Transcripts
September
16,
2003


Host:

Michael
Grant


Topics:

Mesa
police
—
five
officer‐involved
shootings
in
three
weeks;


In­Studio
Guests:

Craig
Mehrens,
an
attorney
who
represents
police
in
use‐of‐force
cases.


Nick
Hentoff,
an
attorney
who
represents
victims
in
use‐of‐force
cases.


________________________________________________________________________________________________

Michael:
Tonight
on
"Horizon,"
five
officer‐involved
shootings
in
three
weeks.
We'll

take
a
look
at
police
training,
the
use
of
non‐lethal
weapons,
and
the
role
of
civilian

review
boards.

Michael:
Good
evening,
I'm
Michael
Grant.
Welcome
to
"Horizon."


Michael:
Mesa
police
served
a
search
warrant
this
morning
at
the
home
of
a

teenager
killed
by
officers
three
weeks
ago.
Police
searched
for
two
missing
bullets,

removed
a
door
and
took
other
items.
The
search
came
at
the
request
of
the
county

attorney's
office,
which
is
investigating
the
shooting.
That
controversial
shooting
is

one
of
five
involving
Valley
police
officers
over
the
past
few
weeks,
four
in
Mesa

alone.
In
a
moment,
I'll
talk
with
a
couple
attorneys
who
represent
police
and

victims
in
such
cases,
but
first,
Paul
Atkinson
has
more
on
the
recent
police













shootings.



Reporter:
Three
weeks,
five
officer‐involved
shootings,
three
dead,
two
wounded.

The
first
shooting
happened
August
25th,
when
Mesa
police
confronted
a
suicidal

15‐year‐old
holding
a
knife.
Police
fired
their
guns
after
a
stun
gun
failed
to
work.



 1

Sgt.
Mike
Goulet:
The
Taser
was
ineffective,
and
the
juvenile
continued
to
advance

towards
the
officers
who
had
tried
to
retreat.
And
in
the
process,
again,
he

continued
to
advance
and
threaten
the
officers
at
which
point,
the
officers
did
fire

their
weapons
at
that
individual.

Reporter:
The
parents
of
Mario
Madrigal,
Jr.,
say
their
son's
death
was
unnecessary.


Mario
Madrigal
Sr:
He
was
already
down
when
they
shoot
him
on
the
floor.
He
died

like
this.
In
this
position
with
his
head
here,
right
there.


Martha
Madrigal:
He
was
like
that.
And
he's
still
going,
boom,
boom,
boom,
boom!

Reporter:
Police
have
released
little
information
on
the
case.
The
second
shooting

took
place
September
6th
at
this
trailer
park
in
Mesa,
where
23‐year‐old
Maryanne

Minchew
came
at
officers
with
this
knife.
They
fired
bean
bags
before
using
lethal

force.


Det.
Tim
Gaffney:
She
was
advancing
towards
the
officers
with
a
knife
in
her
hand

in
a
threatening
manner
which
is
why
one
of
our
officers
fired
multiple
rounds

striking
her.


Brother
of
Victim:
They
are
accurate
enough
to
hit
her
that
way,
why
couldn't
they

be
accurate
enough
to
shoot
her
in
the
arm,
shoot
the
knife?

Reporter:
The
third
and
fourth
shootings
happened
September
10th.
Mesa
police

responded
to
a
disturbance
call
where
they
shot
and
wounded
24‐year‐old
Jason

Evans
after
police
say
he
made
a
movement
with
a
knife.
Also
that
night
police

attempted
to
arrest
D.J.
Olvera
for
violating
parole.
The
22‐year‐old
was
knocked
off

his
bike
by
a
police
car,
then
was
shot
in
the
buttock
after
police
say
Olvera
pointed

a
handgun
at
the
detective.
His
mother
is
not
sure
how
her
son
was
a
threat
to

police.

Maria
Olvera:
They
hit
him
with
a
car
to
get
him
off
the
bike.
He
turned
around
and

ran,
then
they
shot
him.
He
was
shot
in
the
butt
and
it
went
through
his
stomach.
So

he
was
running
away.

Reporter:
The
fifth
police
shooting
took
place
Saturday
night
in
Phoenix,
when
a

police
officer
fired
his
weapon
on
a
suspect
and
another
officer.
The
suspect
was

inside
a
DUI
van
and
reportedly
struggled
with
an
officer
for
his
gun.
An
officer

outside
of
the
vanshot
the
suspect
dead
and
in
the
process
wounded
the
officer

inside
the
van.
Mesa's
police
chief,
Dennis
Donna,
sat
down
for
10‐minute

interviews
with
local
media
Monday
to
talk
about
his
officers'
involvement
in
the

four
shootings
in
the
17
days.

Dennis
Donna:
It
points
out
the
fact
that
the
police
job
is
a
dangerous
one,
and
that

these
situations
unfold
in
seconds.
Officers
sometimes
have
very
little
time
to

prepare
and
react.
They
have
to
rely
upon
their
training.
That's
what
gets
us



 2

through
these
things,
the
confidence
that
we
have
in
our
officers
as
police

professionals
to
do
the
right
thing.


Reporter:
Donna
says
he
wants
to
reassure
his
community
that
his
department
is

sensitive
to
concerns
raised
over
the
shootings.


Reporter:
The
particular
circumstances
that
is
we
were
faced
with
over
the
17
days

I
felt
called
for
a
public
statement
from
me.
I
asked
for
patience
with
the
community

as
we
worked
through
these
processes
of
review,
first
a
criminal
review,
which
is
a

highly
accountable
thing,
officers
are
under
a
great
deal
of
pressure
during
that
kind

of
review,
and
the
subsequent
internal
reviews
and
the
civil
litigation
period
that
we

ultimately
usually
undergo
when
we
have
these
kinds
of
shootings.
I
felt
it
was

necessary
to
put
these
in
perspective
as
well.
We
had
six
officer‐involved
shootings

last
year
at
this
time.
This
was
our
5th.
The
unfortunate
thing
is,
it
occurred
in
a
very

short
time
period.
The
bottom
line
is,
it
does
give
us
an
opportunity
to
build
better

bridges
within
our
community,
too,
because
I
think
the
community
and
our
officers

have
to
have
some
understanding
that
the
police
cannot
solve
every
one
of
these

problems
that
they
respond
to.


Reporter:
Monday
night,
a
Mesa
church
organized
a
march
and
vigil
to
honor
fallen

police
officers
and
those
shot
by
police
the
past
month.
The
organizer
wants
Mesa

PD
to
institute
a
citizens'
review
board,
something
the
police
chief
is
open
to.


Dennis:
We're
not
resistant
to
outside
review,
whatever
form
that
the
city
council

and
the
citizens
decide
that
will
take
will
be
fine
with
us,
and
we'll
cooperate
with

that
review.
There's
many
different
shapes
and
forms
of
citizen
review.
All
of
them

have
their
pluses
and
minuses.
Bottom
line
is,
if
the
community
believes
that's
the

kind
of
review
we're
going
have,
we're
going
work
with
them,
and
we're
going
to
try

to
help
them
understand
what
each
one
of
these
circumstances
brought
to
the
table.


Michael:
Joining
me
now
is
Craig
Mehrens,
an
attorney
who
represents
police
in

use‐of‐force
cases.
Also
here
is
Nick
Hentoff,
an
attorney
who
represents

victims
in
use­of­force
cases.
Gentlemen,
thank
you
both
for
being
here.
Craig,
one

of
the
concerns
here
is
the
rash
of
four
cases
in
three
weeks.
Is
this
just
a
collision
of

unrelated
events?
Or
does
it
point
to
something
deeper
and
more
troubling?

Craig
Mehrens:
I
would
think
it's
seriouslyj
ust
a
coincidence.
It
is
not
anything

more
than
that.


Michael:
Nick?

Nick
Hentoff:
I
think
to
a
large
degree,
it's
a
coincidence,
circumstance
of
chance.

On
the
other
hand,
whenever
you
have
this
kind
of
publicity,
it
has
to
be
foremost
on

the
officers'
minds,
what
can
happen
in
a
life‐and‐death
situation
like
that.
So
they

may
feed
on
each
other.
There
is
no
way
to
tell.


Michael:
Craig,
I
realize
that
different
cases
call
for
different
procedures
and

solutions
and
that
kind
of
thing,
but
in
general,
when
one
of
these
episodes
occurs,
is



 3

there
a
parallel
process
that
goes
on,
one
a
criminal
investigation
of
the
facts,
and

then
the
second
one,
an
internal
or
administrative
review
by
whatever
police

department
maybe
involved?


Craig:
Absolutely.
Every
police
department
has
those
two
different
functions
and
in

cases
like
that,
the
internal
section
and
the
criminal
side
that
looks
at
it.


Michael:
Now,
the
officer
or
officers
who
may
be
involved,
they
normally
‐‐
a
person

normally
has
constitutional
rights
in
a
criminal
investigation.
How
is
the
situation

handled
in
an
internal
or
personnel
situation?


Craig:
Well,
in
an
internal
investigation,
the
police
department
has
the
right
to
ask

the
officer
to
tell
them
what
happened,
and
the
officer
then
can
say,
well,
I
have
a

Fifth
Amendment
right,
and
I'd
like
to
exercise
that,
and
then
the
police
department

can
say,
if
you
don't
tell
us,
we'll
fire
you,
and
if
the
officer
then
doesn't
say
anything

more,
he
can
be
fired
and
that's
been
upheld,
so
the
officer
then
gives
the
police

department
internally
the
information
they
want,
which
is
then
protected
from

being
used
against
him
in
any
way,
in
a
criminal
investigation.


Michael:
Does
that
Chinese
wall
work?

Craig:
It
works
pretty
well.


Michael:
What
do
you
think,
Nick?
Does
that
work?
You
were
telling
me
that
the

Chinese
wall
only
works
one
way.


Nick:
Yeah,
it
tends
to
work
one
way,
because
you
have
the
two
investigations
that

often
progress
on
parallel
tracks.
So
you
have
investigators
that
may
be
talking
to

the
same
witnesses
and
looking
at
the
same
crime
scene.
They
may
have
different

ballistics
experts
that
are
looking
at
the
evidence,
but
ultimately
what
will
happen
is

that
while
the
administrative
information,
the
information
gathered
in
the

administrative
investigation
isn't
shared
with
the
county
attorney's
office,
or
isn't

shared
with
the
criminal
investigation,
very
often
the
material
or
the
information

that's
developed
in
the
criminal
investigation
can
be
used
by
the
city
in
their

personnel
administrative
investigation.

Michael:
Are
different
police
officers
undertaking
these
two
things?
I
would
assume

that
they
must
be,
otherwise
you
couldn't
maintain
this
Chinese
wall,
but
obviously,

they
are
still
part
of
the
same
police
department.

Craig:
Yes.


Michael:
And
Nick,
that's
always
the
question
that
will
come
up
in
these
situations,

even
though
you
attempt
to
maintain
this
separation.
This
still,
however,
remains

one
department,
in
essence,
investigating
itself,
and
there
is
a
fair
amount
of

concern
by
the
public
that
that's
just
too
close,
you
can't
get
a
good
investigation
of

whether
or
not
the
officer
was
right
or
the
citizen
was
right,
so
you
need
a
citizen

review
board.
What
do
you
think?



 4

Nick:
Yeah,
very
often
what
you'll
have
if
the
city
is
investigating
on
an

administrative
or
personnel
track
the
conduct
of
the
officer.
At
the
same
time,
they

have
to
realize
that
the
superiors
or
the
political
leaders
within
the
community
are

going
to
have
to
look
to
a
possible
civil
lawsuit.
And
so
you
have
a
situation
where

they
have
an
interest
that
may
not
necessarily
gel.
It
may
conflict
with
one
another,

the
idea
that
you
want
to
do
what's
right
with
respect
to
disciplining
an
officer
who

may
have
done
something
wrong,
but
on
the
other
hand,
if
you
discipline
an
officer

who
has
done
something
wrong,
that
may
lead
to
civil
litigation,
and
they
have
to

look
towards
the
insurance
premiums
and
protect
the
taxpayers'
money.

Michael:
Is
this
just
too
close
to
be
objective
in
the
minds
of
many?


Craig:
Well,
I
wouldn't
think
it's
too
close.
I
think
the
police
department
takes
a

great
deal
of
pains
to
make
sure
that
these
things
are
separated,
and
they
try
to
do

afair
and
impartial
investigation.
You
know,
in
a
perfect
world,
it
would
be
great
to

have
another
independent
body
come
in
and
investigate
these
each
time,
but
it's
‐‐

Michael:
Why
isn't
this
a
perfect
world,
though?
Is
a
citizens
review
board
an

answer?

Craig:
It's
an
answer.
I
would
argue
that
it's
not
"the"
answer.
If
you
want
to
have

investigation
of
possible
criminal
activity,
it
ought
to
be
done
by
competent
people,

and
that
would
be
police
departments.

Michael:
We
call,
though,
on
regular
citizens
to
be
jurors
all
the
time,
who
are
not

experts
in
any
wide
number
of
either
criminal
or
civil
cases
on
which
they
sit,
but

we're
still
confident
in
their
ruling.
We
wan
bring
them
expert
testimony,
we
can

bring
them
argument
and
they'll
reach
the
right
decision.
Why
do
we
approach
a

citizens'
review
board
any
differently
than
that?


Craig:
Why
do
I?
I
don't
think
the
citizens'
review
board
is
to
make
a
determination

on
whether
a
particular
individual
has
committed
a
crime.
That's
what
juries
are

specifically
for.


Michael:
One
of
the
functions
of
the
citizens'
review
board
is
not
to
determine
so

much
whether
or
not
someone
committed
a
crime,
but
whether
or
not
personnel

action
ought
to
be
taken,
whether
or
not
higher
structural
action
ought
to
be
taken

in
the
department.
What's
your
view
on
that?


Nick:
I
found
your
juror
analogy
really
interesting,
because
there
is
actually
a
court

case
in
the
state
of
Arizona
that
says
that
criminal
defendants
who
are
using
use
of

force
or
justification,
self‐defense
as
a
defense
in
a
criminal
case
where
they
are

accused
of
using
force
improperly,
that
they
are
not
allowed
to
call
experts
on
the

reasonable
use
of
force
in
that
given
situation,
because
the
courts
have
held
that

jurors
are
perfectly
capable
of
making
that
determination
for
themselves.
They
don't

need
the
assistance
of
an
expert.
It's
not
the
same
in
civil
cases,
but
in
criminal
cases,

courts
will
rely
on
jurors
to
decide
whether
justification
is
an
appropriate
defense,

whether
somebody
used
force
appropriately.
I
think
it's
important,
regardless
of



 5

whether
it's
an
administrative
investigation
or
a
criminal
investigation
that
results

in
a
jury
trial,
to
try
and
make
a
determination
as
to
whether
reasonable
force
was

used
and
to
give
the
appropriate
punishment,
regardless
of
whether
it's
personnel

punishment
such
as
a
firing
and
reporting
that
to
the
Arizona
Police
Officers

Standards
and
Training
Board
or
in
a
criminal
case
of
charging,
indicting
somebody

and
putting
them
to
the
test
of
the
jury
to
see
whether
their
actions
were
criminal
or

not.


Michael:
Nick,
I'm
not
sure
if
I'm
understanding
you
correctly.
Are
you
basically

saying
that,
well,
you
shouldn't
use
a
citizens'
review
board
for
an
incident‐specific

kind
of
inquiry,
but
instead
for
the
larger
purposes
that
you
outlined,
or
am
I

misreading
you?

Nick:
I
think
for
both.
I
think
a
citizens'
review
board
can
be
very,
very
valuable.
I

disagree
with
those
who
say
that
you
need
people
who
have
been,
quote,
unquote,

in
the
line
of
fire
to
understand
the
split‐second
decision‐making
that
officers
have

to
go
through.
There
is
no
doubt
that
officers
often
have
to
make
life‐or‐death

decisions
in
a
millisecond,
but
the
concept
of
use
of
force
that
the
courts
have

recognized
is
something
that
civilians,
people
without
police
training,
generally
can

understand
and
can
make
decisions
on.
And
that
can
take
the
form
of
a
citizens

review
board
of
recommending
appropriate
discipline
to
police
departments
or
to
a

city
council
or
to
a
Board
of
Supervisors.
And
I
think
in
terms
of
making
the
public

feel
that
there's
some
sort
of
accountability
and
that
the
police
department
has

some
sort
of
a
public
oversight,
that
citizens
review
boards
can
be
very
helpful.

Michael:
Can
they
‐‐citizens
review
board,
perhaps,
Craig,
in
your
opinion,

appropriately
applied
at
these
more,
for
lack
of
a
better
term,
policy‐type
levels

rather
than
case
specific
sort
of
situation?

Craig:
They
can
be
helpful,
but
we've
got
a
criminal
jury
system.
We've
got
a
civil

jury
system.
We
have
the
police
internal
affairs
to
deal
and
discipline
the
officer.
Do

we
need
a
fourth
board?
I
think
we've
got
enough,
but
it
seems
like
one
of
our

propensities
is
to
call
another
committee.
I
just
don't
think
we
need
one
right
now.


Michael:
Well,
sometimes
the
public
trust
and
confidence
issue
enters
in.
Do
you

see
a
role
for
it
even
from
that
standpoint?
Just
the
citizen
having
faith
and

confidence
that
his
police
department
is
proceeding
in
the
right
fashion,
supervising

in
the
right
fashion,
training
in
the
right
fashion,
those
kinds
of
things?


Craig:
Again,
it
‐‐
you
know,
it
can
be
helpful,
but
I
just
think
that
the
public
is
‐‐
if

the
review
board
comes
out
against
the
police
officer,
they
are
probably
going
to
say

that's
great,
if
public
opinion
is
swayed
that
way.
If
they
are
coming
out
the
opposite

way,
they
are
going
to
say
that
the
review
board
is
stacked
by
whoever
appoints

them.

Michael:
Craig,
let
me
shift
to
training.
I
know
that
a
lot
of
training
is
given
on
these

subjects.
Are
there
generally
standard
procedures,
standard
hypotheticals,
standard



 6

real‐life
situations
that
a
policeman
is
trained
on,
if
you
encounter
this
set
of
facts

this
should
be
your
response,
those
kinds
of
things?


Craig:
Sure,
all
of
the
departments
have
specific
orders
and
all
policemen
are
given

thorough
training
before
they
can
even
be
let
out
on
the
street.
So,
yeah,
there
is
lots

of
training,
and
there's
lots
of
rules,
but
as
Nick
was
pointing
out,
these
decisions

that
these
officers
have
to
make
are
almost
always
within
a
second
or
two.

Michael:
Is
the
training
adequate?


Nick:
I'll
tell
you,
I
don't
think
that
the
training
is
adequate
with
respect
to
the

alternative
non‐lethal
methods
of
restraining
or
stopping
a
suspect.
I
get
the
feeling

that
they
give
short
shrift
to
the
idea
that
there
is
a
great
amount
of
training
that
is

needed
when
you
are
dealing
with
non‐lethal
weapons
as
well
as
the
kind
of

training
that
you
need
when
you
are
dealing
with
firearms,
and
the
more
life‐
threatening
types
of
police
procedures.
And
I
think
that
that's
what's
needed.
I
think

that
police
officers
need
an
absolutely
clear
guideline.
Each
department
has
its
own

use‐of‐force
continuum
that
is
set
down
in
their
operations
orders,
and
they
may

differ
slightly
between
departments,
but
it's
essentially
a
blueprint
of
when
officers

can
progress
to
the
next
level
of
force,
and
there
has
to
be
a
clear
understanding
and

clear
training
that
is
backing
that
understanding
up
as
to
when
officers
move
to
the

non‐lethal
weapons
and
when
they
move
from
the
non‐lethal
weapons
to
the
lethal,

deadly
force
weapons.


Michael:
Have
they
got
that
clear
set
of
demarcation
guidelines
or
not?


Craig:
I
think
they
have
the
guidelines,
and
in
hindsight,
which
is
always
20/20,
it's

nice
to
talk
about
it,
but
when
you
are
an
officer,
and
you
have
to
make
that
decision,

you
don't
have
the
luxury
of
being
able
to
have
the
time
to
go
through
these

guidelines
and
the
process
as
it
scales
up.


Michael:
I
think
one
of
the
concerns
people
will
always
have
is
the
situation
where

there
is
a
knife
facing
a
gun.
And
you
think,
hold
it,
he
only
had
a
knife,
and
the

officer
had
a
gun,
but
a
knife
can
be
obviously
a
very
lethal
thing;
correct?


Craig:
Absolutely.
As
a
car
can
be
a
lethal
weapon.


Michael:
Nick,
you
were
making
the
point
that
there
is
‐‐
you
can
move
real
quick
in

3
seconds
with
a
knife?

Nick:
Standard
training
in
any
kind
of
an
officer
use‐of‐force
situation
is
to

demonstrate
to
officers
how
quickly
somebody
can
advance
on
them
with
a
knife.

Very
often,
you'll
see
training
scenarios
that
are
videotaped
and
computerized
and

are
synchronized
with
their
own
issued
weapons
where
they
can
test
scenarios,
and

very
often,
they'll
find
out
if
they
wait
too
long
that
that
encounter
with
somebody

with
a
knife
can
prove
lethal.
However,
given
the
situation
where
somebody
is

presenting
a
danger
with
a
knife,
I
think
you
have
to
have
other
alternatives
that
are

available,
because
each
situation
is
not
going
to
be
the
same,
and
if
you
have



 7

somebody
who
is
mentally
impaired,
you
have
to
have
thorough
training
of
officers

on
how
to
restrain
people
who
are
mentally
impaired.
You
simply
can't
have
a

situation
where
people
who
are
mentally
disturbed
can
feel
that
the
solution
is
to
go

out
and
threaten
a
police
officer.
That's
just
not
the
way
we
want
our
society
to

operate.
We
don't
want
to
‐‐
we
want
to
have
other
alternatives
aside
from
allowing

people
who
are
mentally
disturbed
to
commit
suicide
by
cop.
It's
just
not
a
way
that

we
want
to
run
our
civil
society.


Michael:
There
has
been
a
lot
of
debate
and
discussion
about
‐‐
in
one
of
these
cases

about
where
the
person
was
shot.
And
what
sort
of
conclusions
you
draw
from
that,

but
you
don't
necessarily
always
draw
the
correct
conclusion
from
where
the

person
was
shot;
right?

Craig:
Absolutely.
Absolutely
right.
The
problem
is
between
the
time
that
the
officer

perceives
the
danger
to
him
or
herself,
and
makes
the
decision
to
draw
the
weapon

and
point
the
weapon
and
pull
the
trigger,
that
process
from
the
brain
down
to
hand

and
shoot,
oftentimes
the
suspect
has
made
a
decision
to
turn
and
go
away,
and
the

suspect
is
shot
in
the
back.
When
at
the
time
the
officer
made
the
mental
decision,
it

was
perfectly
justified
and,
yet,
the
headlines
are,
"suspect
shot
in
the
back,"
and
the

public
then
perceives
that
as
being
an
improper
shooting.
And
it's
just
not
‐‐
it's

rarely
the
case.

Michael:
All
right.
Craig
Mehrens,
thank
you
for
joining
us.


Michael:
Nick
Hentoff,
our
thanks
to
you
as
well.


Here's
what's
on
"Horizon"
tomorrow.

Reporter:
After
September
11th,
congress
passed
the
USA
Patriot
Act
to
enhance

law
enforcement's
tools
for
stopping
terrorism.
But
many
feel
parts
of
this

legislation
threaten
our
rights
and
freedoms.
Now
congress
is
preparing
to
consider

the
Patriot
Act
too.
We'll
look
at
both
sides
of
the
issue
Wednesday
on
"Horizon".

Michael:
Then
on
Thursday,
we'll
take
a
look
at
the
future
of
Phoenix
as
various

leaders
examine
what
the
state's
largest
city
will
be
like
in
the
year
2012.
Thanks
for

being
here
on
a
Tuesday
evening.
I'm
Michael
Grant.
Have
a
great
one.
Good
night.


*
*
*
 *
*
*
 *
*
*



 8