Since grand jury deliberations are secret, I'm not able to write about anything that didn't make it into the trial, which is public record. At least I don't think so — better safe than sorry! Anything that I do write is publicly available information.
On October 23, 2023 Seward County Sheriff's Deputy Anthony Gann spotted Jorge Luis Santana Ramírez driving west on Interstate 80. Santana Ramirez had fled from Deputy Gann a week earlier — and a pursuit ensued. Santana Ramirez, presumably to avoid arrest, changed directions and drove east in the westbound lane until crossing over into the eastbound lane, eventually leaving Seward County and crossing into Lancaster County. At some point Santana Ramírez's vehicle broke down. He refused to exit his vehicle as Gann shouted for him to "get out of the fucking car" for several minutes. Another Deputy, Chase Palmer, arrived while this was going on. After Palmer arrived, a knife in Santana Ramírez's hand was incorrectly identified as a gun. Gann then began shooting, pausing once to reload, ultimately firing 35 rounds into the back of the vehicle which was facing away from the deputies. Santana Ramírez was seated in the front seat during this time.
The Seward County Sheriff "investigated" the incident and concluded that Gann had followed department procedures for the use of lethal force. The other deputy on the scene, who had more experience than Gann, testified at trial that Gann was not justified in shooting Santana Ramírez.
This is what the law says:
Nebraska Revised Statute 28-1412
(b) The use of deadly force is not in any event justifiable under this subsection unless:
(i) The actor believes that there is a substantial risk that the person whom he seeks to prevent from committing a crime will cause death or serious bodily harm to another unless the commission or the consummation of the crime is prevented and that the use of such force presents no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons...
So, according to 28-1415 (b) (i), if the officer believes that there is substantial risk that death or serious bodily harm will come to the officer or any anyone else, then lethal force is justified.
Nebraska Revised Statute 28-1409, which is the self-defense statute, is similar:
(4) The use of deadly force shall not be justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, nor is it justifiable if:
(a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:
(i) The actor shall not be obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be..
Prior to the trial, Gann's attorney attempted to have the charges dismissed based on the allegation that the grand jury was briefed on 28-1409, the self-defense statute, and not 28-1412, the statute dealing with use of force by law enforcement. The judge did not grant their motion to dismiss. Gann's attorney appealed the decision and the appeals court upheld the judge's decision.
One of the reasons that you rarely see any law enforcement officer charged, let alone convicted of manslaughter or murder, is the word "believes" in both of these statutes. How many times have we heard "I feared for my life" after a cop shot someone reaching for their wallet, or who saw a child playing with a toy gun? It's a subjective decision, determining whether deadly force was necessary, but it's impossible to determine what was going on in someone's mind. How could you prove whether someone didn't genuinely fear for their life, or truly didn't believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm? You can't do it, and in our legal system it's not the job of the defendant to prove their innocence, but the job of the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Gann testified at his trial that he was facing an armed threat that necessitated deadly force. Except that he didn't based on objective facts, but he believed that he did. Or at least said that he believed that. The grand jury didn't think he was justified and indicted him, the trial jury apparently did, acquitting him after two and a half hours of deliberation.
I understand that law enforcement is a stressful job, and they all want to come home alive at the end of their shift, but what we see, time after time, is law enforcement officers prioritizing their own safety over the lives of people who often have been convicted of no crime. There's even a cop saying: "I'd rather by tried by 12 than carried by 6" — in other words, I'd rather take my chances with a trial than risk getting killed. Than risk aversion often results in unarmed people being killed "just in case".
The legal system needs to change — we have to stop assuming that law enforcement is always legally in the right.
In the case of Jorge Luis Santana Ramírez, he didn't do himself any favors, but fleeing to avoid arrest isn't a capital crime, and Sheriff's Deputies aren't authorized judges, juries, or executioners.
No comments:
Post a Comment