Reply With QuoteI highly doubt they will indict him, anyway. Minor injuries or not, the potential is always there for severe injury or death while being dragged by a motor vehicle. My guess is this will be overwith in a few days on the side of the trooper.
Is everyone watching this? Seems medical reports contradict alot of what you have said. They produced his boots which were worn through as well as the med reports that stated his skin was torn off his Knees down to the Meat. That doesnt sound like minor scrapes and bumps...
Any opinions on the grand jury trial?
I highly doubt they will indict him, anyway. Minor injuries or not, the potential is always there for severe injury or death while being dragged by a motor vehicle. My guess is this will be overwith in a few days on the side of the trooper.
There is no way the trooper can explain away FIVE (5!) shots to the back. I don't care if Brad ignored orders to stop - he still did nothing that deserved five shots to the back.
The trooper claims to have fired not to kill but to hinder escape - escape from what? Five shots to the back ... IS WHACK!
6 shots, 100 shots, are not the issue here. The Grand Jury is being used to determine whether or not the trooper was justified under Article 35 to use physical deadly force. If he can justify that he was in immediate danger of severe physical injury or death, he will not be indicted no matter how many shots were fired. Of course the trooper said he didn't want to kill Horton. I'm sure he didn't. The fact that Horton died is also not an issue. Faced with his circumstances, he felt it neccessary to stop the situation and will be judged accordingly.
so, you're saying that it all comes down to whether or not the trooper felt he was in immediate danger of severe physical injury or death? That seems awfully subjective.
Nope, that's exactly it, whether or not he was justified using PDF. It will not matter that Horton died, how many shots were fired, where he was struck, whether or not he thought it was Bucky, etc. The Chautauqua County DA's office will have to convince a room of his peers that he was not justified in his use of PDF by Article 35 standards to go forward with an indictment. I just think that they will have a tough time of it.
There were two witnesses to the incident.
One witness killed the other witness.
Guess whose testimony is going to have more clout?
The difference between taxes and robbery is the mode of coercion.
Apparently you missed the part where he dragged the trooper.Originally Posted by Buffy
Um duh. What else would it come down to?
Exzactly. If someone was dragging me, its shoot to kill. They have no regard for your life so why should you have any for theres. If he had fired one shot and killed horton, people would still be bitching.
I don't know to which witnesses you are referring. Grand Juries generally do not have anyone from the defense side, in this case, the trooper. He will not be present. Usually, its the DA, perhaps a police officer, and the jury who may ask questions, but all are on the prosecution side. Any witnesses would most likely be called in for the trial, if there was one. I am not an attorney, so I may be slightly off.
If he had fired ONE shot, maybe Brad would still be alive.Exzactly. If someone was dragging me, its shoot to kill. They have no regard for your life so why should you have any for theres. If he had fired one shot and killed horton, people would still be bitching.
You apparently didnt watch anything on the trial. As the trooper was present. Thats why i started this thread.
And? As i said, if someone is dragging me, i dont give a **** if they live
According to the Buffalo News article from Sunday, the DA is considering a Grand Jury to hear the case as was expected but as of yet, it has not gone. The article stated that the trooper was discussing the circumstances from the back of his attorney's van.
Generally the defense does not get to present witnesses either through the defendant or others. However, there are provisions and circumstances where a defendant may present his own testimony and suggest witnesses to testify before the Grand Jury.
The District Attorney is required to instruct the Grand Jury on the law with respect to matters before it. CPL §190.25(6). The failure to furnish adequate or complete instructions may, in a given case, render the Grand Jury proceedings defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment. People v. Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389, 394 (1980).
A defense of justification, or "self defense" as it is more commonly known, is considered a complete defense which would, if believed, result in a finding of no criminal liability. People v. Valles, 62 NY2d 36, 38-39 (1984); CPL §35.05. When raised, an exculpatory defense, such as justification, must be charged to the Grand Jury. Id. The failure to charge a Grand Jury on the justification defense will result is a sufficient basis to dismiss any charges to which the defense applies. See, Valles, at 38-39; People v. Karp, 158 AD2d 378, 380- 381 (1st Dept. 1990), revd on other grounds 76 NY2d 1006; People v. Davis, 119 Misc.2d 1013 (Sup. Ct. Queens Co. 1983).
The District Attorney is initially under no obligation to present exculpatory material on the Grand Jury level. (People v Filis, 87 Misc. 2d 1067, 1069.) The prosecutor need not present all of his evidence, or embark upon a dress rehearsal for trial (supra, p 1069): "There is nothing inherently sacred about Brady evidence. While it is true that the Supreme Court laid down the doctrine 'that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused * * * violates due process where the evidence is material' * * * this constitutes no precedent for presenting this material at an early stage. The value of such evidence, like any other form of evidence, lies in its relevance and materiality." In determining whether exculpatory material should be presented to the Grand Jury, one should ask whether the exculpatory matter is so important as to materially influence the Grand Jury investigation. Would the introduction of the Brady material "possibly cause the Grand Jury to change its findings?" (People v Filis, supra, p 1069.) If the answer is yes, then such evidence should be brought before the Grand Jury, in order that a fair assessment of the prosecutor's case occur.
In People v. Goetz (68 N.Y.2d 96), the court concluded that section 35.15 "retains an objective element" (People v. Goetz, supra, at 112) for assessing the reasonableness of defendant's belief in the necessity for use of deadly force. But, in rejecting the argument that the standard of reasonableness should be purely subjective, the court emphasized that the statute requires a determination of reasonableness that is both subjective and objective ( id., at 113-115). The critical focus must be placed on the particular defendant and the circumstances actually confronting him at the time of the incident, and what a reasonable person in those circumstances and having defendant's background and experiences would conclude (see, 1 CJI[NY] PL 35.00, Introductory Comment, at 848-849).
To determine whether a defendant's conduct was justified under Penal Law § 35.15, a two-step inquiry is required. The jury must first determine whether defendant actually believed that deadly physical force was necessary (see, People v. Goetz, supra, at 115). If the People fail to meet their burden of proving that defendant did not actually believe that the use of deadly physical force was necessary, then the jury must move to the second step of the inquiry and assess the reasonableness of this belief ( id., at 115).
Instructions to grand juries rarely expand upon a mere reading of the statutory language of the particular crime and the Penal Law definitions of certain terms applicable to that crime, such as "deadly physical force" or "depraved indifference." As a rule, presenting prosecutors do not parse the elements of each crime the way a judge charging a trial jury does. However, certain charges are too complicated to be merely stated without some explanation and, as set forth above, the justification defense contained in P.L. § 35.15 requires more than just a recitation of the statutory language, because if the defendant's view of what happened is accepted by the jurors, they must deem his conduct as justifiable and therefore not criminal. Accordingly, it is incumbent upon presenting district attorneys to explain how this defense works and how jurors are to apply it to the facts in order to analyze whether it is applicable. "While instructions to the Grand Jury need not be as precise as those given to a petit jury, they may not be so misleading or incomplete as to substantially undermine the integrity of the proceedings (see People v. Batashure, 75 N.Y.2d 306, 311-312; People v. Calbud, 49 N.Y.2d 389, 396; see also C.P.L. § 210.35[5])." People v. Caracciola, 78 N.Y.2d 1021 (1991). See also People v. Davis, 201 A.D.2d 827 (2nd Dept.), lv. app. denied 83 N.Y.2d 910 (1994).
I would be very surprised if the Grand Jury returns a bill of indictment.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
So, did I hear Tom Burton say the trooper will claim self defense?
There was NO REASON for that trooper to have jumped onto the atv in the first place. It was a "routine traffic stop" don't 'cha know.
so, ... they do that routinely? I think not. He was trying to be a hero and get Bucky.
Thats fine, on the buffalo news it said there would be a trial and the trooper would be there. it showed a picture of him and his laywer going into court.According to the Buffalo News article from Sunday, the DA is considering a Grand Jury to hear the case as was expected but as of yet, it has not gone. The article stated that the trooper was discussing the circumstances from the back of his attorney's van.
This is from buff news today
SHERIDAN - For more than half a mile, on a pitch-black country road, Trooper Sean Pierce hung on for dear life, clinging to the back of an all-terrain vehicle operator, as telephone poles flew by like picket fence posts.
But seconds later, Pierce said, he had run out of options. So he pulled out his gun and pushed it hard against ATV operator Bradley A. Horton's back.
"I shouted to him, "I'm going to shoot you. Just stop,' " Pierce said.
"He just shouted back, "Get off. (expletive) off. Just get off.' "
"I shouted four or five times, as loud as I could, "I'm going to shoot,' " Pierce said.
The ATV kept racing down the road.
"I didn't know what else to do," Pierce said. "So I fired."
The 25-year-old Horton, shot at least four times, died from his wounds in an Erie, Pa., hospital.
During the height of the manhunt for Ralph "Bucky" Phillips, the unarmed Horton's killing at the hands of a state trooper on June 25 became a rallying cry for those who found fault with the State Police operation.
The 29-year-old Pierce is a 71/2-year veteran of the State Police, stationed in Holland, in southern Erie County. He was detailed to the area near Fredonia early that morning, as part of the manhunt for Phillips.
Horton is dead, and Chautauqua County District Attorney David Foley is expected to take the case to a grand jury.
"We've really put our trust and confidence in the district attorney, that he's done everything he can to find the truth and that he will present those facts to the grand jury," Gloria Horton, Bradley's mother, said Monday. "And we hope the grand jury makes the appropriate recommendation."
Three months after the killing, Pierce, who hadn't talked publicly about it, spent almost two hours inside his attorney's van at the scene late last week, recounting what happened and answering questions.
Pierce was asked what he would say to Horton's family.
"I'm sorry for what happened, but I reacted the way I was trained, to save my own life. I'm deeply sorry for their loss."
Horton family members previously questioned whether state troopers mistook him for fugitive Phillips.
Pierce adamantly denied that claim. He said troopers involved in the manhunt routinely were shown photos of Phillips, along with composite sketches of what he might look like, shaven or unshaven, with long or short hair.
"It was never in my mind that this could be Bucky," he added. "This was a kid, someone in his 20s, a white male, not a Native American in his 40s."
During the interview, Pierce also clarified several other points about the fatal shooting:
• He insisted he wasn't trying to kill Horton.
"I was shooting to incapacitate him, so he'd let up off the gas."
• Horton did slow down once, during the approximately seven-tenths of a mile ride down Route 79, to give Pierce a chance to jump off.
But the trooper couldn't get off. His gun belt was looped around the vehicle's luggage rack.
• Pierce was not "dragged" the length of the ATV's flight down the road, which lasted a little less than 4,000 feet.
The trooper was riding on the back of the vehicle, holding on to Horton. For part of the time, his knees and then his boots were touching the asphalt, but he often extended his legs to prevent the burning sensation on his knees and feet.
The incident wore his boots down to their lining, ripped his pants and shirt and left scrape marks on his watch and gun belt, said his attorney, Thomas H. Burton.
Burton also sought to clarify another point. Shortly after Horton was shot, family members said, several people told them they heard state troopers boast - over the police scanner - that they had caught Phillips.
Pierce said he had no idea what was said on the police radio.
But Burton suggested that he and law enforcement officials have found no evidence of such police-scanner claims.
Revisiting the scene
Pierce agreed to revisit the scene last week, to explain in his own words what happened.
The incident began shortly before 12:40 a.m., when Pierce and his partner were heading south on Route 79, a couple of miles north of Sheridan.
The troopers noticed the ATV and a dirt bike, heading east on Waite Road. Neither operator was wearing a helmet.
"We were just going to tell them to use their heads and stay off the road," Pierce said. "My task wasn't to arrest somebody on a four-wheeler. I had a bigger assignment that night, the manhunt detail."
Pierce rolled down his window and shouted several times to the two young men, who looked back but said nothing.
As Pierce approached the ATV, he said, the operator continued to ignore him and then began to accelerate the vehicle.
"I attempted to physically remove him," he said. "I tried to grab his arm. Initially, I ran with the four-wheeler, trying to pull the operator off it."
The ATV speeded up, with Pierce at the rear left side of the vehicle, as it made a wide right turn onto Route 79.
Pierce ripped Horton's sweat shirt and T-shirt while trying to pull him off the moving vehicle.
"My right hand was on his groin, squeezing as hard as I could, while I was trying to pull him off with my left arm," Pierce said. "I'm yelling, "Stop, stop.' As he continued to accelerate, I just hung onto the luggage rack at the back of the ATV."
Pierce kept trying to extend his legs, to protect his knees and feet. He had the sensation that the vehicle was going well over 60 mph, although investigators later determined the ATV had a top speed of 46 mph.
"I remember looking to my left, seeing telephone poles go by like fence pickets," he said.
Pierce's intentions soon changed on the hard, badly lighted road.
"I no longer tried to pull him off the ATV but just tried to hold on, because I knew if I fell off, I was dead," he said.
At one point, after Pierce pleaded with him to slow down, Horton offered to do just that, to let the trooper off the vehicle.
"He had slowed down to a point that I knew I would get hurt, but I wouldn't die," he said. "We were probably going 20 mph."
Pierce went to push himself off the vehicle, but he couldn't. Somehow, his gun belt had become caught on the luggage rack.
"I yelled to him, "I can't get off. I'm stuck.' I was yelling at the top of my lungs."
Pierce said Horton then accelerated the vehicle.
"I thought, there's no way I'm going to get off this alive," Pierce said. "I didn't know how to end it or what I could do to save my life."
"Until that point, it never dawned on me to pull out my gun," he added. "I wasn't dealing with someone who had a gun, who was an immediate risk. But as these events unfolded, I quickly realized there was no other choice."
Thought he would stop
So Pierce pulled out his gun, pushed it up against Horton's back as hard as he could and kept threatening to shoot him.
"I thought for sure he would stop," he said. "I thought nobody in his right mind would drag a policeman down the road, with a gun pushed against their back and completely ignore that order."
Then Pierce shot him.
"I shot him so I could live," he said. "I wasn't even thinking about [killing him]."
Pierce heard Horton yell out, "Ah." But the ATV kept speeding down the road.
Pierce fired a few more times, until the ATV slowed down enough for him to unhook his gun belt and roll off the vehicle, onto the highway, dazed.
The ATV, officials have said, traveled more than another mile down the road before going off the road.
Later, at the State Police barracks, Pierce was told Horton had died.
"I started to cry," he said. "I couldn't talk for a while . . . [Then] I heard the family's reaction. They screamed, and it went right through me."
Burton talked about Pierce's record as a trooper.
"In almost eight years, he has an unblemished record and multiple commendations. Though this is a tragedy, everyone who knows him is relieved that he was able to go home to his now-wife and family. That doesn't always happen with the State Police, of late."
Pierce, who got married in late August, said he thinks about the tragedy 1,000 times a day, reliving the events that night.
He sounded relieved that the public now can hear his side of the story.
"I would like to think that now that they know the facts, they can put themselves in my shoes, or every policeman's shoes, and understand that we have tough choices to make," he said.
"This was a senseless tragedy," he added. "I just ran out of options."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions