accident and the shooter has been through enough already, but the fact remains that if the instructor was not a cop but instead was a private citizen that was hired/contracted to train cops then his butt would have been arrested and charged with at the very least neglegent homicide.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • nunnnunn Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 36,078 ******
    edited November -1
    Not true at all. The safety ball in this case was dropped on a lot of levels. The officer could have easily been indicted, but he wasn't. It was no sure thing. The no bill was the decision of a Grand Jury, not some administrator. The same Grand Jury that would have decided whether to indict Joe Citizen for a traffic fatality. They had all the facts and you don't.Rubber bullets? Not likely. Simunition was the ammo supposedly in use.Orange guns are plastic guns used in physical training.
    Certified SIG pistol armorer/FFL Dealer/Full time Peace Officer, Moderator and Supreme Ruler of the General Discussion Board on Gunbroker. Email davidnunn@texoma.net Jesus is Lord!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • thesupermonkeythesupermonkey Member Posts: 3,905 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Sounds like big o' pile of Horse-chit to me... A) Training/Toy guns are either stained a bright color or have an orange end cap(BY LAW), B) Even if the look is convincing enough(Which it sometimes is) the weight is a dead give away, C) and any competent shooter ALWAYS checks the weapon.You'd have to be really brain dead to pull a stunt like that... course you'd also have to be pretty brain dead not to notice the these things when the gun is pointed at you...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • nunnnunn Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 36,078 ******
    edited November -1
    You are still not getting it. The training guns were Simunition equipped. Standard pistol, with a Simunition barrel, magazine and recoil spring. No difference in outer appearance.There is no law about orange training pieces.Where do some of you get your information?It was an ACCIDENT. Stupid, yes. Preventable, most assuredly. Criminal, no.Same thing happened with two DPS troopers several years ago in a DPS office. It shouldn't have happened but it did.What do you want to do? This poor slob has to live with the fact that he killed a fellow officer, maybe even a close friend.He has lost his job, and that is probably as it should be. After a thing like that, he probably wouldn't be good for much. So, now you want him to go to prison. As if that would make it all better. Heck, with what he has to live with, maybe prison would be a relief.Let it go.
    Certified SIG pistol armorer/FFL Dealer/Full time Peace Officer, Moderator and Supreme Ruler of the General Discussion Board on Gunbroker. Email davidnunn@texoma.net Jesus is Lord!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • semi-autosemi-auto Member Posts: 50 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    In the Arlington area, everyone I talk to believes that the grand jury was only presented with the APD's own self-report. We think this demands an independant investigation. This thing stinks all the way to the top.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • idsman75idsman75 Member Posts: 13,398 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    nunn is right. Simmunition was being used and there is no telling the difference between a gun loaded with simmunition and a real gun because the only difference between the two is that a gun loaded with simmunition had a different barrel, magazine and recoil spring. I doubt that it was intentional although it probably as a result of relaxed safety precautions. I think "negligence" is the term we are looking for here.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • john wjohn w Member Posts: 4,104
    edited November -1
    REAL GUNS HAVE NO BUSINESS IN A TRAINING SITUATION PERIOD!!!!! Someone must be held accountable if it was a civilian he would be hanging by the you know whats. The police would be the main hangers precluding a jury and you defenders of the police know that so get off of it. But the grand jury cleared the police officer and that is that.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • redcedarsredcedars Member Posts: 919 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Gross negligence, absolutely. But that is not criminal.To rise to the level of criminality, the laws of most states would require the evidence to show wilful and wanton misconduct, a reckless disregard for the possible consequences of dangerous conduct. Just doesn't seem to be the case here, just a terrible accident, not recklessness.On the other hand, at first glance it appears to be a case of gross negligence on the parts of more than one government official or employee. Gross negligence is so inexcusable and irresponsible it justifies the award of punitive damages in civil cases, like the case for wrongful death here. Punitive damages are supposed to serve several purposes, including punishing the perpetrator(s) and deterring others from similar stupidity.That PD is going to get the stuffing sued out of it, and probably a couple of individuals too.redcedars
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Free N TXFree N TX Member Posts: 165 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Mr. Nunn: First off, I must let you know that I have total respect for any man or woman that is willing to put their life on the line every time they go to work. Being a LEO is not an easy task, I could not do that job, although I do have an uncle that was one for many years and being as dedicated as he was it cost him 3 marrages (none of his wives could handle the long hours and the stress). I live in the DFW Metroplex area and the training gun was shown on the local news and it was marked with bright orange, on the end of the barrel and down the side. It was reported to be the actual gun used in the training, it was shown during an interview/news conference by the police department. I may have been wrong on the rubber bullets, but that was what was reported on one of the news broadcasts.In my previous post I made reference to neglegent homicide, I still contend that if it were a civilian then the DA would have gone for this type of indictment due to the fact that many safety rules were totally disreguarded. I too feel that it was a most unfortunate accident, however, a police officer that has been through all the rigors to become a trainer should have been the most cautious person there. After all, he was the one in charge of safety for every person in the class, including the other instructors, and should be the one held accountable for any injuries to anyone in the class. I agree that he probably felt like the world had come to an end when it happened but now the guy is trying to get his job back. I, for one, would have a hard time living with myself (as he may well be feeling too). But for him to say he should not have been fired is total arrogance, he should be on his knees thanking God that he was not brought up on charges. As far as the Grand Jury having all the facts, we will never know what they were told or even how much information they were given. I could be that during the hearing they may have been told "Hasn't he suffered enough? He will have to live with this the rest of his life." Again, we will never know.Now I would ask a question. IF I (a private citizen) were to have accidentally shot and killed a LEO, what odds would you give that I would: (1) have a chance to not be killed by the cops that came to arrest me and they would claim "he was resisting arrest", (2) have a Grand Jury say no indictment because it was and accident? And do you really believe they would not seek, at the very least, neglegent homicide or manslaughter?I am sorry if I have offended you in any way, but many times over police are not held accountable for their actions the same as a civilian would be. I know of 2 separate accidents where the cops caused the death of innocent drivers (one of which was only 17 and the other was either 18 or 19 just 2 weeks before graduation) while running red lights without their lights or sirens on and not even engaged in a pursuit, walked away without an indictment and kept their jobs as well. These were followed closely by the local media due to the nature of the accidents. On the other side of the coin, a few years back a trailer broke loose from the truck that was towing it and it struck an killed a motorcycle police officer, the driver was indicted and convicted of manslaughter of the police officer. (Remember that this is still in the same town) The DA tried to get the driver on vehiculer (sp?) homicide but since the case was so weak (and was proven to be a freak accident the way the trailer had broken loose) they settled for manslaughter.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Shootist3006Shootist3006 Member Posts: 4,171
    edited November -1
    Accidents happen, no LEO or American Citizen should face CRIMINAL charges for an accident. Investigate - sure to be sure that it was accidental - but face it, we have criminalized almost everything and people are going to jail every day for accidents that shouldn't.Ticks me off
    Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    I have seen that many (perhaps most) government employees, whether they be LEO's, clerks, dog catcher, water dept, etc. will sometimes get better treatment than a civilian in the same type of situation.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • nunnnunn Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 36,078 ******
    edited November -1
    No one offended me.I think everyone can agree on this: In this situation, if you had to be one officer or the other, it would be better to be the victim than the shooter.At least I feel that way. Better dead than having to live with that nightmare.Some days it's better to be the bug than the windshield.
    Certified SIG pistol armorer/FFL Dealer/Full time Peace Officer, Moderator and Supreme Ruler of the General Discussion Board on Gunbroker. Email davidnunn@texoma.net Jesus is Lord!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Free N TXFree N TX Member Posts: 165 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Mr. Nunn, I totally agree with you on the part about the preference of being the one to be shot rather than having to deal with knowing I caused the death of another, much less a college. As I stated before, I would have a hard time living knowing day after day that just because I didn't follow the most basic of safety rules that I caused the death of someone I worked with, possibly even admired. This type of incident is the very reason I drill into my kids that once you pull the trigger, you can never take it back and you will have to live with and face the consequenses. Once that bullet leaves the barrel, there is no way to change the events that will follow.I really believe that the officer in question should not be put back on the force.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • zombiedawgzombiedawg Member Posts: 21 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Some of you are calling it negligent, but not criminal.It should be considered negligent homicide at the least.And why would anyone allow someone to shoot at them just to demonstrate a deflecting round.Neither one of these people sounded like the brightest bulb in the box. I thought the first rule was to always assume you had a live round in the chamber.The police would have read the riot act to a civilian if the result had been the same and I am not so sure that they would not face criminal charges.
    RANGE ME
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • LowriderLowrider Member Posts: 6,587
    edited November -1
    But they'd like to hold me responsible if a kid breaks into my house, steals my gun and kills somebody with it????
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.