Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Deputy Ivory Webb Shooting Report Released To The Media…

There’s an article in the L.A. Times this morning that provides details from the San Bernardino County sheriff's report of the January 29 shooting of a vacationing Air Force Security policeman by Deputy Ivory J. Webb Jr. Statements attributed to Webb are in direct conflict with what the video seems to show.

I don’t think anyone involved in a violent chase and shooting is capable of accurately describing such a traumatic event immediately afterwards.

Every American except cops have a right not to make statements involving the circumstances of a police investigation under the Fifth Amendment protection against forced self-incrimination. Cops have a special requirement to cooperate in such investigations or lose their jobs. It would have been a lot better for Webb if he were allowed to get nights sleep and consult with an attorney and have him present during such cooperation or not cooperate at all like any other citizen.

This case is going to hinge on intent and Deputy Webb’s state of mind. The event is now going to be second-guessed by a criminal court jury and again by a civil court jury.

Anyone with information on this case should contact Webb's defense attorney:
Michael David Schwartz, Esquire
Silver Hadden & Silver
1428 2nd St
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone Number (310) 393-1486
Fax Number (310) 395-5801


John Mosby said...

Paul, I can't find the link, but LTC Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing," wrote a good article proposing a protocol for debriefing cops involved in shooting incidents. He actually proposes 2 or 3 total debriefings, some done solo, some done as a group exercise, in order to overcome the effects of stress-induced amnesia, reduce the incidence of PTSD, etc.

Of course, from the legal perspective, the best advice is just to STFU.

I wonder why no police unions have ever been able to get a post-shooting right-to-remain-silent clause put in their contracts. It would potentially be worth more than a percentage point raise! Departments would also lower their liability by having an excuse for not prying potentially incriminating info out of cops.


Anonymous said...

It was a big mistake, an accident or misunderstanding. There was no malice there. Only cop haters/gangbangers would think it was anything else.

Civil damages? Sure, he was shot up, but criminal charges? Bull****

Anonymous said...

How come the L.A. Times get some quotes from experts like you on a difficult case?

Anonymous said...

Let me say first i served 15 months in Iraq and every second you have to watch your back.I hope this cop Ivory Webb does life in prison really he should be shot on site.I watched the video and Mr Webb seems like a man who just wanted to shoot someone for the hell of it.I hope this guy rots in jail and becomes someones love slave

Paul Huebl Crimefile News said...

I don’t think any of us will ever know what was in Ivory Web’s mind at the time of the shooing. It does not look good but

I think we should at least wait for a verdict from a jury before we suggest punishment.

Anonymous said...

High speed pursuit...guy gets out of the car...adrenaline rushing...bad video footage...unclear audio... a black sheriff from San Bernardino and a member of the Armed Services. This case is a train wreck from the station. Civil charges; understandable...criminal charges; are you kidding!??!

Anonymous said...

I went and watched the video again. It makes me sick to think that some people think that this was a justifiable shooting.Police are trained professionals, and should act as such. I may not be a police officer, but im pretty sure that telling a suspect of a high speed chase to get up is not proper procedure. Why didnt the officer restrain the individual while he was on the ground? And why would you then shoot someone that was following your orders? I think that this officer handled this situation with extreme neglagence, and needs to pay the consequence. If he was unable to stay calm, and maintain composure during high stress situations he should never have been given a badge

Anonymous said...

I'm a retired deputy from SBSD. My last assignment was at the WVDC in the late 90's. I worked with Ivory for several years. I can say with absolute certainty Ivory is a fair, level-headed deputy. Never once did I witness or hear of Ivory losing his temper or getting heavy-handed. Something went terribly wrong that evening. But I'm confident there was no intentional malice on Ivory's behalf. Reserve judgment and allow the facts to come out in court.

Anonymous said...

This former Deputy is NOW claiming, through a suggestion by his lawyer, that the Airman may have been reaching for a weapon in his jacket pocket as he began to rise from the ground. It's interesting though that the cop never searches him after the shooting for this suspected weapon. The last thing any LEO is going to leave on a person they've just shot, but only wounded, is the weapon he's now claiming was his reason for shooting in the first place. By not searching the wounded Airman, he never removed the perceived threat, meaning that threat would have still existed. The fact that he didn't search the wounded Airman is the clearest indication that a belief of a concealed weapon was never his reason for shooting in the first place. Furthermore, this claim doesn't match what's on the video. Webb clearly says "you don't try to rush me" after the shooting; and he never mentions a weapon, neither on the video, nor to anyone who arrived at the scene after the shooting. He told officers who arrived after the shooting that the Airman tried to rush him. A claim dispelled by the video. The video clearly shows that he told the Airman twice to get up, and the young man actually repeated the command before starting to rise. Deputy Webb then shot him as was complying with that command. Criminal charges against this former Deputy are fully called for in this case. I've wondered too, if Webb was fired, or if he was asked to resign. Either way, it appears his department feels their support of this man was no longer justified.

ppd said...

This is pretty crazy!
What is the world coming too?

The Powers that be are making Law Enforcement Officers jobs harder and harder...

Sure the P.O. might have made a mistake, but a Criminal...How Ludicrious!!

It seems the one on 'stand' should be the ones who were in the vehicle, especially the Driver!

Its very difficult to see at night, But Not for a Low Lux Digital Camera!!

Webb, The Border Patrol Agents!! Who's next?

It now looks as though it '$pays$' to be a criminal and it seems now that those who have to 'Pay' with house, home, family, finances and prison time is our beloved Police Officers who serve and protect us.

God, Help Us to Open Our Eyes to What is Really Going On, and Who the Real Criminals are!!!

Anonymous said...

I can't believe anyone on this post is defending the actions of this officer. Deputy Webb violated procedure seven ways to Sunday, and it resulted in an unarmed suspect being shot.

I'd like to hear opinions from people in Law Enforcement on this Deputy's handling of this scene. I'd also like their opinions on the following points.

Why didn't Webb have his vehicle parked length ways across Francis Street, with the cars headlights shining directly on this scene? Why wasn't Webb then standing outside his vehicle, with the drivers side door open, and his weapon trained on the two suspects from a safe distance? I question this Deputy's ability to say the phrase "Felony Stop", let alone conduct one, and this Deputy was an 8 year veteran.

For him to now claim that he shot out of fear because of a belief the unsecured passenger was going for a weapon, while complying with the utterly stupid command to "Get up", makes no sence at all. Especially since this Deputy's position of vulnerability was entirely of his own making.

He chose to stand within 5 feet of two suspects following a felony eluding on the driver's part. He gave the command to "get up" to an unsecure suspect. He made the decision to shoot a second after giving that command. He shot as the suspect was complying with that command. And, as was pointed out earlier, he never searched the suspect for this percieved weapon he now claims was his reason for shooting in the first place.

If his actions weren't as intentional as they sounded, then at a minimum, his actions, and procedural violations were reckless, which supports the charge of manslaughter. Stop defending incompetance. This Deputy's actions have not only resulted in an innocent man being badly wounded, but they have also earned him a criminal charge, and remember, it's not the wounded Airman who can even bring those charges. They came from a DA following lenghty investigations
into this incident.

That video tape is conclusive, and it's story, unlike the Deputy's, never changes. I am an ardant supporter of law enforcement, but I'm not going to condone a criminal act, simply because it was a FORMER member of law enforcement who was charged with commiting the crime.

Big Tee said...

Congratulations, Webb!