Posted on 09/22/2007 6:13:32 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
CORPUS CHRISTI — The family of a man who was shot by a Nueces County Sheriff’s deputy in June filed a wrongful death lawsuit last week against the county and the deputy.
Deputy Burl Smith shot Miguel Angel Ramirez 10 times on June 7 after Ramirez, who was walking along Interstate 37 with an 18-inch machete, did not obey orders to drop the machete.
A grand jury in July declined to indict Smith on any charges in connection with the shooting.
The suit, filed by Ramirez’s parents, Cirilo Ramirez of Rosanky and Maria Guzman of Arlington, accuses the county of failing to properly train and supervise its officers and alleges the deputy used excessive force.
The 32-year-old’s family has said he suffered from epileptic seizures that often left him confused and that the deputy should have seen signs Ramirez needed medical attention.
The amount of medication in his system to treat the seizures was within the treatment range at the time, according to a report by Nueces County Medical Examiner Dr. Ray Fernandez.
A pretrial hearing in the case is set for Nov. 8 in U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack’s court.
Plaintiff attorney Christopher J. Bale, based in San Antonio, said Friday instead of defusing the situation the deputy escalated it by climbing a concrete barrier to reach Ramirez and then spraying him with pepper spray.
“What he should have done was call for backup,” Bale said. “He created the situation that they’re claiming justified (the shooting).”
But Sheriff Jim Kaelin said on Friday the civil suit, which asks for unspecified damages, has no merit and that the deputy acted appropriately.
“It’s a suit of distortions and misrepresentations of the facts and it is sad that Burl Smith has to go through this,” Kaelin said. “No amount of training, whether the person is mentally ill or not, would prevent a law enforcement authority from protecting himself from a machete attack.”
“The 32-year-old’s family has said he suffered from epileptic seizures that often left him confused and that the deputy should have seen signs Ramirez needed medical attention.”
I think the parents should have seen the signs that their kid is an idiot. As a veteran LEO I have dealt with many types of people with medical conditions...carrying a machete down the interstate never seemed to be a symptom of Epilepsy. Glad that brave Deputy is alright and too bad he has to go through these frivilous suits.
Of course not. He did his job.
He tried to verbally work with the guy, he tried non-lethal means...but a disturbed man with a machette kept coming.
The officer is hired and sworn to uphold the law and protect citizens and so he defended himself and put the disturbed man down. I am sorry it came to that, but I will not fault the officer based on what I know at this point from the reports.
_____________________________________________________
We really don’t know much about the situation. If he didn’t have a taser he should have waited for one unless the man was threatening someone’s life.
Even if he did decide to shoot, why not wound him? Why ten shots?
If was your kid on drugs doing something stupid you would feel the same as me only you would be screaming at the cops.
This wasn't a kid, it was a 32 year old man. Come on, in order to wait for a taser, he would have had to withdraw...leaving the public at risk. He did his job. My guess is that the guy came at him.
Why ten shots? Because when you finally come to the decision to defend yourself against a man coming at you with a machette, you keep shooting until he no longer moves. Otherwise, a man wounded in the leg can still kill you dead.
From what I'm reading, I agree with your position, Jeff. When a LEO officer's life is threatened, he also has a right to protect himself from being killed.
Deputy Smith first tried to subdue Ramirez using pepper spray, and then he fired several warning shots. When Ramirez kept moving toward the deputy Smith fired 13 shots at Ramirez hitting him 10 times and killing him.
Miguel Angel Ramirez was spotted walking down the middle of I-37 and carrying a machete on June 7. Deputy Burl Smith told Ramirez to stop and put down the machete, but Ramirez did not.
Deputy Smith first tried to subdue Ramirez using pepper spray, and then he fired several warning shots. When Ramirez kept moving toward the deputy Smith fired 13 shots at Ramirez hitting him 10 times and killing him.
******
Kaelin learned of Ramirez’s medical condition Friday and stood by Smith’s decision to fire.
“The officer in this situation was reacting to an imminent threat to his life,” Kaelin said.
Kaelin said no evidence, based on statements from Smith and witnesses, indicated Ramirez was having a seizure at the time of the incident.
“All things are possible,” Kaelin said. “But, he had a machete in his hand and raised it to strike the officer.”
Family members said he carried a machete because they live in a rural area and he used it to work outdoors. Rosanky is about 80 miles northeast of San Antonio in Bastrop County.
Ramirez’s actions appeared to be deliberate, Kaelin said, adding that seizures are involuntary, meaning a person is unable to control movement. Kaelin also said Ramirez appeared to have raised the machete in a threatening motion to strike the officer.
******
On December 9, 1992, Complainant, Maria Guzman, a Mexican national and
an alleged alien authorized for employment in the United States since on or about
January 1, 1984, filed a charge with the OSC in which she alleged that
Respondent, Guardian Electric Mfg., Co., had discriminated against her based on,
both, her national origin status and her citizenship status. In a letter dated
February 1, 1993, OSC informed Complainant that, based on its investigation, it
had determined that she was not a protected individual as defined in 8 U.S.C.
1324b and would not be filing a Complaint. Exercising her statutory right, on
February 11, 1993, Complainant filed the instant Complaint alleging, again, that
Respondent had discriminated against her based, both, on her national origin and
her citizenship status. To the charges, she added the bold allegation that
Respondent had intimidated her based on the fact that she had filed or had
planned to file a complaint with this agency, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(5).
Yet another reason why being a police officer is a tough job.
very interesting, kcvl!
No.
If he had seziures; a taser wouldn’t be a good idea.
Law enforcement officers do not shoot to kill. They do not shoot to wound. They discharge their weapon until the threat to life is neutralized. Why 10 shots? Perhaps it took that many rounds to end the threat. I've seen suspects go down lifeless after a couple of rounds and others take a dozen and live through the experience. You just keep shooting until the threat ends.
I suppose if you're not using it to harvest sugar cane or something, it's considered brandishing.
I'm sure you are right. No way the officer just opens fire for no reason at all.
If he was close enough to spray, and had time to draw his sidearm, he could have fired non-lethal disabling shots to one of six locations that he should have been trained to hit first.
Not enough info. Why did they "have" to shoot him? Were they tired of waiting? If there was no one left to threaten what was the urgency that required deadly force?
should have tossed her butt back then.
Prior to being medicated our son suffered an epileptic seizure. When the seizure was over he could barely walk, much less carry a machete down the interstate. Since he started taking his medication he has not once had the urge to walk down the interstate carrying a machete.
Guess this guy was on a different kind of medication.
Well, you gotta get close enough to use the Taser...if he was flailing the machete...it would be pretty difficult.
Well, you gotta get close enough to use the Taser...if he was flailing the machete...it would be pretty difficult.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.