Defense expert: Officer May broke rules

Unbelievable the way defense attorneys turn a murder suspect, the murdering of a police officer, to the "poor innocent victim". What do we have to do, in order for our security officers to be safe, in the line of duty? These incidents happen in a few split seconds. The officer, a human being, does not have the benefit of video tape, and the slowing down of video tape, or being able to analyze things for months. They have but a few split seconds to make the choice. He made a logical choice, and ends up getting killed by a guy with a gun.
Which begs the question, why did this guy have access to a gun, in public?
These attorneys make me sick.

Joe Citizen, it's very difficult to have any sympathy for this murder suspect, but let's not use this (or any) extreme example to justify that police officer's don't need to use sound judgment and follow rules when dealing with members of the public because they have to make slipt second judgments. Officer May could well have followed all the rules. In any case, not following some of the rules didn't justify his death. But as a general proposition, I do believe it is important the police need to show appropriate restraint, follow rules, and be subject to consequences if they don't. Very few situations are this extreme, and what we don't want are rules being bended or broken when you or I have to deal with the police. A good example of this is the recent incident of the Vietnamese student being struck repeatedly with batons in San Jose at his apartment.

Sorry Slippery Slope, I don't agree. We HAVE been on a slippery slope with allowing criminals continue to be criminals. I do not know the repeat offender percentage for violent crimes, but I know it to be very high. Most times, if not all, it is because of the liberal judges, the defense lawyers finding that loop hole, or the ignorant public that is supposed to be a jury of our peers. Our community suffers every day with the sort of nonsense that we have allowed our police force to operate by. They need latitude, they need help and they need the benefit of the doubt. Sure there are bad cops, perhaps a few too aggressive cops, but I'd rather have that, then the continued violence that is perpetrated by individuals that have been let go, time and time again. And, guess what? Once again, a gun fight breaks out in East Palo Alto TONIGHT. Are you not getting tired of this?

I think we can agree on one thing: a system in which police have tremendous latitude, are not second guessed, are always given the benefit of the doubt, etc., is great for victims of crimes. And I think we can also probably agree that just so long as no one ever gets wrongfully accused (or wrongfully shot, beaten up, etc. in the commission of a minor crime that didn't justify such a punishment), it shouldn't matter that such a system isn't so great for criminals. The problem is, you can't just give them that type of latitude for criminals shooting each other in East Palo Alto, but expect it will never get used or misused anywhere else, not just as an issue of fundamental fairness, but also human nature in terms of the people given that level of authority and autonomy. This is a question that's been wrestled over for generations to find the right balance. There's no clear answer. I hear what you're saying loud and clear, but we always need to be aware of the trade offs.

"I do not know the repeat offender percentage for violent crimes, but I know it to be very high. Most times, if not all, it is because of the liberal judges, the defense lawyers finding that loop hole, or the ignorant public that is supposed to be a jury of our peers."

And to think all this time I had assumed it was the person committing the crime.

Fortunately I have never been in a position where I have been chased, beated across my back with an iron rod and shot by a cop and I will bet one else responding to this has either. Since when does a possible participant in a fist fight warrant being shot in the leg because he's fleeing (and assuming he WAS a participant.)

From the California Penal Code:

834a. If a person has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable
care, should have knowledge, that he is being arrested by a peace
officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or
any weapon to resist such arrest.

835. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person, or by
submission to the custody of an officer. The person arrested may be
subjected to such restraint as is reasonable for his arrest and
detention.

835a. Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that
the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use
reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to
overcome resistance.
A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not
retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or
threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such
officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by
the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape
or to overcome resistance.

Thanks for the information SINCE.

I had no doubt that the law required persons being arrested no resist arrest. That would be obvious. It is interesting to note how often the word reasonable appears in your citation. I suppose it boils down to my original point, is it reasonable to shoot a person who is leaving the scene of a fist fight in a restaurant. I have the strangest feeling that provided it occurs in EPA and the suspect is named Alvarez, its OK. If on the other hand a white mother of three kids stealing from Stanford Shopping Center for kicks was shot, I gotta believe the reaction might be different.

By the way, your citation references people who are being arrested. Nothing in the Almanac story suggests Alvarez was being arrested. You should not construe that I believe Alvarez to be innocent. I do not. The fact is that no matter what May did, Alvarez shot and killed him. Alvarez had a choice, he chose to kill the Police Officer. Had Alvarez not shot back he would probably be on the better end of a large lawsuit rather than facing jail.

Again, in my view, it's not okay for a suspect to be shot in the leg when fleeing a fist fight in EPA, unless you want is also to be okay in Menlo Park, Atherton, Palo Alto, etc. This particular issue is very tricky since May obviously used inappropriate force, but it's hard fo fathom why Alvarez could have been justified in shooting him (I guess the story would go that once he fled, he felt that May was going to kill him no matter what). That simply isn't going to fly with a jury in San Mateo County (maybe L.A. or Oakland).

Perhaps Since You're Interested can explain one point I don't understand. How can Alvarez ever be guilty of murder? Doesn't that imply he had a premeditated plan to kill May? I can see him being guilty of manslaughter, unless I'm missing something.

Slippery

Murder does not require premeditation. If at the time he fired the shot he "intended" to kill the Police Officer then he can be found guilty of Murder.

May had the right to detain Alvarez based on his matching the description of a person who was involved in the disturbance. Alvarez's clothing and proximity both add up to reasonable suspicion, the standard for an investigative detention.

The fact is, however, there was never a detention (or, for that matter, an arrest.) Alvarez never submitted to May, a necessary condition for a detention to have occurred.

In refusing to submit to May, Alvarez committed another crime. May had the right to use the amount of force necessary to arrest Alvarez for violating 148PC, obstructing his investigation.

To that end, he was within his right to use his baton to prevent Alvarez from fleeing. May appears to have deemed other force options available to him (chemical, hands) were not going to be effective and he went for the one he believed would stop Alvarez, the baton.

Why did May ultimately move to deadly force to stop Alvarez? That's an answer that only he could answer. It's quite possible that May recognized that Alvarez had a gun. Whether he shot Alvarez in self defense or to prevent his escape, he was within legal boundaries.

Let's be clear, there are many court cases which establish that regardless of the legality of the detention or the arrest, Alvarez had no standing to commit a violent act upon a Police Officer.

Moreover, Alvarez chose to stop fleeing once he incapacitated May. Alvarez returned to put a round between May's eyes. That action speaks volumes about his "intent" and "premeditation".

The assertion that May shot Alvarez because he fled the scene of a fist fight in EPA is overly simplistic and ignorant of the law and other facts.

Alvarez's attorneys are doing their jobs in creating doubt. That's the nature of our adversarial court system. Fortunately, they have a tremendous burden before them. Alvarez will ultimately be given the justice he deserves.

>> Let's be clear, there are many court cases which establish that regardless of the legality of the detention or the arrest, Alvarez had no standing to commit a violent act upon a Police Officer.

I can go along with that. Seems reasonable.

>> In refusing to submit to May, Alvarez committed another crime. May had the right to use the amount of force necessary to arrest Alvarez for violating 148PC, obstructing his investigation.

I can only go along with that depending on how "necessary" is qualified. If it's "reasonably necessary", fine. If it's "whatever the officer deems necessary", I can't support that. I do not believe police officers have (or should have) the right to use deadly force just because someone is obstructing an investigation. Deadly force should be reserved for when lives are in danger.

That's where we differ Slippery Slope. The media has done a fantastic job of ridiculing police officers now for a number of years, beginning with Rodney King. Are there some bad cops, yes there are, but if you pay attention to the media, you would think 50% of the cops out there are bad. Even with all of the video tapes taken, phone videos, phone photos etc., there's rarely an issue with "excessive force" versus the amount of arrests that are made on a daily basis. Your comment "obviously used excessive force", obviously speaks to your bias toward the criminal. This comment comes from a criminal, a criminal with a gun. In addition, your comment about MP, PA and Atherton.........what does THAT have to do with the police force? I guess the fact that we pay our taxes, respect our security force, and they keep a high rent district safe is a bad thing??? I like the partnership, it's too bad other areas don't have the same thing going for it. However, those in East Palo Alto, Oakland etc, DO have a choice........move. I can't believe I'm sitting here having to defend a murdered police officer.

Police Officers can resort to deadly force in the face of someone who poses an imminent risk of death or great bodily injury.

I mentioned earlier that we'll never know why Officer May transitioned to deadly force. He's dead. We can only speculate that he either returned fire or shot first when he realized Alvarez had armed himself.

Had Alvarez not introduced a gun into this scenario, it's likely that the next force option would have been additional Officers.

If you are confronted by a police officer and you pull out a gun then you deserve to be shot. Hopefully the police officer's shot will be disarming and not fatal, but you better not count on that.

Actually, I think you have the wrong idea about what I'm saying. I think there are three issues here:

1. Is it appropriate for any police officer to shoot someone who is fleeing (not even someone who has been identified as breaking the law)? Unless it's been established that Alvarez drew his gun and May fired in self defense, I say no. It doesn't matter if there are 99.9% "good" cops and 0.1% "bad" cops. That concept doesn't work for me. Now, I understand we may never know who drew the gun first, and perhaps you have a point that the officer should be given the benefit of the doubt. What I want to know is: if Alvarez didn't draw his gun first (i.e., there was no sign of a gun when May shot Alvarez), are you defending that hypothetical action?

2. Was it appropriate for Alvarez to shoot/kill May under any circumstances? No, and he needs to answer to that.

3. (The tough one). Does the intersection of these two issues (assuming a jury concludes May fired without Alvarez having drawn a gun) mean Alvarez should not have to answer to the fullest extent of charges being brought against him (i.e., death penalty vs. life in prison)?

Slippery,

Officer May should not have used deadly force to stop Alvarez -- absent his knowing that Alvarez had a gun (i.e. posed an imminent threat of death or gross bodily injury).

Alvarez had no right to kill Officer May -- legally, morally, or ethically.

I can't fathom a defense which would convince a jury that he acted in a manner which should mitigate the harshest consequences for his actions.

Do you mean just having the gun (i.e., May seeing the gun in his pocket) is enough justification to shoot him, or would he need to either make a move for the gun or actually draw the gun for May to have that justification?

I thought of an interesting issue about all of this: if the penalty for Alvarez being caught with that gun wasn't so severe, maybe May would still be alive today. It doesn't mean the laws should become softer, just an observation.

I do not see how the defense could prevail here. The second shot to Officer May could only have been intended to kill him. But you never know what a Judge and Jury will decide. My interest in this story really is more involved with how this situation escalated to the level it did. I mean no disrespect to Officer May but I cannot understand why he responded to someone fleeing from the police and a fist fight by shooting him. I hope that when the Police Explorer takes the stand he will be able to say if Alvarez displayed his gun before May shot him, however, I have to believe if that was the case the officer would not have shot him in the leg since it (obviously) did not prevent Alvarez from returning fire.

Simply seeing the gun would certainly change matters to the point where May would draw his weapon. Coupled with Alvarez's resistance, any movement by Alvarez toward his gun would justify deadly force.

May's actions need to be evaluated on what he saw and believed at the time, not a year later with scene reconstruction and 20/20 vision. Because Alvarez killed May, we are missing critical information. He never had the opportunity to write his police report.

It's reasonable to assume May acted in accordance with his training and experience. With that assumption, one can begin to piece together what he saw and thought.

Your observation about felons with firearms is correct. It also applies to third strikers. In both cases, they present an increased level of resistance and danger. Officers still have the right to detain and arrest; they need not desist.

Unlike TV or the movies, it is not practical or possible to land shots in a specific part of the torso in a quick moving, deadly situation. If Officer May hit Alvarez in the leg, it's because it was his only target or he was unable to aim properly. May had been trained to shoot to the mid-section. One explanation for his poor aim might be that he had already been struck by one of Alvarez's rounds.

The Explorer already testified. I don't believe he was able to say who fired first. It really doesn't matter. Officer May shot Alvarez because deadly force was required. Officer May had the right to shoot Alvarez; Alvarez had no right to shoot May.

Sorry Since. I don't agree with you. Who fired first does matter. If Officer May saw Alvarez draw his gun, it makes no sense he only shot him in the leg. Officer May was trained to use deadly force, why did he not do so if Alvarez was firing at him first or was capable of doing so. I want to say again I mean no disrespect to Officer May and I know nothing about this case other than what I have read. However, I do not believe this to be a clear cut as we would like it to be.

Perhaps the Almanac could determine if an investigation was conducted at the time of the shooting and advise us of the results. There are so many other important questions I would like to know the answers to, like was Officer May dead before Alvarez shot him in the head, how many shots did Officer May fire?.

Lest anyone think otherwise, I am no apologist for [portion removed] Alvarez. I have no doubt he deserves whatever he gets. No matter how Officer May reacted that day, Alvarez did not need to kill him. That said, I have to believe that police procedures for the detention of possible crime suspects takes into account the type of crime committed. Shooting a fleeing suspect from a rape, burglary or murder can certainly be justified, but from a fist fight!!Something is wrong here and its worth finding out what.

Alvarez testified that he was shot first. Other testimony indicates Alvarez shot first and officer May returned fire after being shot twice in the chest (wwith bullet proof vest).

Alvarez was hit in the leg from may's return of fire. Alvarez then returned to May to shoot him in the face execution style.

Let's not forget Alvarez was a paroled felon in possesion of a gun.

The defence is contending May should not have even chased Alvarez with his club.