Prosecutors decline to file charges against Pittsfield Township police officer after 2nd review of shooting
After taking a second look at the case, Washtenaw County prosecutors said today that they won't file criminal charges against Pittsfield Township police officer Tracy Yurkunas in the January shooting of an unarmed domestic violence suspect.
Chief Deputy Assistant Prosecutor Steve Hiller said a patrol car video that was recently recovered and prompted the second review, "just further supports the conclusion" that Yurkunas "fired in self-defense" when she shot 30-year-old Devin Reddick in the abdomen on Jan. 15.
Reddick, who survived, was shot shortly after he got out of the driver's side of a car and turned to face Yurkunas in the parking lot of the Rosewood Village condominium complex off Primrose Lane, the video shows. Police were looking for him as they were investigating a reported domestic violence incident.
Prosecutors had ruled last month that Yurkunas acted in self-defense, but said last week they were reviewing the case again after a video that shows the shooting was recovered. Investigators say the video wasn't previously available because of technical problems.
Meanwhile, an internal investigation into the incident continues. Pittsfield Township Police Chief Matt Harshberger could not immediately be reached for comment this morning.
Reddick is scheduled to return to court on April 18 for a pretrial hearing on misdemeanor charges of domestic violence, operating with a suspended license and refusing to be fingerprinted.
Lee Higgins covers crime and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached by phone at (734) 623-2527 and email at leehiggins@annarbor.com.
Comments
Don Quick
Sat, Apr 2, 2011 : 8:54 p.m.
That would not have occurred if it was the A2 PD. These officers were still scared after he was down. This citizen was foolish, but our peace officers need to be brave and empathetic. Next time consider ducking behind the door of your squad car instead of pure offense. There is a reasonable possibility that the man was confused.
Michael Schils
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 8:12 p.m.
(While spewing coffee all over my keyboard.) Keep us SAFE, you say?! We DO NOT need more trigger-happy cops! Personally, I would feel safer if Yurkunas were to be assigned a NEW job ... checking parking meters ... or doing something that DOES NOT involve carrying a firearm...
genetracy
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 10:39 p.m.
Perhaps Obama can come to A2 and have a beer summit with his constituent Devin Reddick and Officer Yurkunas where he chide her for "acting stupidly".
shirleyd1944
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 10:18 a.m.
Prosecutor, well done! There is no respect for the police and the work they face every day, our neighborhoods need more police around to keep us safe.
Tru2Blu76
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 3:03 a.m.
Just to review: 1. Mr. Reddick was being sought because of a domestic violence complaint. "Violence" - the meaning is clear, this man was reported to be violent. 2. Driving on a suspended license, Mr. Reddick evaded a police road block with a police car following him. He then stopped his car - and without waiting for proper instructions, he suddenly exited his car and made a movement which would trigger the same response from any officer with proper training. Just an FYI to those who think they can take any action they please when stopped by police: They are all trained the same way: if you provoke them, they will take what actions necessary to restrain or stop you. So - don't think you can behave "naturally" or according to what ever is going through your head at the time . - The rational thing to do is to be motionless until the officer tells you what action to take. Keep your hands visible to the officer at all times. Instead of all the inexpert, uninformed statements and questions about the officer, it might be more rational to notice the improper. illegal and irrational actions of the person who was sought by police for a reported crime of violence. We all have rights - but taking actions like Mr. Reddick's are not among them.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 2:52 p.m.
Why is it that you constantly avoid looking at the facts? The flashers on her vehicle were clearly on (as seen in the videotape). She drew down and fired on a suspected violent criminal who was reaching into his pants (completely within her rights). Whether or not he actually had a weapon is irrevelent, as is the point of whether or not the other officers had their lights on or not. You obviously have no experience, no training and no common sense as to what constitutes a stop and what does not, or what constitutes a situation whereby an officer can fire her weapon. Give it up already. You are wrong, plain and simple.
Roadman
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 6:25 a.m.
There was no road block. No hand signal, activated overhead flashers or any other display of authority by officers near the parked vehicles to order Reddick to stop. Then all of a sudden Officer Tracy Yurkunas draws her firearm and points it at an unarmed misdemeanor suspect. I cannot reconcile the complete inactivity of the "roadblock" officers as you label them and the pointing of her service revolver by Yurkunas at Reddick. I suspect that many of the anonymous posters here may be township officers from Pittsfield trying to offer moral support for Yurkunas.
genetracy
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 7:37 p.m.
I did not know being an A2.com reader and poster came with psychic abilities. I am surprised at the number of people who were not there who know exactly what happened and what was going through the suspect's and officer's minds at the time of the incident. Can anyone comment on the past life experience either one of them may have had?
Roadman
Thu, Mar 31, 2011 : 1:38 a.m.
The Internal Affairs investigation has not yet been completed.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 2:48 p.m.
Well, so far the state police, the prosecutor and her own department say she acted appropriately given the situation. But you obviously are just so much more knowledgable, wise and experienced than all those good people. For myself I say good job Ofc. Yurkulis.
Roadman
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 6:29 a.m.
No hypocrisy. Just a lot of questions that need to be answered by a thorough investigation. If the township police cannot perform a fair and complete investigation internally, I am sure a civil rights attorney like Mr. Fieger will be very thorough. Pittsfield's insurance carrier better start getting out their checkbook.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 2:52 a.m.
Wow! Talk about hyprocrisy!!! "Its far too premature to condemn either. " That's all you've done since this story broke is condemn the officer, berate her, verbally assail her character non-stop and attempt to degrade her professionalism, her training and her abilities as an officer of the law. " each are entitled to a presumption of innocence." Nice to see you finally come to this conclusion after going on endlessly about how the cop did everythign wrong and the poor suspect was just an innocent bystander in this cops folly of failed weapons training, lack of integrity, character and courage.
genetracy
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 9:24 p.m.
There is no presumption of innocence when a police officer is accused. In A2, most people think the court of public opinion is enough to accuse and convict a cop.
Roadman
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 8:50 p.m.
You are correct, Gene. There have been no public hearings where Yurkunas and Reddick have given sworn testimony subject to cross-examination about their observations. Its far too premature to condemn either. Both were in difficult situations and, in my preliminary opinion, are partially at fault for the shooting. Both could have acted more responsibly, but no one has heard either of their stories in a public forum and each are entitled to a presumption of innocence.
Roadman
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 5:12 p.m.
One point I would like to make. After looking at the video numerous times I have seen the .05 time when frozen seems to show Reddick's right hand in a forward position with what appears to be his index finger pointed at Yurkunas and his thumb in an upward position. It appears that Reddick's gesture could have reasonably appeared to simulate a handgun. Even though Yurkunas did not mention this at the scene, this could provide a substantial basis for any defense she may have to assert in a disciplinary proceeding or civil suit. Her statements at the scene however where she conceded to not confirming seeing a weapon on Reddick before firing does not alter my opinion that she was not reasonably in danger and should have not either pointed or fired her service revolver.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 2:57 p.m.
Right roadman. A suspect, fleeing from police and accused of domestic violence, and having a previous record of violence against police, jumps out of his car and immediately reaches into his pants waistband. Right. The officer had nothing to fear. Wow. The depths to which some people sink (ignoring facts, making up their own stories, not having any knowledge, experience or training of the subject they argue about, etc.) to try to bolster and make sens of their own argument just amazez me sometimes.
Ricebrnr
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 1:35 p.m.
WHAT?!?!!? Are you serious? Reasonable is different from subjective belief how? WHO's doing the reasoning?!?!? Have you read the pertinent statutes? Who's reasonable belief do you think is being referenced? THE OFFICER's (or any person in MI). The burden is on the prosecutors to prove otherwise (innocent until proven guilty). Unlike me or most other CPL holders we wouldn't have video like the ones shown CLEARLY demonstrating the officer's justified actions. I've had CPL training which includes the legal ramifications of carrying a firearm. Others have degrees in justice. There are lawyers also who agree. The prosecutors have ruled twice in the officer's favor. So on and so on.... And your interpretation of the laws is based on ....?
Roadman
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 6:31 a.m.
She must be "reasonable' in her belief of danger of great bodily harm to warrant the use of deadly force. A subjective belief alone is insufficient.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 2:23 a.m.
Do you have no comprehension, no understanding at all that in fact she DOES NOT have to actually see a weapon in order to defend her own life if she feels her life is in jeopardy? Why does this seem to be such a tremendously difficult thing for you to understand and grasp? If the officer feels her life is in jeopardy, there is no circumstances under which she must wait and see if the suspect actually has a weapon or not. NONE. It doesn't matter if you think she should have been in fear or not. You weren't there and you obviously have no police training whatsoever.
Roadman
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 4:58 p.m.
Dearborn had a problem several years back with its officers engaging in often fatal high-speed police chases resulting in huge civil rights settlements . In 2003, an officer, Agron Seiko, struck and killed a motorist after joining a police chase . Seiko was charged with manslaughter and pled to negligent homicide and left the police force; a $6 milllion settlement was paid out. Dearborn has not had another fatal police chase incident since the Seiko prosecution. Accountability fosters deterrence. Making an example of Tracy Yurkunas via disciplinary action or by a federal civil rights suit is a moral imperative so there will be no more incidents as this in Pittsfield Township.
Roadman
Thu, Mar 31, 2011 : 1:39 a.m.
He has sued.
Tru2Blu76
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 6:13 a.m.
Moral imperative?! What about the moral imperatives involved in being a person sought by police for a criminal act? What about the moral imperative of survival for Officer Yurkunas? No doubt, such a person as Mr. Reddick might sue. He's certainly displayed belligerence at every turn. By that token, he also displayed his disregard for the risk he put himself at. There is no "right" to evade or defy police officers when they are pursuing or engaging a person in the line of duty.
shumom23
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 1:21 p.m.
Good job protect yourself as the domestic violence criminal is not worried about the family he is leaving let alone the family he would leave to greive if he took her out !
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 2:28 a.m.
And the point you continuously fail to understand, AF, is that the officer doesn't need to actually see a weapon if she believes her life was in jeopardy. Instead of constantly spewing opinions, why not ask a cop, a judge, a sheriff deputy. For you to sit here and say it wasn't reasonable for her to think her life was in danger given the totality of circumstances shows that you 1. have not watched the videotape, or 2. have no freaking idea what you are talking about.
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 3:48 p.m.
No, miss cleo didn't tell me that... I made a reasonable assumtion that he didn't want to kill her because he didn't have a weapon. The point that you seem unable to understand is that she may have believed her life was in danger, but that belief was not reasonable. And that police who believe they are in danger with nothing reasonable to back it up, are themselves a danger to any citizen who might be accused of a crime.
cinnabar7071
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 3:36 p.m.
Atticus F. wrote: "The punishment for a family argument should not be the death penalty." Really reaching with statement, he was shot because of his actions after he assaulted HIS family. Atticus F. also wrote:"This person obviously had no intent to kill this officer as you suggest." Did Miss Cleo tell you that or are you Psychic?
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 3:23 p.m.
The punishment for a family argument should not be the death penalty. This person obviously had no intent to kill this officer as you suggest. Under your frame of thought, we should just have the police walking around shooting anybody suspected of a crime. No judge. No jury. No trial. Just "this criminal doesn't care about my family", bang.
RJA
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 3:53 a.m.
I think this officer was justified, and made the correct decision. Sometimes an officer has to shoot to protect their own life. As said, she didn't shoot to kill. (or she would have)
Roadman
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 5:02 p.m.
Shooting someone in the abdomen can be fatal.
a2citizen
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 11 p.m.
The officer should probably spend a little more time at the target range. Her aim is off.
Tru2Blu76
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 5:59 a.m.
"Her aim is off" - correct, as any physiologist today will point out: under stress, the first thing that goes is fine motor control. But the solution is not more time "at the target range" per se. More time under purposely imposed stress while firing at animated targets is the standard conditioning these days, which helps a lot in "better shooting" in real situations such as this one. It's worth noting also that Reddick was moving quickly and that makes hitting a vital area only inches across a lot more difficult. But it's not true to say that this officer "failed" the accuracy test because, in this kind of situation, the objective is to _stop!_ the action of the subject. Her shooting did the job; it stopped Mr. Reddick - and without seriously injuring him.
Matt Cooper
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 10:42 p.m.
1. Yes, in fact her flashers were on when she pulled him over. This is plainly visible in the video. 2. She is under no obligation to wait and see if he actually has a weapon or not if she feels, by his conduct at the time of the stop and the totality of circumstances, that her life was in jeopardy. 3. "Fleeing" is not simply the act of running away on foot. "Fleeing" also includes refusing to stop when you see the police car lights flashing (hint: you are required by law to pull over to the right side of the road when you see the flashing lights even if the cops aren't pulling you over).
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 2:33 a.m.
Oh, one other thing...looking for a safe place to pull over doesn't mean you keep driving for 5 or 6 blocks. It means you pull over much quicker then that. You know this and so does everybody else on the road. It's amazing to me that you take the moniker of "Atticus Finch", who was a fictional lawyer, while knowing absolutely nothing about the law yourself. And yet you sit here and try to act as if you were a law expert. Shameful I say.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 2:31 a.m.
Sure it is Atticus, but in Michigan fleeing and eluding is in fact a felony (4 different degrees of felony depending on other circumstances). If you're going to try to play armchair lawyer, why not at least educate yourself about the laws you are trying to talk about. Secondly, he wasn't just not pulling over for an emergency vehicle, he was in fact fleeing and eluding, and the prosecutor technically could hit him with a felony for that act.
cinnabar7071
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 3:50 p.m.
Atticus F. wrote: "If we palyed by your rules, we would live in a world were a moment of inattention behind the wheel would make you a felon. Very scary." These are the rules we are playing by, maybe not a felony but jail time is a real posibility. <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/man-charged-in-fatal-bicycle-collision-ordered-to-stand-trial/index.php">http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/man-charged-in-fatal-bicycle-collision-ordered-to-stand-trial/index.php</a>
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 3:30 p.m.
Matt, failure to pull over to the side of the road when being passed by an emergency vehicle is a civil infraction. Not a felony. Also, fleeing and eluding suggest you are trying to get away from the police. Looking for a safe place to park when being pulled over, or not actually seeing the police behind you, are 2 completely seperate issues. And need to be treated as such by any reasonable person. If we palyed by your rules, we would live in a world were a moment of inattention behind the wheel would make you a felon. Very scary.
Matt Cooper
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 3:39 a.m.
Again, as I said earlier, you need to get over this hatred of the cops and look at things from a rational, reasonable and logical point of view rather than through the eyes of someone who hates the cops and thinks and insists that they are wrong regardless of any other factors. Ofc. Yurkulis did exactly the right thing, whether you agree or not. Defend the criminals all you want. Deride the cops all you want. But please, at least make some effort to know what you are tlaking about first.
Matt Cooper
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 3:36 a.m.
Ok, one last time. The speed with which you flee is irrelevant. Fleeing is the refusal to pull over when the police are chasing you regardless of the speed you are traveling. Secondly, you are right. There is no minimum requirement as far as how many feet you are allowed to travel before you stop. But when the police chase you (at hi or low speed) for several blocks, such as what happened here, guess what. You are guilty of fleeing and eluding. Finally, his actions upon exiting the vehicle indicate rather clearly that he knew he was being pulled over well before he got out of the car.
Roadman
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 12:59 a.m.
Reddick did drive slowly and pull into a vacant parking space. There is no law saying when you have to pull over so many feet after seeing a squad car. Also, we do not know when if at all, wwhen Reddick first knew he was being trailed by a police cruiser.
Matt Cooper
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 10:44 p.m.
Some of you wannabe legal experts need to get over your all-consuming hatred of the police to try to approach something akin to reason, rationality and common sense. You seem to want to hang the cops without ever once employing anything even close to intelligent thought to your arguments. If you don't know the law regarding police actions, please reserve your comments until you have educated yourselves.
C. S. Gass
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 9:34 p.m.
Good job officer. And about the cameras, the tech is just not there, not yet. It's not durable or reliable enough to 'expect' a video every time. Nice if you can get it, but don't ever count on it to save your butt...
trespass
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 9:07 p.m.
The officers knew who he was so what purpose would be served by getting out of his car and running? Where is he running to? In many instances, a person suspected of a misdemeanor assault would have a warrant issued and they would be given the opportunity to turn themselves in. I expect the only purpose to arrest him would be to prevent him from returning to his girlfriends house but he would have been arraigned the next day, posted bond and he would have had the same opportunity to return to the girlfriends house. It just seems like minimal benefit to put someone's life at risk by making a traffic stop at gunpoint.
Roadman
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 8:43 p.m.
I see grave deficiencies in the manner this incident was handled by the Pittsfield Township Police Dept. If Reddick had been killed, the township would likely had to shell over megabucks to his estate. This video should be used as a primer at police acadamies to educate recruits on the decision to use deadly force in police interaction with misdemeanor subjects, such as Reddick was. If Reddick was a fleeing armed bank robber, Yurkunas' conduct may have been deemed reasonable. I hope accountability is imposed somewhere down the line. I am sure a civil rights attorney could have a police procedure expert review the videos and reports in this case and make out a strong opinion of incompetent law enforcement conduct.
YPboyWRheart
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 8:23 p.m.
Shot him, then said put your hands up. In civil court Pittsfield will lose about a million. This cop gives cops a bad name.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 3 p.m.
Wow roadman!!! LOL you are reaching brother, but I applaud your effort.
Ricebrnr
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 1:22 p.m.
ooo oo while you're at it can you tell me the winning lottery numbers for the next drawing?
Roadman
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 6:34 a.m.
Would he be able to hear it with the door closed and the engine running? Likely not. Given the fact he had a cell phone in his hand indicates he may have been preoccupied with a phone call and was oblivious to the nearby police.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 2:36 a.m.
Don't have to see if the door was open or not. You can audibly hear her shout "Get your hands up" at least twice before the shot was fired.
Roadman
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 4:32 p.m.
We do not know if the door of Reddick's vehicle was open so he could hear what Yurkunas was saying when the commands were issued.
Matt Cooper
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 3:40 a.m.
Actually she ordered him to raise his hands at least twice before firing. Watch the video. Pittsfield will lose nothing.
Roadman
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 8:46 p.m.
The key aspect is whether Reddick has any permanent injuries. I have no doubt many civil rights attorneys would be licking their collective chops about taking then township on in a federal civil rights suit.
tiredofmess
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 8:09 p.m.
Of course the next step is civil which will fair much better. Clearly this officer is not cut out for road patrol any longer.
monroe c
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 7:37 p.m.
ffej440 at 2:51 PM on March 28, 2011 said: "...Without lights, siren or even a spotlight flash how would you know a stop is taking place. I find it disturbing that a person can step out of their car (Maybe he was adjusting his coat- people do that on exit) then look up to an officer shooting you. What should one do in Pittsfield before they exit the car ? Look around for police first and if any around put your hands up ?" Maybe he knew a stop was taking place because he had just fled from his home after his girlfriend called the police to report and assault. Or maybe he knew a stop was taking place because he drove into his brother's apartment complex and just happened to be blockaded by two police cars while another followed his every twist and turn into the complex. Or maybe he knew a stop was taking place because he swerved around the two police cars who blocked his path and continue his furtive maneuvers. Or maybe he knew a stop was taking place because he parked his car and jumped out looking for a place to run. I'm not saying the shot was good or bad, but how can you argue he didn't know a stop was taking place? He wasn't just stepping out of his car - he was bailing after he figured out that he was being followed by the cops in anticipation of an arrest for domestic violence.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 3:02 p.m.
And of course, with all your years of legal and law enforcement training, and your years of firearms training and your many, many years working the road along with your many degrees in law and criminal justice...you can quote those policies? Or at least state what they are? Right? I mean you're the legal expert here so I hope you can clarify for us all exactly under what circumstances a police officer can use force to stop or prevent an attack.
Roadman
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 6:37 a.m.
No, but the police department has enunciated policies and the United States Supreme Court has set forth legal stricturs that officers need to learn and scrupulously follow. The Pittsfield Township Police Department has not come forward to defend the conduct of onsite officers.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 2:40 a.m.
Oh, and one last thing, Atticus. You stated "You should be more concerned about weather or not the police are following proper procedure before they shoot somebody". So now I ask you. Do you have any idea what the proper procedures are? Do you have any clue as to what situations allow an officer to fire his or her weapon in defnse of life? I'm thinking probably not.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 2:38 a.m.
Actually Atticus, let me correct your legal expertise: The cop doesn't have to have lights OR siren on. Verbal commands constitute a legal stop. As I've said many times before, educate yourself a bit before you try to play armchair lawyer.
Ricebrnr
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 10:50 p.m.
A very amusing comment considering how many of you base your thoughts on the officer's ability to read the perp's intent. Kettle meet pot..
Atticus F.
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 8:14 p.m.
monroe, I made a typo. now please quit dwelling on it. But since you aren't able to figure that out, let me clarify. I meant to say lights or siren. Also, You should be more concerned about weather or not the police are following proper procedure before they shoot somebody... Not weather the suspect should have been able to read the officers mind in regaurds to weather he was being pulled over.
monroe c
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 8:06 p.m.
It's obvious that he was just driving down the road minding his own business and was shocked when he got out of the car and saw the officer behind him. It's open season on innocent people in Pittsfield Township! You never answered my question about your authority for the proposition that an officer must have both lights and sirens on to make a stop. Perhaps that is because you don't have any. It's not the law and it has never been the law. In any event, the video clearly shows that the officer's overhead lights were on. The in-car video doesn't cue up unless the lights or siren are engaged.
Atticus F.
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 7:53 p.m.
If an officer is following you, you are in no way required to stop. Unless they have their lights on, or they verbally tell you to stop. Next time you are sitting in traffic and the police pull behind you, why dont you trying putting your car in park and seeing what happens.
monroe c
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 7:48 p.m.
Really? Under what authority? How is it that an officer would need lights AND siren to effectuate a stop?
Atticus F.
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 7:44 p.m.
Unless the lights and siren are in use, it is not a traffic stop under definition of the law, monroe c.
Atticus F.
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 6:33 p.m.
This officer was simply to quick to fire. This suspect was unarmed. Period. I'm not saying she should be charged, only that she is not cut out to for police work.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 3:04 p.m.
Actually she was very composed given the situation. She immediately began giving a situation report to the other officer. Have you ever shot anyone? I'm thinking it would be a very stressful thing to have to go through. She handled herself very well.
Roadman
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 6:39 a.m.
Her post-shooting babbling and apparent lack of composure is not something that a professional law enforcement officer should display.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 30, 2011 : 2:45 a.m.
Sorry Atticus, but the fact that the suspect jumped out of his car, appeared to be reaching into his waistband on his pants in an aggressive fashion and the totality of circumstances says otherwise. Because you don't know the law, weren't there and have no idea if the officer was in fear for her life or not (nor are you a mind reader and can psychically feel her fear or the lack thereof), it's kind of silly to pronounce that she was not in danger.
Atticus F.
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 3:16 p.m.
Matt, it turned out the the officer was not in danger. In other words, her fears were no reasonable. Maybe we could just allow any officer to shoot anytime they confront a criminal... after all, the officer could believe their lives are in danger every second they are at work.
Matt Cooper
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 3:43 a.m.
Actually, had you a clue what you're talking abour roadman, you'd know that the actual presence of a weapon, or the officer actually seeing a weapon is NOT in fact a part of any reasonableness test in an officer shooting such as this. The greatest factor is did the officer feel her life was in jeopardy. Then they look at did she have time to discern if the suspect really had a weapon or not. In this case she did not have time to wait and see, lest it actually be a weapon and she ends up dead.
Roadman
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 12:55 a.m.
Matt, it is a factor to be considered in the reasonableness equation.
Matt Cooper
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 10:35 p.m.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that if any police officer feels their life is in danger they don't have to actually see a weapon? The fact that he was in actuality unarmed is moot.
Roadman
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 8:34 p.m.
Agreed. The Prosecutor would have a tough time convicting with the standard of guilt-beyond- reasonable-doubt that criminal courts apply, but I have grave reservations in averring that this was ideal conduct displayed by Yurkunas.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 6:18 p.m.
The video is pretty clear--he was reaching inside his coat toward his waistband for something. This is not something one does when a police officer has their gun drawn on you, which was the case. Waiting to find out what he was going for could have been deadly for the P.O. Seems to me her reaction was justified. The fact that the suspect was in court the next day speaks to the fact the she (likely) did not shoot to kill. Or maybe she was just a bad aim? In any event, her response given his actions seem perfectly justified. Good Night and Good Luck
Roadman
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 8:56 p.m.
His right hand appeared to jerk forward. He had a cell phone in it. Yurkunas did not wait long enough to confirm existence of a weapon. She babbled "I don't know" as another officer attempted to calm her down after she shot Reddick. Not an officer I believe should be brandishing a service revolver in the future.
EyeHeartA2
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 7:46 p.m.
I was under the impression you didn't shoot unless it was to kill. It sounds like some of our poster are correct. This officer is indeed poorly trained and needs more time at the range.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 6:54 p.m.
I see ffej440 are both seeing the same possibility, he was adjusting his coat not making a move for a weapon he didn't have.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 6:52 p.m.
I have to agree with trespass in that its not "pretty clear--he was reaching inside his coat toward his waistband for something" because there was nothing to reach for. A more accurate assessment would be that it appeared he might be making a move toward his coat. He might also have been merely adjusting his coat as he exited his car not realizing he was about to be shot.
ffej440
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 6:51 p.m.
Except he claims to have never seen her pointing a gun. You assume he heard her call out, but on the second vid its never heard. Maybe she called out while still inside the patrol car- The first vid doesn't show where she is. Without lights, siren or even a spotlight flash how would you know a stop is taking place. I find it disturbing that a person can step out of their car (Maybe he was adjusting his coat- people do that on exit) then look up to an officer shooting you. What should one do in Pittsfield before they exit the car ? Look around for police first and if any around put your hands up ?
trespass
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 6:39 p.m.
The point should have been to avoid the situation in the first place by making an appropriate traffic stop on the roadway rather than letting him reach his destination, park and get out of his car. The two officers who passed him driving in the other direction without turning on their lights should have instead block his path with their lights on and he would have been boxed in and there would have been no question that he knew he was being stopped.
trespass
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 6:38 p.m.
It is pretty clear he was not reaching inside his coat for something because he had nothing to reach for. Her bad aim was because she was simultaneously ducking behind the car door and shooting. If he really had a gun that mistake could have been fatal.
Atticus F.
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 6:12 p.m.
God help any suspect that is ever pulled over by this officer if she returns to police work.
Roadman
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 8:51 p.m.
Amen!
Roadman
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 6:05 p.m.
I believe that this incident underscores poor training and possible inadequate departmental policies that led to a near tragedy.Why did officers at the two squad cars already awaiting Reddick as he entered and drove into the lot not make any display of authority for him to stop, but allowed him to pass by to turn into a parking space? Why did Yurkunas make no attempt to get Reddick's attention as she followed him in her police vehicle to the parking space? Why did Yurkanas draw her weapon and point it when she could have merely unholstered it? Why did Yurkanas shoot when she admittedly saw no weapon?
Ellen
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 5:58 p.m.
Did State police have any feedback?
trespass
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 6:44 p.m.
The State Police interviewed the one eyewitness but they forgot to record the interview. In the field interview by the Pittsfield Police the witness said "he whipped into the parking space, jumped out of the car, went like this (unseen gesture) and boom, she shot him". The unrecorded interview summarized by the State Police was much more favorable to the officer.
Roadman
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 6:08 p.m.
Yes MSP wrote up the report that was sent to the County Prosecutor for review. The State Police detective that wrote up the Lee death and beating in West Willow. Twana Powell, ended up being sued by officers after the FBI used it as a basis for a federal grand jury indictment.
quitoslady
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 5:20 p.m.
maybe this time a officer will be held accountable
Adam Betz
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 1:08 p.m.
Officers are rarely held accountable. It's how the departments keep the smoke and mirrors image that they are the most professional around....some officers are....most are under trained and have a chip on their shoulder.
stevek
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 12:03 p.m.
Maybe this time people will learn to obey orders
Basic Bob
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.
I'll bet the geek had the data recovered the same day he received the defective computer.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 4:37 p.m.
Good call. Now lets focus on the "technical difficulty" that rendered the second video un-viewable for nearly 2 months.
Ricebrnr
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 4:33 p.m.
Good for the officer, clearly the right decision.
Adam Betz
Tue, Mar 29, 2011 : 1:06 p.m.
Roadman...there is NEVER and there won't be in this case, disciplinary actions toward the officer as this is an "internal investigation" which means it's being conducted by her "buddies in blue" within the department. It's shameful this country allows this to happen.
Roadman
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 10:28 p.m.
Cinnabar: The officers present when he turns the corner have none of the overhead lights activated on their squad cars nor are they any way signalling Reddick to stop. I do not hear or see spinning tires and Reddick does not appear to be traveling fast after he completes his turn. If Yurkunas had not drawn and pointed her weapon in an overreacting manner she would have had time to confirm he had no weapon.
cinnabar7071
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 8:57 p.m.
So your sticking with that huh? As soon as he exits the car he look directly at the officer. Are you sure your watching the same video, as he goes around the corner where the 2 cop cars are parked he spinning his tires, who does that in front of the police? I'm completely baffled that you see something different then what I see.
Roadman
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 8:50 p.m.
Are lights on Yurkunas' vehicle? If so there is no evidence that Reddick would be able to see those lights if he is looking to turn into a parking space. I saw no activated overhead lights on the two squad cars that Reddick approached before he turned down the aisle to access the paking slot he eventually entered.
cinnabar7071
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 8:38 p.m.
Did either of you guys watch the video, clearly the lights are on. How can you even dispute that?
Roadman
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 8:30 p.m.
Cinnabar: There was no "fleeing" nor was he even charged with that felony. Fleeing and eluding under the Michigan Penal Code requires a display of authority via some type of communication that the suspect has disobeyed. The officers near the two stopped patrol cars that Reddick passed up had no lights activared nor signalled Reddick to stop via hand or voice, nor is their proof that Reddick had received any communication from Yurkunas to stop prior to turning into the parking space. Why did Yurkunas point her revolver at Reddick when the other officers at the two squad cars never even directed him to stop?
Atticus F.
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 7:10 p.m.
cinnabar, they never even turned on their lights or sirens. There is even a question as to weather or not he knew the police were there.
cinnabar7071
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 6:10 p.m.
Roadman fleeing is a felony.
Roadman
Mon, Mar 28, 2011 : 5:30 p.m.
Wrong! The officer is culpable for inappropriately pointing her service revolver at Reddick for a misdemeanor stop. She could still face internal discipline from the department and Reddick may ahve a substantial civil rights suit against the officer and possibly the township if she was acting pursuant to established departmental policy in pointing her weapon. She does not deserve to get off scot-free.