Memo released by prosecutor's office explains original decision to clear Pittsfield Township officer involved in January shooting
Prosecutors released a memo to AnnArbor.com today explaining their original decision not to criminally charge a Pittsfield Township police officer in the Jan. 15 shooting of an unarmed domestic violence suspect.
On Monday, prosecutors told AnnArbor.com they were taking a second look at the case after receiving a new video that shows officer Tracy Yurkunas shoot Devin Reddick, 30, of Pittsfield Township, once in the abdomen in a parking lot at the Rosewood Village condominium complex off Primrose Lane at about 5 p.m.
"The available evidence supports a conclusion that officer Yurkunas honestly and reasonably believed that she was threatened with death or great bodily harm by Devin Reddick, and that she honestly and reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to protect herself and her fellow officers," the memo states.
Prosecutors issued their ruling clearing Yurkunas last month after reviewing evidence, including a video from her patrol car obtained by AnnArbor.com this morning. The video shows the hood of her car and the back of the car Reddick was driving. A woman, presumably Yurkunas, can be heard yelling, “Put your hands up. Get your hands up right now,” followed immediately by the sound of a single gunshot.
It is unclear from the video whether the woman made those commands from inside or outside the patrol car. It is also unclear whether she issued those commands before or after Reddick got out of the car he was driving.
Yurkunas had been following Reddick, whom police were seeking in connection with a domestic violence complaint.
The video from Yurkunas' car was not included with the materials released Friday to AnnArbor.com by Pittsfield Township police under the Freedom of Information Act. Those materials included written reports and several hours of video, including a video that shows Yurkunas shooting Reddick shortly after he got out of his car and turned to face her. That video was taken by a camera in a patrol car positioned behind Yurkunas' car.
The video from Yurkunas' car shows a car driven by Reddick passing two stopped patrol cars before he pulls into a parking space. After the shooting, a woman can be heard saying, “He was reaching for something. I’m sorry.”
Later, she says, “He stuck his hand up like he was pulling a gun out or something, I don’t know.”
A man can be heard attempting to calm the woman by saying to her, “Calm down. Breathe in and out, OK?” And, “Tracy, focus on me, OK?”
The video that shows Yurkunas shooting Reddick, and which was posted in an AnnArbor.com article early today, was not available when prosecutors made their initial decision.
Washtenaw County Chief Deputy Assistant Prosecutor Steve Hiller told AnnArbor.com today that although his office is re-examining its decision in light of the new video, "there is nothing new in the video that is in any way incompatible with what I knew before.”
He added, “In any case, if there’s new evidence, the responsible thing to do is to take a look at it."
Also, the prosecutor’s office is “still waiting for some narrative reports to be submitted by Michigan State Police.”
A Pittsfield Township Police Department internal investigation is on hold pending the latest review by prosecutors, said Police Chief Matt Harshberger. Yurkunas has been back at work since late February on desk duty after being placed on paid administrative leave, which is routine in such an incident, Harshberger said.
State police Sgt. Dale Smith, who investigated the case, said Monday that he was aware of the video, but hadn't been told that prosecutors were taking another look at the case. He said he didn't expect the video to change anything.
"As far as we're concerned, the investigation is done," he said. "We turned it over and our findings have not changed."
The shooting occurred after Reddick parked and got out of the driver's side door of a car, records show. Police said they were conducting a traffic stop, and the videos indicate Yurkunas' car lights were flashing. In his arraignment, Reddick disputed that he was being pulled over.
The video from the patrol car that was stopped behind Yurkunas' car shows Yurkunas get out of her patrol car and draw her gun as she stands behind the driver's side door of her car.
On the video, Reddick gets out of his car, faces her, and is then shot and falls in the snow.
Reddick was treated at an area hospital after the shooting and later charged with domestic violence.
Heather Lockwood is a reporter for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at heatherlockwood@annarbor.com or follow her on Twitter.
Comments
jcj
Thu, Mar 24, 2011 : 7:30 p.m.
@Adam Betz I missed your earlier post outlining your experience in the service. Based on that I would like to strike my comments regarding any training you may or may not have had. I do believe it is not a good move by the average citizen to buy a weapon for protection UNLESS they have been thoroughly trained and that take more than a few minutes at a gun shop. I will read any future comments by you with a different respect. That does not mean I will always agree. You posted on an earlier article about this incident the following. "The difference here is that myself and my men are highly trained infantryman who are used to stressful situations....a large majority (not all) of the police officers in our area are not and they need much much more training. Not just in situations such as this but in handling and dealing with the public altogether. They have gotten away from their roots of PROTECT and SERVE." If you think it is imperative that police officers have more and better training you must agree that not voting for a millage will only reduce the likelihood of them getting that training. Your training as you stated came as "highly trained infantryman who are used to stressful situations." How can we expect police officers to get that same degree of training?
trespass
Fri, Mar 25, 2011 : 12:54 a.m.
They always make tax increases about popular services like public safety and education but it is still about the overall budget for the township. The rest is just manipulation of the taxpayers.
jcj
Thu, Mar 24, 2011 : 2:45 p.m.
@ Adam Betz It's sad that I and others I know do NOT trust any of the local police departments anymore...I purchased my own firearms so I can protect myself because this is another reason why I can do a better job for FREE at protecting myself and my valuables. NO MILLAGE. It is sad that you don't trust the local police! How about the State Police, FBI, ATF? How about your lawyer, preacher, council person? How about your neighbor, co-worker, brother? How much training have you had with your firearm? If you haven't had a minimum of 20 hours maybe you should not be allowed to own one! How fast can you get your hands on it? Have you ever had someone beat on your door at 3am? What would you do?Load and aim? Maybe its a relative then what? My point is you can train all you want( and you need to ) but training in an environment that does not have REAL bullets being fired at you can never completely prepare you for that split second you may have to decide!
michaywe
Thu, Mar 24, 2011 : 1:51 a.m.
"....she honestly and reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to protect herself and her fellow officers," Baloney! After seeing the video on HD television, it's clear the driver was attempting to flee and the policewoman was anxious and anticipating the shot. Deadly force? Please, she was so excited or short on range time she 'gut' shot her supposed attacker! Enough reason by itself to let her go - what if it had been a 'real' threat to her and her co-workers? 'She felt' doesn't get it! Shame on her and her employer! WE WON'T BE voting for the Pittsfield Twp. Public Safety millage! Maybe the Sheriff's, given a choice.
Awakened
Thu, Mar 24, 2011 : 1:18 p.m.
With the economic and political environment being what it is I don't understand why anyone would be a cop. At least in Michigan. I hope they all wise up and quit.
Awakened
Thu, Mar 24, 2011 : 1:16 p.m.
The reason they don't train is they have cut the training funds for lack of money. On the face of it your logic is again faulty, Adam.
Adam Betz
Thu, Mar 24, 2011 : 2:57 a.m.
I agree about not voting for that millage....unless they do something to alter the training of these officers and make sure this officer doesn't hit the road again. It's sad that I and others I know do NOT trust any of the local police departments anymore...I purchased my own firearms so I can protect myself because this is another reason why I can do a better job for FREE at protecting myself and my valuables. NO MILLAGE.
jcj
Thu, Mar 24, 2011 : 2:23 a.m.
OOOH HD TV! Big Deal! It does not change the fact that his actions could very easily be interpreted as a threat!
15crown00
Thu, Mar 24, 2011 : 12:57 a.m.
you have to be politically correct today.that's the phallacy of putting women right up front.to emotional for field duty.
Ricebrnr
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 9:10 p.m.
The way I see this thread is like this. This is similar those who don't have any background knowledge watching mixed martial arts or boxing. "It's just a human dog fight!" or "They're just beating each others brains in!" is the common refrain. What is actually happening is split second decisions, actions and reactions playing out. There is much skill in the microseconds between one and another action and how humans respond to it. It is not just physical force there is literally a chess game going on. Some of you see a wanton unwarranted shooting, those with more knowledge, the prosecutors and myself agree that we see a logical sequence of events begun by the "victim" culminating in a justified shooting. On first glance I would've agreed she was quick on the trigger. When I changed my focus from her actions and looked closely at his (as she was also) and paid attention to how those events sequenced, I saw how his actions justified her response. If I had a doubt or if I thought she was in the wrong... I think I've earned a rep here of speaking my mind for and against the authorities and would've had no problem saying so. Agree or disagree, I've laid out the case for my opinion and all the personally directed attacks in either direction will sway anyone.
Ricebrnr
Thu, Mar 24, 2011 : 6:18 p.m.
actually, I have between both of the threads on the subject. Helpfully linked via my profile if you are interested in recapping...
Adam Betz
Thu, Mar 24, 2011 : 2:54 a.m.
Ricebrnr....you state no facts to support why you agree with her actions.
Ricebrnr
Thu, Mar 24, 2011 : 2:17 a.m.
Uh huh... "Washtenaw County Chief Deputy Assistant Prosecutor Steve Hiller told AnnArbor.com today that although his office is re-examining its decision in light of the new video, "there is nothing new in the video that is in any way incompatible with what I knew before.""
michaywe
Thu, Mar 24, 2011 : 1:56 a.m.
The prosecutor's don't agree!
Michael Schils
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 7:57 p.m.
Well I must say that it is especially ironic that you would make such a "trained to maim"-argument when your avatar shows the target of a human torso used by law enforcement on which the bullseye is most certainly a fatal shot. I'm thinking the officer didn't fire a second shot because she suddenly realized the mistake of firing the first... but who knows. I won't even try to predict how I will react while suddenly facing an officer's gun, so I decline to "armchair" such a possibility. I may just instinctively curl up into the fetal position, which I hope is not perceived as a "furtive movement".
Michael Schils
Sat, Mar 26, 2011 : 5:05 p.m.
Not moving or moving slowly may be interpreted by the officer as a failure/refusal to obey his/her command...sometimes you just can't win--either you move and it is seen as a "furtive" motion or you remain still and it is seen as a refusal to obey a command.
Ricebrnr
Fri, Mar 25, 2011 : 12:04 a.m.
Intesting that you would interpret it that way. I did not infer or mean to imply cowardice in citing your example. I only meant to say that we are all individually responsible For ourselves. Curling up into a fetal position as a possible plan is abdicating your responsibility for your own well being. Might I suggest that not moving at all and then asking the officers what they would like you to do next and then doing it slowly, just might be a preferable response. Just a suggestion.
Michael Schils
Thu, Mar 24, 2011 : 3:17 p.m.
I did not intend my "fetal" comment to be taken as an admission of cowardice. Rather, I wanted to illustrate the difficulty one encounters when facing a cop's gun, when even taking a DEFENSIVE posture can still be portrayed as a "furtive movement" by the blue legal defense team.
Ricebrnr
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 8:47 p.m.
"trained to maim"? Wow There's a world of difference between shooting until a threat stops and intentinally killing or maiming as you put it. You might actually want to discuss it with a legal professional. Not that I would expect someone who plans on curling into a fetal position when faced with adversity to consider it. If you fail to plan, you plan for failure.... You might want to submit it as a question to the Vincent Law firm or the MSP officer...
Ricebrnr
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 7:11 p.m.
1) "officers are trained to shoot to kill" NO, Officers are trained to shoot to stop the threat. If such actions result in someone's death then that is a side note. Proof is the video itself. The officer shot ONCE, assessed, saw the suspect was down and broke tunnel vision by looking around. She DID NOT fire multiple rounds, she did not proceed immediately to the "Mozambique drill", she did not empty her magazine or require a reload. One shot, suspect down, held fire. - That sir is good and classic modern day training. 2) As a legally armed person, I do have an elevated chance of meeting an officer possibly at the end of a gun. I have a plan to de-escalate. There won't be ANYthing remotely resembling a furtive movement. I am well aware of this, can you say the same or are you armchair quarterbacking?
Matt Cooper
Fri, Mar 25, 2011 : 1:11 a.m.
yes Adam, and in all your military experience, they also taught you to be a mind-reader so that you can interpret the mindset as well as the actions of a police officer in a situation that you 1. Were not present at, 2. Probably don't know any of the individuals personally, 3. Have no police training, 4. probably no legal training, 5. probably have never attended a police academy. Shall I go on?
Matt Cooper
Fri, Mar 25, 2011 : 1:07 a.m.
No trespass. I never said anything of the sort. But if the civilians want to pass judgement on the activities of cops, they should at least be responsible enought so know the laws involved in situations like this one. And you and other posters, in my opinion, know little to nothing about the laws or policies involved in cases such as this. On the other hand, I have a degree in criminal justice and have long studied things just like this case. I don't spew opinion, I speak from my education and knowledge.
Ricebrnr
Fri, Mar 25, 2011 : 12:15 a.m.
Masaad Ayoob has written several stories of law enforcement and civilians feeling remorse after justified shoots and how that remorse and prejudice was used against them. Sounds awfully familiar... Also isn't a second shot or a double tap "overkill" if the victim ceases to be a threat? The answer to that is much different here in the civilian world. A second shot on a person who is no longer a threat is often the difference between a just shooting and Murder.
Adam Betz
Thu, Mar 24, 2011 : 2:52 a.m.
@ Cooper: NO, I am not a police officer. However, I have been involved in military missions that required me to be a "cop". So yes, you could say I've "worked as a cop." Are you a cop? Have you been in the military? If you say yes to both, I think you would realize (much like several of my buddies who are or have been both) will say they are much alike, depending on your mission. The difference? TRAINING. A LARGE majority of civilian police are under trained. I hope you were sitting down for that because there is a common misconception out there that civilian police are the most professional, best trained members of our society...this video proves that is not true. And before you pre-prejudge...I'm pretty sure I know more about a double tap to center mass means more than you. If you are a police officer, I hope you can realize that if the officer in question did intend to actually fire with absolute authority and without hesitation, she would have fired twice...center mass (as you said was protocol). She did not...she fired once....in the gut....and apologized several times on video. Clearly not the state of someone who meant to defend themselves. This was not about self defense.
trespass
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 10:05 p.m.
@Matt- once again you say only police officers can judge other police officers. You obviously don't believe that police should be under civilian review.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 8:16 p.m.
Adam, are you a cop? Ever been through the police academy? Ever worked as a cop? And please spare me the I-was-in-the-military-so-that-qualifies-me routine. The military is nothing like the police. Unless I am wrong, the academy used to train cadets to do what's called a 'double-tap'. Two shots, center mass. Suspect drops, stop firing and assess the situation. This officer actually did him a favor by not firing a second shot.
Adam Betz
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 7:45 p.m.
Ricebrnr, although I follow most of your posts on this site an I agree with most of what you say, there was NOTHING that resembled training (even poor training at that) in the way that officer handled that gunshot...other than maybe re-holstering her weapon and apologizing because she knew she screwed up. If that is modern day training, I'm glad to be a member of the old school infantry.
jcj
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 7:03 p.m.
trespass "he says that those two police cars were driving in the opposite direction as Officer Yurkunas and the supect, so they were not purposely blocking the street but just approaching Officer Yurkunas to assist" Not true period! The video clearly shows the other two police cars PARKED the only movement is when the nearest car starts to back up to follow the suspect! "the idea that the officers were guiding him into the parking lot makes no sense. The parking lot was open on the other end" What evidence do you have that the other end was not blocked out of view? This was the most remote part of the complex it would make sense that they were directing him there! Unlike some who purports to have all the answers I don't know if that was their intention. Some are so blinded by hatred for the police that they will not accept any thing other than the police are evil.
jcj
Thu, Mar 24, 2011 : 2:19 a.m.
You don't seem to get it! I am not never have been a police officer! I am fully aware of the layout of the roads in this complex!
trespass
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 10:01 p.m.
If you look at a map you will see that the other end of the parking lot was open and if you read the reports you will see that all four police cars are accounted for. I have no hatred of police. I just believe in civilian oversight. You seem blinded by the "fraternity" of police. You seem to believe that only other police officers can judge police officers.
Michael Schils
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 6:12 p.m.
I don't see where the person who was shot had time to de-escalate or comply with anything. I respectfully suggest that it is really easy for armchair commentary to predict how they would react if they ever were to suddenly find themselves staring down the barrel of a gun. But until it actually happens to you, I don't know how you can be so sure that you won't involuntarily make some sort of a "furtive movement" that could later be used to justify your early demise.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 8:12 p.m.
Ummm, in case you hadn't seen the other video, the suspect exited his vehicle and immediately appeared to reach his hand into his pants.
Ricebrnr
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 5:41 p.m.
oh dear, I suppose not letting yourself get into situations where the authorities would have a reason to point weapons at you is too much to ask. OR having a plan to de-escalate and comply if such a situation arose, also too much to ask?
Michael Schils
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 2:30 p.m.
After now seeing this second video, what I don't understand is why Yurkunas felt so much more in danger than the other officers who were already at the complex. In the opening seconds, the suspect drives right past officers in two cars, none of which have their guns drawn or even have their lights turned on. Yet Yurkunas immediately takes it upon herself to escalate the situation by pointing her gun at the suspect. Why? Wasn't she responding to the same information that was given to the other officers? Why was she so much more afraid for her life than they were?
Matt Cooper
Fri, Mar 25, 2011 : 12:51 a.m.
Michael, I find it amusing how much people think they know about the law. Fleeing doesn't just mean running away on foot. It also means not stopping when the cops turn on their lights and attempt to pull you over, which is exactly what the suspect did. Watch the video closely. The cop cars lights were flashing when she pulled him over and BEFORE he got out of his vehicle. He "fled" the moment he decided not to pull over when he saw the flasghin lights on the roof of the cop car.
Michael Schils
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 8:55 p.m.
Matt, the officer drew her gun BEFORE the suspect had any chance to "flee". I am equally amazed that you are ok with officers shooting citizens PRE-EMPTIVELY, just in case they are reaching for a weapon. So we agree to disagree.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 8:11 p.m.
Michael, she was chasing a fleeing suspect and wasw well within her rights (and training) to exit her vehicle with her weapon drawn. Why is that such a hard concept for you to understand? "Had she not had her gun drawn, she would have had more time to discover that the man was not armed before she fired her shot." Yes, and had he actually had a gun he would have had more time to get off the first shot and possibly kill the officer. it amazes me that you cannot grasp the ridiculousness of thinking the ofc. should have waited to see if the suspect really had a gun or not.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 8:07 p.m.
I know trespass. The cops are always wrong regardless of laws or ethics or whatever. But the fact remains that what the other officers were doing there is totally irrelevant concerning what Yurkulis saw or why she felt a need to draw her weapon and fire it. But I know I can't convince you of that because from reading your posts in the past I know that you are so mistrusting of the police they are going to be wrong no matter what I or anyone else says. Including both the WCSD internal investigators as well as the MSP. So, whatever.
Michael Schils
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 7:01 p.m.
Matt, in your 2:15pm reply, you seem to have the mistaken impression that the officer drew her gun in response to the man reaching for a possible weapon. Please watch the video again and you will clearly see that she had her gun drawn and pointing at the man before he even openned the door. The decision to draw the gun is what is being questioned here, as it escalated the situation. Had she not had her gun drawn, she would have had more time to discover that the man was not armed before she fired her shot. Ironically, in a way, the man is lucky the officer was so afraid for her safety. Had she stood her ground more instead of firing off a round as she was ducking behind her car door, she would have been more accurate and, well, officers are trained to shoot to kill.
trespass
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 6:23 p.m.
@Matt Cooper- the idea that the officers were guiding him into the parking lot makes no sense. The parking lot was open on the other end. Also, I have listened to the only civilian witnesses testimony and he says that those two police cars were driving in the opposite direction as Officer Yurkunas and the supect, so they were not purposely blocking the street but just approaching Officer Yurkunas to assist. If they wanted him to stop they should have just turned on their lights.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 6:18 p.m.
And Michael..."concern that allowing officers to shoot merely when they are afraid (or when they see someone reaching for a weapon that isn't there)". And how exactly would she have known it wasn't a weapon he was reaching for? Should she have waited and risked getting killed to find out?
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 6:15 p.m.
Also, Yurkunas didn't escalate anything. She responded to what she saw, which was a man getting out of a car with his hands reaching into his pants. Given the totality of the circumstances she had every right and cause to believe he was reaching for a weapon. I would have done the exact same thing she did. Good job, Officer Yurknas!
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 6:13 p.m.
Using other units to block off strees and apartment entrances is a common tactic used by police to control the flow of the chase to an area where an arrest can be effected with minimal risk to the officers or the public. So your point there is moot and irrelevant. Secondly, the other officers were still in their vehicles when the suspect got out with his hands appearing to be reaching into his pants waistline. As soon as the one officer saw what was going on, he too drew down on the suspect. Try watching the video before pronouncing jdgement.
Michael Schils
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 5:52 p.m.
I agree with you both as I don't see anything malicious or criminal in the officer in question's conduct, I would only prefer that she either receives better training or finds a different job. I share Adam's concern that allowing officers to shoot merely when they are afraid (or when they see someone reaching for a weapon that isn't there) is not good policy.
Adam Betz
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 5:17 p.m.
@Roadman, I couldn't agree more with what you there. As I've said in earlier posts, it is most likely departmental policy and training that needs to change and I blame the department more than I do the officer who pulled the trigger. She should be taken off the road and given an administration position for the duration of her career, which is still a respectful position. However, just like would happen to a military officer for making a hard decision that a jury finds bad 6 months down the road, she needs to be taken off the front line.
Roadman
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 4:30 p.m.
It is important to note that there was no display of authority by the police for the suspect to stop until he saw a gun pointed at him. What is unclear is whether or not her actions in drawing her weapon under these circumstances was in accordance or in contravention of departmental policy. Very often suspects like these are on drugs,mentally or emotionally unstable and may be resistant to authority. While I am critical of her conduct I believe that departmental disciplinary action rather than criminal charges may be more appropriate as she was clearly in a difficult situation and a jury may be sympathetic to her.
Adam Betz
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 2:45 p.m.
Michael, very well said. I believe the escalation of force by the officer is the centerpiece issue as to why this went down as it did so quickly. As I've said on other posts, it is probably a matter of under trained and under experienced police that caused this issue. It is odd how no lights were on and the other 2 police vehicles appeared to be simply blocking an entrance...again, with no lights now. It certainly did not appear to be that big of a threat or an issue until Yurkunas got out of her vehicle and drew her weapon. She stepped over that line of professional self control a police officer or person in the military needs to have at all times when dealing with a civilian population.
Adam Betz
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 1:51 p.m.
The most disturbing thing I keep hearing people say (and is most likely true) is that a police officer does not have to see a weapon before they can shoot. I do support our community safety personnel but it's a potentially hazardous job. An officer knows this when becoming a police officer. The dangers come with the territory. I don't think it's a good policy to let officers fire when they are afraid. They need to be above that fear and restrain themselves, even if it means getting hurt themselves.
Adam Betz
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 5:13 p.m.
Roadman, I know exactly what you mean as I've personally been in similar situations. This makes my point valid in fact because the weapon a suspect may have is not the only factor...that is when other instincts, training and prior experience come into the factor. Again, this officer used an extreme lack of emotional control in being unable to harness her adrenaline and emotional state by no holding fire until she could be sure without a doubt the man had a weapon. I find it not only disturbing but extremely unacceptable that an officer only needs to feel threatened in order to cause death to a citizen who he or she is supposed to protect. That answer is not good enough for me because one day it may be myself, a family member or a buddy of mine on the wrong end of a weapon and dead over a misunderstanding. Although I certainly do not think the officer in this case should be punished, she should be let go from being in a position to handle a firearm around citizens of the community and should be given an administration job for the rest of her career because of this mistake.
Roadman
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 4:37 p.m.
That is correct. However not seeing an actual gun factors into the calculation of reasonableness, but it is not the only factor. Remember the Lee case escalated because he had a cell phone in his hand that alarmed officers who continued to keep their weapons drawn despite being told it was a cell phone by the suspect. He was jumped by deputies who caused his asphxiation. A jury acquitted a deputy of violating his civil rights.
Jen Eyer
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 1:38 p.m.
A reminder to please keep your comments civil and constructive, particularly when they are directed at other commenters. It's OK to disagree, but it's not OK to call another person's comment "stupid."
Michael Schils
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 2:57 p.m.
Thank you, Jen, for encouraging civility. A few comments upthread, several members of the "Go Blue" crowd are calling everyone that disagrees with them "morons" that "hate the police". Considering the strict moderation being imposed here, I'm a bit surprised such less-than-constructive comments were allowed to remain...
Mumbambu, Esq.
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 1:04 p.m.
As I read through all the comments and try to think about all different sides of this story, something clicked. An important thing to remember is that, while the Officer doesn't appear to have acted with negligence etc. that does not mean that Reddick "deserved" to be shot. There is a big distinction there that I think is lost. It was an unfortunate incident - it doesn't have to be more than that. Taking the "side" of Yurkunus doesn't mean you think Reddick "deserved" it. I imagine these videso will go along ways for training purposes.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 4:32 a.m.
Couple points of law regarding police shootings: 1. The cop is under no obligation to wait and see if the suspect is actually drawing a weapon or not. 2. If the officer feels her/his life or the lives of others is in jeopardy he/she is entitled to take appropriate action to aleviate the threat. 3. The cop has no responsibility to actually visualize a weapon. The reasonable belief that a weapon is present is all that is required (meaning if the suspect suddenly reaches into his pocket, the officer is not required to wait and see if it's a gun he's reaching for or not, lest it actually be a weapon and s/he gets her/himself killed). 4. Whether or not the suspect girlfriend told the cops that he didn't have a weapon is irrelevant. The only relevant thing here is did the officer feel her life was in jeopardy. Since none of you can read her mind, and were not present at this scene, your opinion means squat.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:29 p.m.
And maybe it could have been better handled had the suspect simply done as he was legally ordered to do by the officer and put his hands in the air.
trespass
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:02 p.m.
I have not once said that she should be criminally charged but I do believe that this situation should have been avoided by better police procedures and decision making before she ever drew her weapon and pointed it at him. It is like a football coach looking at game film and pointing out the mistakes in the game. I am afraid that the police department is so concentrated on protecting the officer that they are missing the teachable moment. The public will never know if they fixed any of the mistakes because the FOIA law exempts internal investigations and personnel records for police.
genetracy
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 5:23 a.m.
Sorry Matt, but you make too much sense.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 4:36 a.m.
Secondly, I challenge the armchair lawyers who frequent this site to find me a single law, anywhere, that states that a police officer has a legal requirement to wait and see, or visualize a weapon before taking action. The fact of the matter is that NONE of the anti-cop posters here know the law. Ofc. Yurkulis was justified (both legally and ethically) in taking the actions she took to protect her own life and that of the other officers with her that day.
genetracy
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 4:26 a.m.
The officer should have made like Heather Locklear in the old "TJ Hooker" series and threw her nightstick at the guy and temporarily incapacitaed him. Then he he would be handcuffed, sent to anger management classes, reconciling with his girlfriend, and all would be well agin in AA land.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 4:23 a.m.
Funny how some people hate police so much that no matter if the cops were justified or not, in the eyes of these morons that hate them so much they will ALWAYS be in the wrong and need to be fire, convicted and possibly hung in the public square.
Adam Betz
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 7:53 p.m.
Cooper, I don't hate police officers...I'm good friends with several. But I do think standing up to what has become a regular occurrence of police incompetence is the right thing to do...and so I believe many people in our society are fed up with just that. Don't take things out of context and run with it. I know enough police officers to know how corrupt, political and incompetent these small town and big city departments are. The only thing we can do is speak our mind...we all know the police won't "police" themselves.
genetracy
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 7:45 p.m.
Well Mike, don't beat your girlfriend like this guy did so then the police will have no reason to stop you. And if you are ever stopped by the police, comply with their orders and you will pive a long, healthy life. Don't play curbside civil rights attorney. If you are violated, then sue.
Michael Schils
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 6:32 p.m.
Hey guys, it is likely that you included me in your reference to "morons" so I just want to correct you by saying that I certainly do not "hate police", I just DON'T WANT TO GET SHOT by them. Big difference. The many cops that perform their job well share my concern over the "trigger happy" few.
jcj
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 11:46 a.m.
I agree totally genetracy
jcj
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 11:45 a.m.
I am waiting for the day a suspect kills an officer that kept their pistol holstered because some morons condemned the actions of this officer! And the morons will still blame the dead officer!
genetracy
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 4:29 a.m.
I am waiting for the day a suspect gets killed in a deadly shoot out with local police and the morons will still come out of the woodwork and condemn the actions of the police, claiming they should have "used restraint".
Roadman
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 1:33 a.m.
Remember the Adham Farha case where the fellow spent three days in jail post-arrest after shooting an armed man in Farha's car in the driveway of his Ann Arbor home one morning? Reddick was not even armed here. No "chase" either. Deadly force just for jerking one's hand forward after discovering a gun was pointed on him. Fortunately no one was killed
EBL
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 8:38 a.m.
A reasonable and normal response to having a police officer aiming a weapon at you is to put your hands up--not to make a move toward your waistband.
jcj
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 1:24 a.m.
The more I think about it the cowards are the ones that try to castigate police officers at every turn. But then are the first to call on them.
jcj
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 1:22 a.m.
@Heardoc Nope not a cop never been a cop. Just because I don't think this officer needs to be tried in the press does not mean I have to be an officer. Just like because you and others always come down on the side of the suspect it does not mean you are criminals. I do not know exactly what this suspect did or may have done. I have not judged him. But after looking at the video I do not think the officer acted unreasonably under the circumstance known to the officer at the time. It is easy now that we know he did not have a weapon to place blame. But I submit that even you would have pulled your gun if you were in the officers shoes.
trespass
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:35 a.m.
The police keep telling us that tasers save lives because they use them instead of needing to use a gun. Where was her taser?
Matt Cooper
Fri, Mar 25, 2011 : 12:45 a.m.
Or perhaps you might ask where is the policy or regulation that requires any officer to use a Taser instead of a firearm when they feel their life is in jeopardy. I'm guessing you won't find such a policy.
average joe
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:23 a.m.
So this guy is followed into this parking lot by at least one police car that at that point had it's lights on. He then drives past two other police cars in this same lot. And then as the first video shows, he exits his car quickly, & perhaps seems startled by this officer pointing a gun at him?? If he remained in the car we wouldn't be talking about it now. I was always told that if I was ever stopped by police, I was to remain in the car, both hands on the wheel, & don't make any sudden moves. I haven't been shot yet....
trespass
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:19 a.m.
That is one of the mistakes made by the officer because she assumed and radioed to the dispatcher that the suspect was "running" when he passed the two police cars but those police cars did not have their lights on and were driving in the opposite direction. They made no attempt to stop him, which they could easily have done by blocking the roadway and turning their lights on. Why did they not do that? The "chase" took all of 10 seconds between the time the officer turned on her lights and he pulled into a parking space. If she really justified pulling a gun and pointing it at him because he ran, that was in fact not true.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 4:39 a.m.
Karen, some here file their FOIA requests, read the police reports and watch videos and assume they know the law well enough to interpret in a legal framework the actions of all officers, everywhere and in every case. Unfortunately for them, they are most often wrong in their assessments. But you can't tell tham that...because they already know everything.
trespass
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 2:49 a.m.
Karen- I have seen 14 discs full of videos as well as reading all of the police reports. Did you have a question about what I saw on the videos?
Karen St John
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 2:30 a.m.
Did you see both videos?
trespass
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:40 a.m.
jcj- the roadway did divide but if they wanted to block his path they just had to move up a few feet to block all exits and with Yurkunas's car and Willmut's car behind him he would have been boxed in by four police cars. Also, if they wanted him to stop they should have turned on their lights. For some reason they chose not to stop him.
jcj
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:33 a.m.
"If she really justified pulling a gun and pointing it at him because he ran, that was in fact not true." That in fact has not been established! You assume he did not run. You have NO way of knowing what he was doing or what his intentions were. The officers had two drives blocked. One to the left and one straight ahead. As long as we are going to play a guessing game. Maybe they were in fact purposely directing him to the drive on the right.
Roadman
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:13 a.m.
One thing is for sure. This video would make a great law enforcement academy training resource on when deadly force should be employed. Everyone can engage in Monday morning quarterbacking and there sems to be no consensus.
nekkidfish
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : midnight
What part of "the suspect may be armed" do you not understand. The suspect was reported to have access to a gun. The probability that the gun was in his vehicle is pretty high. To suggest that an officer approach a suspect that is agitated, combative and possibly armed with nothing but a smile is ludicrous. To suggest that an officer wait til they see a gun pointed at them before taking action is just as silly. If the officer would have waited to see if what he appears in the video was actually a gun she would in all probability be dead. I would suggest that all of you Internet Lawyers take advantage of the various Citizens Police Academys that are offered around the county or even see about a ride-long program. It might just introduce you to reality. I am no fan of the police but at least I am aware of what actually happens on the streets.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 4:21 a.m.
Actually roadman, you are quite wrong. You can clearly hear the cops voice yelling somethign to the effect of "Get your hands up" well before the first shot is fired.
Roadman
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 1:25 a.m.
There is absolutely zero proof that Reddick ever was given any command to raise his hands prior to being shot, let alone him being able to have heard such a command, assuming it had been given at all. There is no information that that police had information Reddick owned a gun , had one in the car, or on his person before he was shot. The cell phone found in his hand was inconsequential since Yurkunas admittedly never saw it prior to either drawing her weapon or firing it. She only saw his hand move forward.
jcj
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:26 a.m.
@ Roadman You have said "There is no proof that the suspect ever heard her command. Many times commands cannot be heard due to outside noise, car radios, or the suspect may be hearing impaired." Now you say "Possibly armed? I guess everyone who has a jacket on could be possible armed. Well I guess everyone that has ears could be "hearing impaired."
trespass
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:22 a.m.
Nekkidfish you are just misinformed. The police reports state that the girlfriend told the officers that he did not have a gun or access to a gun.
Roadman
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:10 a.m.
Possibly armed? I guess everyone who has a jacket on could be possible armed. There was no positive confirmation he had a gun or other weapon in the vehicle.
Karen St John
Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:49 p.m.
If a suspect gives chase, it is standard police procedure to draw one's weapon. If the suspect is wanted for a violent crime, it is not unreasonable to be drawn, as well.
Ypsi Skunk
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:44 p.m.
@Roadman-sounds like the suspect didn't just punch his girlfriend, he put his hands around her neck. And while you're looking up case law, check out Graham V. Connor. @Heardoc-Yes, you are right, it sounds like Reddick was innocent. "Innocent" victims often choke, kick, and punch their girlfrinds, drive while suspended, and resist officers.
Roadman
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 3:57 a.m.
It is not violence of the type that warrants use of deadly force by an officer. The U.S. Supreme Court in Tennessee vs. Garner establihed the standard that deadly force could only be used against a fleeing felon if there was a danger of death or grave bodily injury to the public. To violate this standard results in civil liabilty under federal civil rights laws.
Karen St John
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 2:24 a.m.
Domestic violence is violence. Punching a woman is violence.
Karen St John
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 2:21 a.m.
Curiously enough, Heardoc, I am a meteorologist, not a cop. It's interesting to me how people come up with simplistic conclusions about others, in the absence of other information.
Heardoc
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 1:12 a.m.
You are just a cop attempting to justify an innocent man being shot. Let's turn the tables around -- If i am in fear of a cop then i should be able to shoot the cop? Now, come ion -- you know that would be out of line and therefore this rouge female cop, Yurkunas, was wrong to shoot an innocent man and she will be sued civilly for this and her ability to be a cop is now compromised.
Roadman
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:17 a.m.
Punching a girlfriend in the face does not warrant the use of deadly force by an officer. Unholstering a gun and drawing it are two different scenarios.
jcj
Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:46 p.m.
Roadman "Looking at the video, a reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the sudden movement or "jerk" of the suspect's right hand forward may have been a reflexive defensive reaction at discovering a gun was being pointed at him." This could be true! But so could this! "Looking at the video, a reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the sudden movement or "jerk" of the suspect's right hand forward may have been him pulling a weapon.
jcj
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:38 a.m.
"So the risk of death should fall on the civilian rather than the officer?" It falls on the officer every day!
trespass
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:13 a.m.
It was not him pulling a weapon because he had no weapon on him. You may say that the officer thought it may be him pulling a weapon but that was in fact not true.
Roadman
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:08 a.m.
So the risk of death should fall on the civilian rather than the officer?
jcj
Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:44 p.m.
Well anyone that is honest should at the least admit that he had to have been aware of the police presence after watching this video. If you can't admit that he probably knew the police were interested in him then go ahead and make your excuses for him. "There is no proof that the suspect ever heard her command." "the suspect may be hearing impaired." "Sounds like another whitewash" "The bottom line was that the suspect was unarmed, the officer admitted seeing no weapon" A person was shot that maybe did not have to be shot. But that is easy to speculate on after seeing the video 20 times! The decision is easy in a training exercise to shoot or don't shoot! Because in training you always know that you are not really going to be shot at!
John B.
Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:36 p.m.
It is easy to be a Monday-morning quarterback regarding this terrible incident. Recall though, that the officer was told that the assault suspect had been combative previously, that he might be armed, and he was also very combative (again) at his subsequent arraignment. I'm just glad I don't have to make split-second life-or-death decisions like Police Officers do. And more and more Police Officers are getting killed in the line of duty in this country, by the way. It's often a thankless, dangerous job.
trespass
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:10 a.m.
She might have assumed that he could be armed but she was actually told by the suspects girlfriend that he did not have a gun or access to a gun. She said his brother had a gun but that she doubted that his brother would give it to him. He was on his way to visit his brother but he was shot and arrested in the parking lot of his brothers condo.
Roadman
Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:20 p.m.
Looking at the video, a reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the sudden movement or "jerk" of the suspect's right hand forward may have been a reflexive defensive reaction at discovering a gun was being pointed at him. If this person was only suspected of a misdemeanor assault and there is no information he was armed, the initial decision to draw a weapon at Reddick was poor police procedure; it escalated the situation instead of defusing it I can backfire as it did here. The decision to draw her firearm in the first place may subject her to internal investigation criticism and could bolster a potential civil suit against the township by the suspect.
michaywe
Thu, Mar 24, 2011 : 2:10 a.m.
GUILTY! Offense - driving while black!
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 6:01 p.m.
Well, since you can't see from this video what she saw, it's impossible to determine if what she saw was reasonable or not. So again, as many times before, you are the one whose wrong.
Roadman
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 4:41 p.m.
Wrong! It's when she "reasonably" feels her life is in danger. Was she reasonable here?
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 4:18 a.m.
What he was suspected of is irrelevant. The officer is not obliged to consider the final charge when she feels her life is in danger.
Karen St John
Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:16 p.m.
The other video shows Mr. Reddick making a movement that to my eyes, at least, could have looked a great deal like a gun draw. The police don't have to let you get a free shot off before firing, and many peace officers have died in the line of duty because they did not react. If you find yourself in a police situation...be smart. Be cooperative. Mr. Reddick was not being smart, and he almost lost his life for it.
jcj
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:37 a.m.
Heardoc "cops are not to be trusted -- they have their agendas as do all people. " And what is your agenda? Are you trustworthy? How so?
Roadman
Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:32 p.m.
Yurkunas was not being smart by drawing her gun before the suspect alighted from the car - and Reddick almost lost his life for it.
bigblue
Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:07 p.m.
the officer seemed pretty quick to shoot. the video doesn't help because we can't see what the suspect is doing.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 4:14 a.m.
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that the officer doesn't have to actually see a weapon? There is no legal requirement that she actually wait to see if it's a weapon he is reaching for or not. Were it a weapon he was grabbing, and she had waited to see, she would most likely have to excahnge fire with this guy and risk getting killed. Is that a better solution? She waits and gets herself...dead?
Roadman
Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:35 p.m.
Exactly. Yurkunas admittedly could see nothing in Reddick's hand. If she sat in her vehicle and ordered him to alight no one would have been harmed. Reddick is no genius, but neither is Yurkunas in this video.
Roadman
Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 10:38 p.m.
The bottom line was that the suspect was unarmed, the officer admitted seeing no weapon, and she drew her firearm and shot an unarmed person. There is no proof that the suspect ever heard her command. Many times commands cannot be heard due to ousude noise, car radios, or the suspect may be hearing impaired. Sounds like another whitewash like the Lee case in West Willow. Maybe the Attorney General or FBI will investigate, maybe not. Don't expect justice in a case like this from the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's Office. Hopefully the suspect signed a big retention contract with Geoffrey Fieger.
Ricebrnr
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 5:32 p.m.
Want to bring in his upbringing, his socio-economic status, trauma by priests, bullying etc too?
lynel
Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 10:54 p.m.
Oh, I'm sure he did!