A 5 year old boy, Austin Haley, fishing on a boat with his grandfather, was shot and killed on Saturday. The shots came from a Noble, Oklahoma police officer, who was shooting at a snake in a tree.
“Then two officers came out of the brush over there,” he told The Oklahoman. “They didn’t tell us they were the ones who had been shooting or that they had shot him. They didn’t admit a doggone thing.”
The Noble City Manager, Bob Wade, while admitting that they were “pretty sure” the office fired the shot that killed young Austin, nevertheless promised an investigation just to be sure. Apparently, the police received a call of a large snake in a tree. When the police arrived, there were numerous ways to get the snake down, but the homeowner urged the police to shoot it. And so they tried. And tried. Without recognizing that the bullets that missed the snake had to go somewhere.
Wade, the City Manager, refused to name the cop who shot Austin Haley.
The first part of this story is fairly straightforward. It’s a basic accidental tragedy. A 5 year old boy shot dead by an errant bullet. Granted, one may question the thought that went into shooting at a snake in a tree in a populated area. In New York, this might well be the foundation for a charge of reckless endangerment, the classic example being shooting into a crowd without the intention of killing anyone in particular. A particularly aggressive District Attorney might seek a “depraved indifference” murder charge. But that, of course, might be the case when the shooter is a regular person.
This killer was a cop. Normally, the first thing done when a cop kills a person without obvious excuse is to heavily investigate the person to smear their memory. If the cops are really lucky, they will dig up some drug crime history, or maybe even some violence, so that the news stories that follow talk about how the police officer shot a vicious drug dealing murderer. But it’s hard to pin much on a 5 year old. They just haven’t had the time yet to do anything really bad.
Also curious is the reluctance to concede that the cop killed Austin. Unless the magic bullet from the Kennedy assassination is still sailing through the air, there were no other bullets around. They know it. They don’t exactly deny it. But they won’t just admit it either. It’s nice to see offialdom having some doubts that a person killed another, even when the situation leaves little. But then, the shooter is one of their own.
But most striking about this situation is the reluctance to name the cop who shot and killed Austin Haley. Protecting the identity of the victim is the usual response. Protecting the shooter is not. Except this time. Do we really need to know the name of the cop to appreciate the tragedy of what happened to Austin? No, of course not. The name is a detail of little consequence to the story. But that’s true so many times, but honored only here. The concern shown for the cops sensibilities, as I have no doubt that he’s heartbroken by what happened, and his reputation, which will be ruined by his stupidity if not his actions, is endearing. It’s a shame that this concern is so rare.
And so the death of 5 year old Austin Haley provides only two lessons. First, even on a pond, fishing with your grandfather, there are risks that could take a young boy’s life. Second, if you’re going to do something really stupid that ends up with your killing a young boy, it’s good to be a cop.
“Then two officers came out of the brush over there,” he told The Oklahoman. “They didn’t tell us they were the ones who had been shooting or that they had shot him. They didn’t admit a doggone thing.”
The Noble City Manager, Bob Wade, while admitting that they were “pretty sure” the office fired the shot that killed young Austin, nevertheless promised an investigation just to be sure. Apparently, the police received a call of a large snake in a tree. When the police arrived, there were numerous ways to get the snake down, but the homeowner urged the police to shoot it. And so they tried. And tried. Without recognizing that the bullets that missed the snake had to go somewhere.
Wade, the City Manager, refused to name the cop who shot Austin Haley.
The first part of this story is fairly straightforward. It’s a basic accidental tragedy. A 5 year old boy shot dead by an errant bullet. Granted, one may question the thought that went into shooting at a snake in a tree in a populated area. In New York, this might well be the foundation for a charge of reckless endangerment, the classic example being shooting into a crowd without the intention of killing anyone in particular. A particularly aggressive District Attorney might seek a “depraved indifference” murder charge. But that, of course, might be the case when the shooter is a regular person.
This killer was a cop. Normally, the first thing done when a cop kills a person without obvious excuse is to heavily investigate the person to smear their memory. If the cops are really lucky, they will dig up some drug crime history, or maybe even some violence, so that the news stories that follow talk about how the police officer shot a vicious drug dealing murderer. But it’s hard to pin much on a 5 year old. They just haven’t had the time yet to do anything really bad.
Also curious is the reluctance to concede that the cop killed Austin. Unless the magic bullet from the Kennedy assassination is still sailing through the air, there were no other bullets around. They know it. They don’t exactly deny it. But they won’t just admit it either. It’s nice to see offialdom having some doubts that a person killed another, even when the situation leaves little. But then, the shooter is one of their own.
But most striking about this situation is the reluctance to name the cop who shot and killed Austin Haley. Protecting the identity of the victim is the usual response. Protecting the shooter is not. Except this time. Do we really need to know the name of the cop to appreciate the tragedy of what happened to Austin? No, of course not. The name is a detail of little consequence to the story. But that’s true so many times, but honored only here. The concern shown for the cops sensibilities, as I have no doubt that he’s heartbroken by what happened, and his reputation, which will be ruined by his stupidity if not his actions, is endearing. It’s a shame that this concern is so rare.
And so the death of 5 year old Austin Haley provides only two lessons. First, even on a pond, fishing with your grandfather, there are risks that could take a young boy’s life. Second, if you’re going to do something really stupid that ends up with your killing a young boy, it’s good to be a cop.
As you said, sometimes it’s beneficial to be a cop. Had it been a civilian who did the shooting, his name and picture would have been plastered everywhere.
Though I am outraged as well with this preventable tragic – and in my mind at least – CRIMINAL act, I think some of your anger (irritation?) is misplaced and frankly, a bit disingenuous. I guess maybe I just don’t get your point. Innocent until proven guilty unless you’re a cop? (As an aside, it has always been my experience that the true “diggers of dirt” have been defense attorneys trying to portray victims in a bad light.) In any case, aren’t you just like the people you’re complaining about? Cop not making a statement – don’t you advise your clients not to make statements? City Manager not definitely saying “This Cop killed this kid” – when you try a case like this, don’t you use whatever is ethically available to you to make a clear cut case unclear? So is your point that no one is above the law or is it that cops are bad? It is hard to tell from what you have written.
I apologize, Steve, for having been so unclear in my post. It was not meant to convey anger or irritation, but irony. To appreciate it, you need to understand the relative roles every plays in our system. We are not all the same, but serve very different functions. The police officer is not a random perp, but a person we, the members of this society, to whom we give a gun and shield. There are certain obligations that go with this awesome power, as opposed to some kid on the street with a gun. Our demands and expectations are different. The same is true of the City Manager, who would have been the first to point the finger at the killer, except when the killer is in his employ.
Defense lawyers will often seek out information to show that a witness is not credible. If that makes us “diggers of dirt,” so be it. That’s our role, to test the allegations against another person. Bear in mind, our clients don’t invite the cops to arrest them, so when it happens, we challenge it with whatever we have available. If this cop was charged and his lawyer challenged it, that’s appropriate. For the City to withhold his name (and picture) and treat him so fundamentally different than anyone else would be treated, that’s ironic.
SHG
FYI, this is a different “Steve” than the one above.
Recently I did a ride-along with the Alexandria, VA Police Department. During the ride-along, I asked the officer with whom I was “riding-along” about how she dealt with people who didn’t feel comfortable answering police questions. She responded, “If you don’t want to answer my questions, that makes me ask WHY you don’t want to answer my questions. If you don’t have anything to hide, you’ll probably answer questions. If you ARE hiding something, that’s when people start to refuse to talk.”
Later in the ride-along, I asked her whether she has a good or a poor relationship with the local defense attorneys. She explained that, she generally doesn’t talk to the defense attorneys: if one comes to talk to her outside of court, “I usually know WHY [the attorney] wants to speak with me. I just tell them that everything they need to know is in my report, and that if they have any questions, we’ll discuss them in court.”
And although it didn’t occur to me at the time, I should have asked, “But Officer, if you don’t have anything to hide, then what’s the harm?”
Just another example of that “irony” at play here.
This is a very complicated situation…
One one hand they were good cops and although not all cops are good they were merely trying to kill a snake. On the other hand they killed a 5 year old child due to, not necessarily from carlessness but from not trying to remove the snake someway else. I mean what are guns for? Protection. I believe the “inhumane” way of calling it is killing, but guns excell at what they were made to do. So it’s perfectly logical for a couple of cops who don’t want to bitten shoot the snake quickly annd get it over with. While were on the subject and i can still link anything to anything, DJM if it was a civilian there would have been way less advertising about the case. A cop’s image is PROTECTOR of the community, therefore they screw up they get nailed so fast (to put it lightly) his head will spin. What if an ex-cop did it would the article say CIVILIAN KILLS SMALL BOY, or would it say EX-COP KILLS SMALL BOY? Think about that for a moment and then post what you think. Or if you prefer email me at [email protected]
Also this is just a debate, so now that you have my email please don’t send me hate mail.
Huh? Why would I send you hate mail (or any mail) when I can’t even understand what you’ve written.
This is tragic, however, police are trained only to use a weapon in defense of their life, there were two officers, this was a populated area, shhoting thesnake was oK, but one of these officers should have checked the area behind the line of fired and cleared it before any gunfire, the snake obviously wasn’t gone anywhere, however cops can be trigger happy and stupid, I personally witnesed a state cop, shoot and kill a man, in front of his sister , who called them , because he was threating sucide with a knife, the man was holding a knife at his own throat, threating only himself, the cop said drop the knife, he didn’t and was shot in the chest, ruled justified
That’s one of those stories that would make for an hysterically funny joke, if it wasn’t true. Absolutely ludicrous.