Police Shooting of William Marble was Justified

[XLFD]

William Marble, 68, was shot by a Michigan State Police trooper on January 14, 2014, after 11 PM while he was inside his house.  It was a shot into his chest that was fatal.  He was alleged to have been holding a gun, alleged to have had some alcohol and acting confrontational, alleged to have been involved in some domestic altercation which had someone call 9-1-1 and suspiciously hung up.

                                                            William Marble

The police shooter, who has yet to be identified publicly, had went to Marble's home to investigate the suspicious 9-1-1 hang up call.  He arrived and allegedly made contact with a woman at the house.  He allegedly saw Marble holding a gun in an aggressive manner, and the trooper shot him.  This was what the local media started reporting the next morning, the story developing with just a few more details released by the troopers commanding officer.

The police shooting of William Marble was justified, and will be deemed that way by the prosecutor later this week if not today.  I can say this with certainty, without listening to the recording from the microphone that was on Trooper "Smith" that evening, without listening to the woman that was also there that night (both of which have been suppressed for over five days to the public) and that his actions will be found to be totally justified and proper.  I am also optimistic that his actions will not only be lionized by his fellow officers, but accepted as heroic by a majority of the people who read the official account of what happened that night.

Consider, on July of 2009, a Ludington policeman pulled over a woman driving home with her grown son.  The officer said he pulled her over for defective taillights but perceived that she may have been driving impaired on talking with her and smelling her breath, and has her get out from the car.  While talking to the officer about the taillight problem and about any alcohol consumption, her son gets out of the car and wonders about his mother's status.  This is all on dash cam video.

He gets back into the car after the officer insists he does, then about three minutes later he gets back out and is told he has to stay in the car a couple of times.  He politely refuses and asks what the officer is doing.  This is rather proper, since more than seven minutes into the stop there have been no field sobriety tests, or other disposition offered up by the officer.  The officer asks for more space and less interference, and the son complies politely.  The video shows the son kept a respectful distance at all times.

The officer calls for backup, the beach patrolman arrives, the son gets out his I-Phone and starts recording the events.  The new officer slaps the son's hand and he walks away, and is promptly shadowed by that officer.  The son turns back asking about getting the dogs in the back of the car, while reinforcements arrive, two sheriff deputies.  They say:  "We'll take him." and then "Last opportunity to leave or you're going to jail.".  As he pauses, one of the officers says "You're under arrest."

As he continues to walk away with his back to them, the three officers run at him and take him down from behind, leg sweeping him to the hard pavement of Ludington Avenue.  The son is not fighting back, at worst he is passively resisting the assaulting officers by keeping his hands attached to his sides, as per depositions of the officers.  Without any cause for arrest being articulated the three portly officers struggle trying to put the lanky son in handcuffs, as they proceed to shoot him with a taser five times for compliance.  Meanwhile, his mother is watching this take place while the other officer prevents her from aiding her son.

After about two minutes the son is led back by the deputies to their car.  The beach officer, follows and comes back to the mother, who is handcuffed and led to the back of the original squad car also under arrest.  Without any sort of field sobriety test, without any articulated reason as to why they were arresting her, they take her away after her son is shipped over to the hospital.

The son's I-Phone is taken and its contents are later found to be deleted when he gets it back after being jailed.  He is handcuffed to a hospital bed and tasered more by two of the officers after refusing medical treatment for the knee the officers wounded.  He is put into jail and charged with five counts of resisting/obstructing/assaulting officers by the prosecutor.  Facing serious time against a justice system that is anything but, this victim accepts a plea deal to take it one count under the advice of his local attorney who knows how the system works.

None of the three people that senselessly assaulted this man, Ludington citizen Joseph McAdam, on the street and in the hospital with witnesses abounding and the violent crime rather stark,  have ever seen any sort of repercussion on the badged perpetrators.  In fact, the two deputies were specially commended a short time later for their exchange of gunfire with another Ludington citizen on his property, where he was shot.  But that was overlooked, because an officer was shot too.

And when McAdam went to federal court and then binding arbitration to seek justice for what some may deem a large violation of many of his rights, he received relief from being tasered at the hospital, yet nothing was deemed injurious by the arbitrator for the assault, brutality, false arrest, destruction of evidence, and malicious prosecution that also befell McAdam.

And is this why I think William Marble's shooter is blameless and will be seen as someone who deserved to be shot by the trooper?  It's a good start, but let's look at another local police shooting that involved a state trooper that took place last summer, this time when the police is seemingly the obvious victim.

Trooper Paul Butterfield was shot almost assuredly by Eric Knysz at a traffic stop.  Eric was apparently driving the car, had possession of the gun that was involved, shot the officer, drove off, stole a car, and prepared to go on the run.

His wife was in the passenger seat of his car.  She apparently didn't do anything that could be considered illegal that day.  She is not alleged to have pulled the trigger to shoot the officer, nor encourage it.  She never had control of either vehicle.  She was always within the sphere of influence of a person who had just killed a cop in cold blood and was carrying a five month old fetus.  She has shown only remorse for what her husband did that day.

She was charged with accessory to murder after the fact and unlawfully driving away a motor vehicle in two counties for her part in the senseless killing.   A plea deal was arranged for 1-2 years on the former, 0-11 moths on the latter, and Judge Cooper in a court full of law enforcers, went higher assigning her 2-5 years because of the egregiousness of the crime-- that she really had no part in committing if we look at it objectively.  Judge Richard Cooper acknowledged that Eric Knysz was a controlling husband, but noted there was nothing to show Sarah Knysz couldn't have gotten away after Butterfield’s murder.  Though he didn't elaborate.

So in our area, for review, it is a crime to be a victim of police brutality, that you can be brutalized on camera by police officers, have the prosecutor look at those reports and the video and prosecute the ridiculous claim of five assaults against the bleeding, half-electrocuted victim who did nothing aggressive on the street or in the hospital.

It is a crime to be a captive of someone else who shoots a police officer, it is a crime not to either stop him from getting away even while he's holding a gun and has been abusive to you in the past, or run away from him while his gun is still smoldering.

It is a crime to look on while your son is being attacked, three burly officers raining blows and tasering him repeatedly while you can do nothing.  You are his mother, why have you raised him not to respect abusive authority like he should?   You're taking a ride in the squad car without any charges leveled against you.

Americans have long been comfortable with a double standards for police – both legal and cultural. Cops can murder, rape, and pillage with impunity, both from a legal and moral standpoint. When they murder, rape, and pillage – it is for the sake of public safety, national security, and order. Thus, they are protected from legal consequences, as well as moral judgment.

To many Americans, police essentially can do no wrong. If they murder a petty criminal, it’s justified because he was a criminal. If they murder an innocent person, it was a mere “mistake,” and justified because police were “doing their job.”   We are asked to understand and accept their version, even if it doesn't make sense, because many of us glorify them.

Many Americans care not that police lionization and immunity has resulted in the “Land of the Free” having the highest incarceration rate, both per capita and in sheer numbers, in the entire world. For the same reason, many Americans actually think it’s quite wonderful that their infallible demi-gods have steadily acquired weapons they should not possibly ever need for domestic purposes, while ordinary citizens are increasingly restricted and regulated in firearms ownership. Who are lowly mortals to question the motivation of gods in keeping us safe?

To some, police murdering people in their homes and assaulting them in the streets with little impunity isn’t chaos and violence, it is order and safety-- a way to keep the peace.  And heaven help the person or media outlet that dares to debunk the myth by pointing out facts and sharing photos and videos that paint our heroes in a bad light.  They don't speak for the rest of us, whose confidence cannot be shaken so easily.

For these reasons, William Marble, mild-mannered retired career teacher admired by students, fellow faculty, and neighbors, has no chance in being remembered for those facts, and that trooper who shot him will only be deified by his fellow law officers, the local media, and the majority of our population.  Despite what the 'facts' turn out to be, and if the public is ever allowed to know the truth.

And just in case you think it's a problem in our area alone, out in Fullerton California a group of officers beat an innocent homeless man to death a couple of years ago caught on surveillance tape.  The officer who started the melee told Mr. Thomas while strapping on his gloves that his fists were going to f--k him up.

He was a man of his word in this regard.  Another officer quickly joined in with a club and as these two began a systematic beating of a human being with no regard to his humanity, others arrived and like sharks to a feeding frenzy, continued the lynching.  The incident, including Ramos’ blatant threat, was captured on video. Mr. Thomas can be seen on video being beaten and pleading for his life. He says “Dad, help me… They’re killing me,” repeatedly. He says, “Sir, please… okay…okay…” repeatedly. He says “Help me…help me god…” repeatedly. He also apologizes, but was murdered by police nevertheless.

The two officers who instigated the incident were just exonerated of charges at the beginning of last week.  No criminal charges for them or anyone else involved.  The threat and the senseless beating on a non-resistant, innocent-of-any-charges individual caught on tape, but absolutely no punishment for the systematic killing.  Yet, you could not easily count the number of years that all six individuals would have received if they were not wearing badges, and the pulp on the ground was.

Many who read this will continue believing those words on our Supreme Court "Equal Justice Under Law", and that public servants are held to a higher account.  It's a myth we would all like to believe.  As is the myth that will arise about William Marble's 'irrational acts' and the 'heroism' of our unknown trooper in this incident that our officials have done so well in covering up over the last week, and will manufacture into a convenient parable, irregardless of the truth.

[XLFD]

Art, you can go on believing everything you watch on the TV 'defense shows', because it sounds as if you wouldn't believe eyewitnesses, forensics, and surveillance tapes if it conflicted with your generalizations of 'bad guys'-- or what a cop put in their police report.

From the link:  "[Woodring's] only income was from a paper route, but he had previously worked at the Gerber Foods plant. In 1996 he ran for Dayton Township Supervisor on an anti-government platform, and promoted a "Committee for a De Jure Township." His criminal record was only tickets for not registering his car." 

The police could have arrested him after his voluntary interview or anywhere on his paper route for the specious charge.

[XLFD]

Sorry, Art Dean, I am probably one of the biggest pro-government forces around, however, the government I promote is the limited government peopled by accountable public servants that our Constitution describes, who are respectful of their duties, their oaths of office, and the rights of everyone:  poor or rich, black or white, male or female, badged or unbadged. 

I have only disdain for corrupted governments and public agencies, so I will likely be labelled 'anti-government' and criminalized myself by folks who wallow among the corruption and serve as apologists for the perversion of our language and our system. 

Gee whiz, I almost forgot that I was already labelled and criminalized by the letter of trespass I was served by the City of Ludington for reporting on their illegal actions. 

[Willy]

I guess it boils down to the credibility of the police and whether they can be believed. That's why it's so important to have video cameras on their persons when they confront the public. If they did then that would help back up their story. As it is now we must take the word of the police as to what transpired. Eye witness accounts of any incident are unreliable.

[AQUAMAN]

You are quite right Willy, you can't disagree with video, it shows exactly what happens, and it's there to view without question nor misinterpretations. Is that why so many in LE prevent videos from being taken, and destroy them when confiscated? Art, the LE community is there to protect and serve, not just themselves, but the citizens that hire and pay them. It's supposed to be their job to make sure and try to diffuse any situation they encounter, without force, and with integrity for the respect they ask of us all. In Marble's case, a man on a couch with the gun at his side doesn't sound life threatening. And even if he did lift the pistol, the police could just as easily have tasered him, or shot him in a non-critical way, like his arm, leg, foot, or elsewhere. I suspect the MSP officer had his weapon drawn upon entering the home, and therefore he got the drop on Marble before calculating and diffusing the situation. He may have been a younger cop without the experience required to make a more sound judgment. The MSP in our area are now very paranoid after the last year of fiasco's, and that's understandable, up to a point. The other counterpoint is that they still have a duty to take suspects alive if at all possible. This point hasn't been proven yet in this case. Why is it taking so long, now 3 weeks or so, for the facts to be given to the public? It leads a person to think they are making sure that they all get their story straight to me at least. In most cases like this, the story is publicized with details after just a few hours or days, not weeks.

[XLFD]

I read Aquaman's post and then I read Art Dean's and I don't understand how Art came to the conclusions he did, and the analogy he posed and... everything.  I just had to pose a confusion meme, because I don't understand at all.

[XLFD]

Art Dean,

You must have some reading comprehension problems, have no knowledge of the rights of individuals, and/or don't take the time to read what others post, because no one other than you have said "as long as you are in your home and no matter what you are doing LE has no right to protect the people inside". 

Obviously, you are short on learning about American Civics, because police as public servants have powers, not rights, and even though there is no reserved or implied 'power to protect' people in the sanctity of their own homes in a manner of the police officer's choosing, there are several constitutional amendments that allow for people to be protected from their government's agents acting beyond their powers, and many implied rights and laws concerning privacy, limits of police power, and trespassing. 

A good policeman is one that respects the limitations on his power and the extent of the rights of the people he encounters.  A good policeman may sometimes have to use lethal force, your video is a good example of where they had an extremely valid reason to shoot to kill for self-defense.   But, I would hope that if someone approached a cop menacingly without a lethal instrument, that the cop would not shoot to kill automatically. 

[XLFD]

A movie trilogy starring Mel Gibson and Danny Glover as a couple of cops who have different styles.  But seriously, lethal weapons are various firearms, slings, bows, and any instrument that could easily inflict fatal damage at closer range.  A person holding or possessing lethal weapons in and of itself is not grounds for an officer to shoot; people do have a right to bear arms.  This makes the job of being a policeman tough and dangerous, because they have to use their discretion to somehow discern the intent of the bearer. 

But when the officer has been trained only how to use a hammer, all of the problems begin looking like a nail, to turn a phrase of Maslow's.  Innocent people sometimes die or get seriously injured because the police choose force over intellect. 

For example, Woodring a known Michigan militiaman, should not have been attempted to be arrested at what he believes is his sovereign castle.  Was the arrest even necessary at that point with what they had?  The MSP never felt they needed to justify that point. 

[XLFD]

Johnny (who morphed from E Murph), decided to leave on his own.  Pretty courageous act for E Murph to come on here, change his name, adopt his usual 'unique' slant on things, while casting aspersions on me and/or others.  Typical for that kind of mentality.  He'll probably be back, if you are missing him, s. todd.

[Willy]

Whenever E Murph posts, no matter what name he/she uses I can always tell who it is. The snotty attitude pervades all his/her posts. His/her  posts are like a gorilla's finger print. It stands out it's so obvious.

[AQUAMAN]

I guess I missed the earlier E Murph posts, thanking my lucky stars....lol. Does anyone remember when we called our esteemed LE "peace officers"? It implies just what the term states, "peace over violence". My interpretation of all officers' duties is to try to diffuse the suspect and the situation, to a successful conclusion. I.E., it means that no one gets killed, and both parties come home safe. I know that isn't exactly what's going to occur every time out there, that's impossible. But, from my experience around Mason County for over 50 years, we have seldom seen the violent shootings and taserings we have lately, say the last 5 years or so. So, what we have is a community of more diverse and troubled individuals running around imho. Way too many around here with big-city mentalities, not home-grown. I hope this kindly clarifies some of my past posts, as I am not anti-LE, nor am I overboard pro-LE. I try to interpret others comments with as much latitude as possible, but, there are always a few that like to put words in my mouth that I never said, and are completely false. Willy, you're funny....lol. There is no judge nor jury panels on this forum Art, so please, don't imply more falsehoods. There is a lot of rumors, inuendos, guessing, and conjecture to be had in this case, esp. since everyone in the know is keeping it "hush-hush" for so long.

[wayne]

The larger question in my mind is why (was it 2?) state chartered highwaymen, which functionally have a long history of proving themselves as extensions of the federals (and often are), showing up in residences and bullets are flying?  Unless someone was in dire need, why would they trespass and enter a residence & execute someone?  

Here are some other questions you might consider....

Why does the MSP have a history of planting themselves in (often very unusual) social situations, such as conferences, undercover?  Is this to serve and protect?

Do you know about the MSP running protection for child prostitutions rings in southern Michigan?  

How about the property that was laid siege to in southern MI with the owner being shot through the head by a sniper?

Why does MSP appear in numerous contracts & grants (financial/legal instruments) throughout the state with municipalities, with our infamously expensive & ineffective modern version of NKVD, DHS?  Of which include, data collection?

............

[wayne]

Hello Art.  :-)     Show me where they were invited.  Until then, it is private property.  Obviously (from someone driving by) a residence.  Did someone call for help?   OK, now explain to me how I am reaching.  Thank you.