Deputy Wyman's killer indicted

[dgriffin]

A Couple of Things:

FA, I think we're retracing our steps over old ground. I disagree with your notion of absolving Patterson from guilt because the police may have made mistakes to which he reacted wrongly. This was Patterson's show and he killed a man. Patterson did not want his life. Wyman was a young man with his entire life before him. I feel for his family, too. I don't think you and I will come to agreement on who is responsible. It will be interesting to see the jury wrestle with the issues.

Bz, will you be appearing in your bikini? (I can turn anything into a sexist thing.) Seriously, believe it or not I will be in town this weekend (50th Reunion) and if I can attend we will look for you and RJ.

[firstamendment]

Well we both agree this was handled poorly and a valuable life was lost.

But, Patterson wasn't in charge, the sheriffs on scene should have been in charge. We do agree that Patterson is responsible for the events that brought the police there in the first place, but for the charge he originally faced, was this use of force justified to bring a conclusion?

This is going to be a very interesting case in trial and I certainly hope it does go to trial. As painful as it may be for all involved, it needs to be sorted out publicly. Key elements will come up as to Patterson's intent for much of that night, the tactics used and not used by the Sheriffs, and many more. No doubt there is a lot to hash out here. From a criminal standpoint, law enforcement probably aren't guilty of committing any crimes except possibly unsing undue force to end the situation. And even if that were a possibility, it would be a civil issue not criminal. To me, the key is intent and most of that night Patterson showed no intent to harm anybody else. So, what changed all that at the very end, the actions to shoot him by police. Whether they felt justified in trying to conclude the situation in that way, his defense will pick at it by showing how he never posed threats to them. Certainly, other members of law enforcement and/or others trained in resolving these situations will be key defense witnesses to show what should and shouldn't have been done to resolve it peacefully.

Sometimes you never know how these things will end. Even with tried and true tactics, it can still end badly. But I have a hard time knowing what we know of to lay blame on Patterson when he was provoked by being shot at. It was the wrong course of action and it ended up costing a young man his life, and another almost his life and possibly his freedom.

[bobbbiez]

Aug 3, 2011 14:22:40 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

Bz, will you be appearing in your bikini? (I can turn anything into a sexist thing.) Seriously, believe it or not I will be in town this weekend (50th Reunion) and if I can attend we will look for you and RJ.

Great, will be looking forward to seeing you there if you can come. As usual there will be a huge crowd so I will do my best to spot you. Please pray for a nice day for all the riders.

ps: Sorry kiddo, no bikini though. Will have my two grandsons with me so I'll just have to behave myself. ;D

[Ralph]

Dave, I only want to point out that in a situation such as this, not obeying a lawful order to dispose of ones weapon is pretty much a given. This is a suicide attempt and you can certainly expect the subject to retain his weapon and stance of self injury until the ultimate surrender of same.
In the instance of a traffic stop or warrant service, if the subject has a weapon in hand and is given a “lawful order” to release it and then turns to point it at an officer, then by all means I am in complete agreement with SOP that you should fire upon the suspect until you are secure in the knowledge that he is no longer a threat.

Personally, and after reading the published accounts of the event, Patterson is certainly guilty.
Litigation may prove a point of no return for him due to mental stress, psychological imbalance, military training, reflex actions of self defense, and on and on. This does not absolve him of the guilt of terminating another human beings life, and he will no doubt serve time in one institution or another for his actions.

My only point, as has been previously stated by myself and JR, is this never should have happened. There was a flaw in the chain of command or of the commander himself. The scene and situation had escalated beyond their command and control. Feeling pressed for time, for whatever reason, they decided to “attempt to take him into custody”. You don’t do that; not, nadda, never…..especially after most tacticians have dissected Waco and Ruby Ridge et al to microscopic mini situational deficiencies that progressed to a terminal end.

And Bobbbiez is right as well. The situations you encounter “outside of the box” each and every day often bring judgment of the situation to a fine point in minutes or seconds for the LEO’s on the street.

But this was not the case here.

I think Patterson will pay whatever price they haggle upon for his murder of a fine young man.

My fear is that the ultimate cause of his actions to the finality of the event will fade and be ignored.

One is guilty of the murder…………..someone is guilty of the cause.

[JGRobinson]

BZ, I mean no disrespect, anytime an Officer or Service Member dies without cause, someone loses a loved one and we lose a piece of our future. Im absolutely sure I havent said that Patterson isn't without blame in this but at the same time I don't think any of us would have sought anyone's permission to defend our own lives if we thought someone even the Police was trying to end it. If I could put my mind into a place I can make any sense of this, it would have to be my Military Training. I believe the Police do risk Mortal Combat every-time they strap on their Piece and pin on that badge. They really do face most of the same human risks a Leg Infantry Soldier faces every day.

Actually, my only goal here is to illuminate ways to keep Police and Civilians safer in these situations that seem to be on the increase. Lessons learned in Combat tell us that most Fratricide and Friendly deaths are avoidable if the tools, the training and our Leadership follow the SOP's we have developed since the begining of Rogers Rangers Handbook in 1759 (I still have my copy, I never put on my uniform without it close at hand).

1. Don't forget nothing.

2. Have your musket clean as a whistle, hatchet scoured, sixty rounds powder and ball, and be ready to march at a minute's warning.

3. When you're on the march, act the way you would if you was sneaking up on a deer. See the enemy first.

4. Tell the truth about what you see and what you do. There is an army depending on us for correct information. You can lie all you please when you tell other folks about the Rangers, but don't never lie to a Ranger or officer.

5. Don't never take a chance you don't have to.

6. When we're on the march we march single file, far enough apart so one shot can't go through two men.

7. If we strike swamps, or soft ground, we spread out abreast, so it's hard to track us.

8. When we march, we keep moving till dark, so as to give the enemy the least possible chance at us.

9. When we camp, half the party stays awake while the other half sleeps.

10. If we take prisoners, we keep 'em separate till we have had time to examine them, so they can't cook up a story between 'em.

11. Don't ever march home the same way. Take a different route so you won't be ambushed.

12. No matter whether we travel in big parties or little ones, each party has to keep a scout twenty yards ahead, twenty yards on each flank and twenty yards in the rear, so the main body can't be surprised and wiped out.

13. Every night you'll be told where to meet if surrounded by a superior force.

14. Don't sit down to eat without posting sentries.

15. Don't sleep beyond dawn. Dawn's when the French and indians attack.

16. Don't cross a river by a regular ford.

17. If somebody's trailing you, make a circle, come back onto your own tracks, and ambush the folks that aim to ambush you.

18. Don't stand up when the enemy's coming against you. Kneel down, lie down, hide behind a tree.

19. Let the enemy come till he's almost close enough to touch. Then let him have it and jump out and finish him with your hatchet.

The tools have changed and the training is 100 times better but the tactics remain unchanged for centuries! I have written modern day versions of every single one of these Standing Orders, they are the basis for any Offensive or Defensive action a Soldier or Policeman must take.

I may seem a bit cold when discussing the actions on the objective, thats the only way I can look at it objectively without screaming. I have been trained by some of the best to access situations just like this from an Infantry Non Commissioned Officers Warfighters Tactical perspective, emotion has no seat at the table in Planning Missions or After Action analysis, understanding the
mental State of the Combatant does. I assure you, there is nothing cold about my human feelings, I'm sad and a bit incensed by the whole thing.

As Ralph pointed out, we forget way too quickly, sometimes we react the same way, too quickly. I dont think anyone is all that proud of how this played out, even the Sheriff is backpedaling. It will be painful to recreate the scene and wargame the orders given and the actions taken but it must be done for the sake of future situations that will happen like this. SOPs are all good but they are living documents, the only way to make them better is to evaluate their effectiveness in real life. Training is very important but when things dont go as planned executing real missions; Out-briefing and After Action Reviews are Capstone in creating and revising SOPS with lessons learned.

No doubt about it, Patterson did initiate the original actions that brought the Police into his life and he ignored a couple opportunities to end the standoff peacefully. It should go without saying he wasn't thinking clearly, thats obvious and the reason that the police were attempting to secure him to begin with. Much happened in those six hours, culminating with the rapid deployment and application of Plastic Bullets, Tazers and plain old bullets, what changed in the minds of the police to execute an assault at that moment, I hope we learn the impetus for that because it was that action that inspired the firefight?

The randomness of situations, reasons and experiences that cause Mental Duress do make it very hard to prevent breakdowns, Negotiate or deal sensibly with the sufferers. We cant expect them to act reasonably when their reasoning is compromised by mental illness.

Perception may not rue the day in the courtroom, facts and laws do. It does have everything to do with actions in an intense situation like this. Cooler minds must prevail and those trained to defuse must be more prepared to employ non physical responses.

[dgriffin]

Aug 4, 2011 1:41:27 GMT -5 Ralph said:

Dave, I only want to point out that in a situation such as this, not obeying a lawful order to dispose of ones weapon is pretty much a given. This is a suicide attempt and you can certainly expect the subject to retain his weapon and stance of self injury until the ultimate surrender of same.
In the instance of a traffic stop or warrant service, if the subject has a weapon in hand and is given a “lawful order” to release it and then turns to point it at an officer, then by all means I am in complete agreement with SOP that you should fire upon the suspect until you are secure in the knowledge that he is no longer a threat.

Personally, and after reading the published accounts of the event, Patterson is certainly guilty.
Litigation may prove a point of no return for him due to mental stress, psychological imbalance, military training, reflex actions of self defense, and on and on. This does not absolve him of the guilt of terminating another human beings life, and he will no doubt serve time in one institution or another for his actions.

My only point, as has been previously stated by myself and JR, is this never should have happened. There was a flaw in the chain of command or of the commander himself. The scene and situation had escalated beyond their command and control. Feeling pressed for time, for whatever reason, they decided to “attempt to take him into custody”. You don’t do that; not, nadda, never…..especially after most tacticians have dissected Waco and Ruby Ridge et al to microscopic mini situational deficiencies that progressed to a terminal end.

And Bobbbiez is right as well. The situations you encounter “outside of the box” each and every day often bring judgment of the situation to a fine point in minutes or seconds for the LEO’s on the street.

But this was not the case here.

I think Patterson will pay whatever price they haggle upon for his murder of a fine young man.

My fear is that the ultimate cause of his actions to the finality of the event will fade and be ignored.

One is guilty of the murder…………..someone is guilty of the cause.

Good points, Ralph. And we'll be pondering over this for a long time. But you're right, there's enough blame to go around, no doubt.

[dgriffin]

Aug 4, 2011 6:13:59 GMT -5 JGRobinson said:

BZ, I mean no disrespect, anytime an Officer or Service Member dies without cause, someone loses a loved one and we lose a piece of our future. Im absolutely sure I havent said that Patterson isn't without blame in this but at the same time I don't ............secure him to begin with. Much happened in those six hours, culminating with the rapid deployment and application of Plastic Bullets, Tazers and plain old bullets, what changed in the minds of the police to execute an assault at that moment, I hope we learn the impetus for that because it was that action that inspired the firefight?

The randomness of situations, reasons and experiences that cause Mental Duress do make it very hard to prevent breakdowns, Negotiate or deal sensi...............il and those trained to defuse must be more prepared to employ non physical responses.

Very true, JG, and at this point it's impossible for us in the peanut gallery to follow the logic (or lack of it) that unfolded over six hours and then reached the point where the police fired on Patterson. Guess we'll have to wait for the trial. Although, of course, we'll hear only one side, unless the D.A. wants to play it a different way.

BTW, I like the Roger's Rangers pointers and have copied them. Thanks.

[JGRobinson]

Dave, He founded The US Amy Ranger, his Rangers were the baddest we had to offer, they didnt follow the Marques of Queensbury rules and they kicked ass.

The Ranger Handbook was written based on his principles of Combat. One of the most important pieces of reading material a Crunchy can have in their BDU Pocket. Ive worn 4 of them out.

[dgriffin]

I remember the rather silly movie, "Northwest Passage" from 1940, which I saw as an old movie in the 1950's when I was a kid. Spencer Tracy.

Here:

www.imdb.com/title/tt0032851/

[firstamendment]

Even if Ralph turns out to be right, that they'll get him for murder, I still have a hard time justifying that when he never intended harm to any of them. Everything changed the second they got impatient and tried to force an ending. The Sheriff's office certainly shares some culpability in this mess.

[Ralph]

The very least I can see him getting (unless he has a team of lawyers none of us could ever afford) is voluntary manslaughter with diminished capacity throw around the courtroom in the hopes of a lesser sentence.

Notice I said least.

Even though he may have thought he was acting in self defense, he did know they were LEO's shooting at him and he did drop his weapon and retrieve it to return fire.
That act alone is what will ultimately doom him.

[firstamendment]

To counter, Ralph, doesn't his comprehension that he thought they were firing live rounds at him factor into that equation? If he had made a threatening gesture, then there is the very real possibility they WILL shoot live rounds at you and any prudent person would have that expectation. But since he never made any threatening gestures toward them, a prudent person would not think they would be shot at. A key component is whether they were justified in the force they used, initiating the gun battle. The type of ammo they used initially is moot because only they knew what they were firing, he did not. Yes, he knew those were LEO's out there with guns, and suddenly he is shot with something.

The fact that he was aware those were LEO's outside is not as important as whether he would have a reasonable expectation they'd shoot him simply because he didn't comply. And given he had been threatening to kill himself, a person would not have a reasonable expectation LEO's would shoot at him, especially since they tried talking him out of killing himself for 6 hours.

I don't think the act of regaining control of his weapon will doom him as much as the unjustifiable actions of the Sheriff's office will doom them. To me it shows an instinctual response of self-preservation. After being shot, what guarantee would he have if he got up to surrender they wouldn't keep shooting? I believe this case will hinge more on what the sheriffs did that night more than what Patterson did. A big problem for the prosecution is the response the sheriffs got in return for the actions they gave.

I don't know how you feel about the man, but I have a hard time branding him a cop killer when, in all likelyhood, he never intended to kill anybody else, maybe not himself either. I still feel the actions of the sheriffs are what got Wyman killed.

[Clipper]

I pretty much have to sum it up in much the same manner FA. He is now guilty of shooting a cop, and will suffer the consequences in one fashion or another for his actions, but I also believe as you do, that the entire incident would have ended much differently if the police had been more prudent in their handling of the situation. I think that waiting until daylight would have been the first thing that might have prevented the situation from going south as it did.

Can't justify shooting a cop, but I do believe that the blame for the way it played out lies completely with law enforcement. Peppering the poor slob with rubber bullets in the dark is very unnerving. I would panic too if all of a sudden I was pelted with projectiles and didn't know if they were rubber or lead. My first thought would be that if some son of a bitch is going to kill me, I not going to simply sit still and let him shoot me.

The man was simply buying time sitting there with the gun. Time is cheap. There was NO need to rush in ending the stand off. With daylight approaching, the advantage was on the side of the police. Where was the guy going to go? They had him pinned down and isolated to a garage.

He damned sure should not have shot at the officers, but sadly the entire situation was precipitated by a bad call on the part of the cops. Sad but true. Someone will live with the decision to take that route for the rest of their lives. My sympathy is with that person also. I am sure that whoever made the decision to take that action had no knowledge of the potential for harm to either Patterson OR the police. Hopefully the lessons learned will result in a more effective operating procedure in handling that sort of scenario. My prayers are with ALL involved. The Sheriff's Department are a great bunch of officers and very competent in most cases. They have a tough job, and it is hard for me to criticize them. I know several of the deputies personally and they are all well trained and dedicated to their jobs.

[dgriffin]

FA, if true, I do think that Patterson's dropping his weapon when shot, then retrieving it and firing at the deputy will doom him with the jury. I do not have a source for Ralph's information and I hope he shares it with us. Also, I wonder if there is a source for the one reference I came across that said Patterson fired twice.

In fact, in a way this new fact (if true) can serve to show that the police's choice of tactic actually worked, or almost so. They fired at Patterson, hit him and he dropped his gun. Anyone's expectation at that point would have been that an ordinary joe would give it up. So Wyant rushes in with a taser ... perhaps he should have rushed in with a .357 ... and yet Patterson persists. He grabs the weapon, picks it up and kills Wyant.

Also, the conversation preceding the shooting would have certainly involved, "we don't want anyone to get hurt, drop your weapon and come out with your hands up, we're trying to save your life here." Patterson must have expected that to be the case. Why would he think the cops were trying to kill him? He may have been wishing for "suicide by cop" but it backfired for he and Wyant.

[firstamendment]

Below is the section of Penal law he's been charged with for the death, and two counts of attempted:

§ 125.26 Aggravated murder.
A person is guilty of aggravated murder when:
1. With intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes
the death of such person, or of a third person who was a person
described in subparagraph (i), (ii) or (iii) of paragraph (a) of this
subdivision engaged at the time of the killing in the course of
performing his or her official duties; and
(a) Either:
(i) the intended victim was a police officer as defined in subdivision
thirty-four of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law who was at the
time of the killing engaged in the course of performing his or her
official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known
that the victim was a police officer; or
(ii) the intended victim was a peace officer as defined in paragraph a
of subdivision twenty-one, subdivision twenty-three, twenty-four or
sixty-two (employees of the division for youth) of section 2.10 of the
criminal procedure law who was at the time of the killing engaged in the
course of performing his or her official duties, and the defendant knew
or reasonably should have known that the victim was such a uniformed
court officer, parole officer, probation officer, or employee of the
division for youth; or
(iii) the intended victim was an employee of a state correctional
institution or was an employee of a local correctional facility as
defined in subdivision two of section forty of the correction law, who
was at the time of the killing engaged in the course of performing his
or her official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have
known that the victim was an employee of a state correctional
institution or a local correctional facility; and
(b) The defendant was more than eighteen years old at the time of the
commission of the crime; or
2. (a) With intent to cause the death of a person less than fourteen
years old, he or she causes the death of such person, and the defendant
acted in an especially cruel and wanton manner pursuant to a course of
conduct intended to inflict and inflicting torture upon the victim prior
to the victim's death. As used in this subdivision, "torture" means the
intentional and depraved infliction of extreme physical pain that is
separate and apart from the pain which otherwise would have been
associated with such cause of death; and
(b) The defendant was more than eighteen years old at the time of the
commission of the crime.
3. In any prosecution under subdivision one or two of this section, it
is an affirmative defense that:
(a) The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the
reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a
person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the
defendant believed them to be. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall
constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of,
aggravated manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the first
degree or any other crime except murder in the second degree; or
(b) The defendant's conduct consisted of causing or aiding, without
the use of duress or deception, another person to commit suicide.
Nothing contained in this paragraph shall constitute a defense to a
prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, aggravated manslaughter in
the second degree, manslaughter in the second degree or any other crime
except murder in the second degree.
Aggravated murder is a class A-I felony.


Notice this charge hinges on intent. If you ask me, and I think Patterson will probably say the same thing, he didn't intent to kill anybody, just he tried to get them to stop shooting him. I can't see him being convicted of aggravated murder, especially since Mc Namara publicly stated he never threatened officers. That brings a big question mark as to intent.

Toward the bottom of the charge it does give an affirmative defense for extreme emotional disturbance.