Pittsfield Township police officer who shot man after traffic stop cleared by prosecutor's office
A Pittsfield Township police officer who shot a 30-year-old man in the abdomen in January after a traffic stop has been cleared of any wrongdoing by the Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s Office.
The shooting was “ruled lawful self defense,” Steve Hiller, Washtenaw County chief deputy assistant prosecutor, said today.
Pittsfield Township Public Safety Director Matt Harshberger said the officer, Tracy Yurkunas, returned to work on desk duty last week, the day after the clearance was issued. Yurkunas was placed on paid administrative leave during the investigation, which is standard protocol, Harshberger told AnnArbor.com in January.
Harshberger said the department began an internal investigation into Yurkunas' conduct this week, which is also standard protocol. She will work in the office while the internal investigation is ongoing, Harshberger said. That investigation, which will "determine if she took actions within our policies and procedures.” is expected to last at least two or three weeks, he said.
Police were investigating a domestic assault complaint against the man, Devin Reddick, when Yurkunas stopped him just before 5 p.m. Jan. 15 in Rosewood Village condominiums off Platt Road.
The shooting occurred on Conifer Drive after Reddick parked and got out of his vehicle, then refused to comply with the officer's orders, police told AnnArbor.com in January.
"The suspect made what the officer perceived to be a life-threatening action," and the officer shot him once in the abdomen, according to a news release written shortly after the incident.
Reddick was alone in the vehicle when he was stopped, the release said.
Reddick was treated at an area hospital and later released. He was charged with domestic violence, refusing to be fingerprinted and driving while his license was suspended. He was released on $1,000 bond.
No further details were immediately available.
Hiller said Reddick is to appear back in court for pretrial hearing March 17.
Heather Lockwood is a reporter for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at heatherlockwood@annarbor.com or follow her on Twitter.
Comments
Matt Cooper
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 4:42 a.m.
The United Nations Code Of Conduct For Law Enforecement Officials states, in part: "This provision emphasizes that the use of force by law enforcement officials should be exceptional; while it implies that law enforcement officials may be authorized to use force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances for the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders, no force going beyond that may be used. Most police departments have policies very similar to this. Since none of you were there, nor did any of you witness the shooting, you cannot say whether or not the officer felt her life was in jeopardy or not.
trespass
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 2:25 a.m.
Channel 4 did a report on two taser incidents in local police stations. In both cases the officers said they felt threatened but the video shows otherwise. Why have we not seen the video in this case? <a href="http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/27046709/index.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/27046709/index.html</a>
Roadman
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 10:58 p.m.
What do you expect from Prosecutor Mackie's offce? These are the folks who ignored State Police recommendations and findings in the Lee case in West Willow and forced the FBI to seek indictments. Why no version of events from the shooting victim? What is the supposed "life-threatening action" that necessitated the shooting? If the shooting victim resisted arrest, why was he not so charged? Was there an operable police dashboard camera that recorded the officer's and victim's actions? What motvation does the township have to conduct a fair and impartial internal investigation when adverse findings could fuel a major legal action against the township?
Murphy Bertram
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 10:20 p.m.
Freedom, A warning shot? You've got to be joking! What more of a "warning" do you need than the police officer yelling for you to freeze?
Dalex64
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 10 p.m.
I think that the Washtenaw Count Prosecutor's Office decided that the perceived life-threatening action justified a deadly response. If you feel your life is in danger, you are allowed to use any force necessary to defend yourself. You'll also have to convince the prosecutor and/or courts whether or not the actions taken against you should have been considered life threatening. As to warning shots, warning shots are dangerous. With a bullet, what goes up must come down. It can penetrate walls. If you shoot at the ground you could have dangerous shrapnel. I think most of us have read news stories about people being hit by stray bullets during some kind of shooting celebration. Another reason is that endangers lives. You are taking your gun off of your target in order to fire a warning shot. If you have to re-aim, you will be less accurate. It will be harder and more dangerous to fire a wounding shot (if police have such a thing), and an outright miss could also have deadly consequences. Another reason could be the "he didn't fire a warning shot!" defense. Everyone should know that when an officer's gun is drawn, there will be no warning shot to show that he really really means it. I'm not "pro-gun" or "anti-gun", but I am pointing out current law, and what I think could be reasonable consequences of certain actions or inactions.
Jackietreehorn
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 9:47 p.m.
Everyone advocating warning shots should please remember that shots in the air do tend to come down somewhere. Likely one reason why no professional police agency in the country advocates warning shots.
cinnabar7071
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 9:41 p.m.
Police don't fire warning shots. When the officer pulls his/her gun that should be warning enough.
Joe Wood
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 11:09 p.m.
Roadman," Maybe the poor guy had to scratch himself and the overzealous officer shot him as a result." Don't "scratch yourself" when an officer has a weapon on you.
Roadman
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 12:32 a.m.
Exactly. I am sure if he had been armed the Prosecutor's Office would have been screaming it from the treetops. Maybe the poor guy had to scratch himself and the overzealous officer shot him as a result. I fail to she how she could shoot a man who had no weapon. I am sure Geoffrey Fieger would be interested in this case.
Snehal
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 9:43 p.m.
"The suspect made what the officer perceived to be a life-threatening action" - What was this exact action? I do not see police giving any verbal warning or a warning shot. Was the suspect armed? I do not see any details here.
Freedom
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 9:28 p.m.
The thing you have to realize is that there is no law these days. Our law enforcement and judicial system are all about the money. They no longer care about peoples rights, there are no more fair trials. Lawyers are in with the cops and the judges. All you have to do is go sit in court and listen to what goes on in there. It is the biggest joke I have ever seen. I sat in the Wasthenaw County Courts recently and listened to cases one day and it is amazing. It makes you realize just how bad this country has become. Unfortunately by the time everyone wakes up it will be to late. I have to agree that a warning shot or a non life threatning shot would have been the best course of action and then if that did not work you take another shot at a more vital part of the body. But how often do you actually see the police getting charged and convicted of their actions?
Tru2Blu76
Fri, Mar 4, 2011 : 5:51 p.m.
I find myself in a quandary over how to respond to your post: on one hand, I agree that our "justice system" is far from perfect. (Lets work on that.) But on the other hand, I have to wonder how you got to the conclusion that any police officer who is facing a possibly armed, uncooperative and aggressive person is "obligated" to take time to fire (ill advised!) "warning shots" or somehow remain cool enough to aim for a non-vital area of the aggressor's body!!(??) Just FYI: (1) when a person ignores police orders and behaves aggressively toward police: they abandon their "rights." The rule of law is very logical and sensible in this respect: by such actions, the individual is putting THEMSELVES in mortal danger. No one took away this man's rights: he willfully "gave them up" when he refused to comply and acted aggressively toward this lone female officer. (2) In such situations, when someone is facing a threat, the well-recognized procedure is to STOP the aggressor. There is NO time for an "interview" or further "negotiations." Shooting someone in the arm or leg isn't really "non-lethal" anyway: a bullet could strike an artery and that could result in death. Arm and leg wounds are also less likely to prevent the aggressor from going for a hidden weapon. The only alternative is to shoot for the center of the torso. (Also called "center of mass.") I hope this helps you see the picture better, I sincerely do.
2WheelsGood
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 10:54 p.m.
Not one thing in your tirade about lawlessness has anything to do with why this guy got shot. Not one single thing. Should we assume the experience you claim you have with the legal system is from the wrong side of the law?
Snehal
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 9:21 p.m.
I wonder, shouldn't th epolice officer have shot in the leg instead of the abdomen. Also, on second thought, can't she have shot in the air as a warning shot? Maybe the culprit would have been subdued or scared and may have escaped injury. This is not to undermine the efforts, just a thought.
MikeyP
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 2:03 a.m.
Nobody should EVER shoot warning shots into the air! You're liable for that bullet wherever it goes, whatever it damages or whomever it injures or kills. No firearms instructor will ever say warning shots are at all a good idea. As for shooting in the leg, you aim for the center of visible mass and you shoot to stop the threat, period. If some guy is coming towards you, you tell them to stop, you pull your weapon and they keep coming... armed or not that person is a threat and you have every right to shoot to stop that threat. The officer did exactly that from what I can tell, and apparently the prosecutor agrees. Case closed.
tdw
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 9:36 p.m.
They don't do that .Real life is not a John Wayne movie
Tru2Blu76
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 9:07 p.m.
It is curious that Mr. Reddick apparently wasn't injured more seriously. The "abdomen" is an area including the kidneys, liver and spleen as well as intestines, prostate (in males) and bladder. Assuming the officer used a duty- approved pistol, modern pistols of calibers commonly used by police are quite lethal and often survivors suffer serious permanent internal damage. Comments about the accuracy or lack thereof in such shootings are... uninformed... because shooting under such stressful conditions ALWAYS causes poorer than normal accuracy. Every competent police firearms trainer, every NRA certified pistol instructor as well as nationally recognized experts in this area teach this. It's reasonable then to believe that Officer Yurkunas's shots were not fired accurately - which in no way indicts her or any other officer in such situations. We should bear in mind; the whole purpose of using that level of force is to stop the aggressor. Probably, Mr. Reddick went down and Officer Yurkunas ceased firing at that point. He (probably) was saved by this officer's restraint and self control.
CPS
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 8:27 p.m.
No matter what, we should all try to remember that decisions and actions that may determine whether you live or die have to made in a SPLIT SECOND. Sorry Officer Yurkunas was forced to make that split-second decision, but glad she apparently made the right one and is back doing her job.
trespass
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 2:17 a.m.
Why do you assume it was the right one? If she shot an innocent man, then it was the wrong decision. I am not saying it was wrong but you should not assume that it was right any more than I should assume it was wrong.