Never never never call the cops over a “mental health crisis.”
Full text below, if you’re paywalled or region-blocked:
A federal judge found that Las Cruces Police Department Officer Jerad Cosper did not violate the U.S. Constitution when he killed 75-year-old Amelia Baca in April 2021.
The ruling came on Sept. 5 from Senior District Judge Robert Brack after Baca’s family sued LCPD in federal court. The Baca family argued that Cosper violated Baca’s 4th amendment rights to be free of excessive use of force when he killed her on Apr. 16, 2021.
The ruling has no official bearing on the state Attorney General’s investigation and evaluation of Cosper’s conduct. A spokesperson for the Attorney General told the Sun-News this week the investigation and determination was ongoing. The ruling also does not affect a separate lawsuit in state court. In that case, the City of Las Cruces settled with Baca’s family for $2.75 million.
Cosper responded to Baca’s home after Baca’s daughter called the police, saying her mother was wielding two knives and threatening to kill her. Less than a minute after making contact with her, Cosper shot and killed Baca in front of her daughter and granddaughter.
During a news conference after that shooting, Baca’s family confirmed to the media that a doctor had recently diagnosed Baca with a form of dementia. Baca’s family believed that Baca was experiencing a mental health crisis when Cosper killed her.
Those factors were relevant in Brack’s determination that the shooting was constitutionally justified. Still, Brack pointed to two tests that federal judges rely on to determine if a shooting was constitutional. Brack outlined his reasoning in a 27-page opinion obtained by the Sun-News.
The tests are meant to question whether the officer’s decision to use force was reasonable and stems from a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case called Graham v. Connor and a Tenth Circuit case called Thomson v. Salt Lake City. Both rulings created tests that judges use to determine the reasonableness of using force.
The Graham test requires judges to consider the severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
The Tenth Circuit test includes whether the officers ordered the suspect to drop their weapon and the suspect’s compliance with police commands; whether any hostile motions were made with the weapon towards the officers; the distance separating the officers and the suspect; and the suspect’s state of mind (called manifest intention.)
Those two tests then lead the judge to two questions: was Cosper’s use of force excessive? And, if so, is he entitled to qualified immunity, a legal doctrine created by precedent that protects police officers from liability unless they’ve violated “a clearly established law”?
Brack found Cosper did not use excessive force in this case, making the second question less relevant, although Brack also said “Cosper is entitled to qualified immunity.”
“Although the determination of whether Cosper used excessive force is a close one, the Court finds that Cosper did not use excessive force when he shot Baca,” Brack said. “The Court further finds that Cosper did not unreasonably escalate the situation.”
Brack’s opinion does not end the case. Rather, this ruling will likely lead to the claim being dismissed in the coming weeks.
A request for comment from the Baca family attorneys has yet to be responded to.
As for Cosper, a spokesperson for the City of Las Cruces confirmed that Cosper has returned to “full duty” but would not specify what those duties entail. Before Cosper killed Baca, he was a member of the department’s canine unit and a field trainer for new officers, according to an investigation by the Sun-News.
The Graham test requires judges to consider the severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
Yeah, because of COURSE fleeing someone who’s famously likely to murder you is a crime so egregious as to merit an immediate execution, whether or not you’re guilty of anything else! 🤦🤬
Don’t call the cops unless you’re ready for everyone in the room, including you, to die.
Mentally I’ll person flailing two knives. Seems that in this case the use of lethal force was justified. If she survived, she wouldnt have been a positively productive part of society anymore anyways.
I dunno. I wasn’t there, didn’t see any video, didn’t hear the testimony.
This particular mentally-disturbed and now dead perp was 75 years old, though. I’d be wary of a 75-year-old mentally-disturbed woman wielding two knives, but unless she snuck up behind me I am confident that I could walk away alive and let her walk away alive, too.
This has the video, it’s brutal.
Its not justified its just bad unqualified training, I dont see why they cant create a new public service sector that are equipped to handle these scenarios since your police’ answer to everything is shoot it. Fund it by giving the police a large wage cut too.
As callous as this may sound I doubt her family regret their descision to call them tho a 2mn settlement or put up with granny dementia until something happens.
