According to Warren’s partner, officer Howard, he wanted to stop by his house first, and then go to the station. She testified "He came out with an assault rifle," saying he needed its protection and asking if she wanted one, She told him no. Warren was obviously afraid of the people he had to deal with.
Was he afraid because of lack of training, or was he just psychologically not able to work with the public? Only the police department knows since they do psychological testing of potential officers and manage and design their training.
One thing is known, and that is no matter whose story you believe, Mr. Glover was either running away from the police, and was no threat, or he was just standing there, with his brother, again no threat to the police. It is undisputed that Glover was not seen with a gun.
The police are allowed to use force to make an arrest, but only the force that is needed to make the arrest. When it comes to excess force, the standard is was the force used reasonable. The use of overly tight handcuffs can be excess force, and the use of sniper rifle can be reasonable. The determination is based on the nature of the crime, the threat posed by the “criminal”, whether the “criminal” is trying to escape. If the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape. Otherwise deadly force cannot be used.
Even if the officers believed that Mr. Glover had committed prior crimes they could not use deadly force. "The mere commission of prior crimes does not justify the use of deadly force." Haugen v. Brosseau, 339 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2003).
The "most important" factor under Graham is whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others. When the police claim to feel threatened before they shoot a person, such a statement is not enough; there must be objective factors to justify such a concern. For example, when an individual points his gun in the officers' direction, the Constitution undoubtedly entitles the officer to respond with deadly force, when the gun is pointed towards the ground the police cannot just shoot. George v. Morris, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15579 (9th Cir. Cal. July 30, 2013).
No reasonable officer would think that they could shot Mr. Glover, who was either walking away or just standing around.
Remember, if you do not stand up for your own rights, you will soon have no rights. If you think your rights have been violated, contact Kallis & Associates.