Has there ever been an incident in Bakersfield when the officer shooting was not justified?

I've been here 25 years adam, and I cannot remember one.

The one that sticks out in my mind was a few years ago when a young man (20s) discovered (on the internet) that a registered sex offender was in his neighborhood. The young man (who may have been on drugs) went to the sex offenders house and began beating on the door and yelling. The sex offender called the police and fled out the back. The police came and confronted the young man who had a 3" pocketknife. There were at least 6 officers, some armed with shotguns. They blew the young man to bits.

Shooting justified.

Adam, do you want a shooting to come back unjustified? I infer from your question that you think there's a problem.

Pogo, based on what you wrote, the young man was holding a weapon. What would you have the police do?

Here is a 2004 story on the last one to be ruled unjustified.

-- Davin

For the first time in a quarter century, a review board declared a Bakersfield police officer unjustified under any guidelines when he shot at an unarmed man.

Officer William Wesbrook, on the force for two years, was suspended with pay, Chief Bill Rector said.

It is rare for the BPD to rule an officer who shoots at a suspect unjustified, and it's almost unheard of under state and federal guidelines. Wesbrook's shooting wasn't justifiable under any of the criteria, something that Rector said hasn't been the case at BPD for at least 25 years.

Both criminal and administrative punishments could be awaiting Wesbrook, depending on recommendations based on two police investigations.

The Kern County District Attorney's Office will review a BPD report on the shooting incident to determine if criminal activity occurred, Rector said. The police will probably submit that report within about two weeks.

A second administrative investigation within BPD will determine what internal action to take with Wesbrook. That could range from a written reprimand to firing, Rector said.

The Wesbrook incident was BPD's seventh officer-involved shooting in 2004, and review boards have justified the actions of the 14 officers involved in the others.

Wesbrook's case was different, Rector said.

"There has to be a credible threat presented to that officer, " he said.

Around 3:10 a.m. on Oct. 6, Wesbrook was on patrol and noticed a Jeep driving erratically. He pulled it over in the 600 block of Oregon Street.

The driver, Lawrence Raymond Martinez, got out of the car. Wesbrook alleged that Martinez was acting strangely and waving his arms.

Instead of obeying orders to keep his hands visible, Wesbrook said Martinez turned away from him, turned back and made a quick movement with his hands.

That motion made Wesbrook fear that Martinez had a weapon, and he fired one round, according to BPD. The shot missed.

Martinez surrendered afterward, and officers allegedly found a gun inside his Jeep that wasn't within his reach at the time of the shooting.

Police officers are trained in shoot/don't shoot scenarios to help them judge appropriate times to use their weapons, Rector said. Unfortunately for Wesbrook, he said, this was a "don't shoot" instance.

If Wesbrook had been pulling over an armed robbery suspect or a person who had a violent reputation, Rector said the review board's decision may have been different.

Rector said police officers must constantly make split-second decisions, and it's unfortunate when they misjudge.

"Tough position to be in for that officer, " he said. "But again, we have to be responsible to see the facts as they are."

Thank you NewsTeam.

gr8, their were 6 cops, one young man, a 3" knife. I think the situation could have been defused. His mom and sister were there, pleading with the police to let them talk him down.

Pogo, I won't just beat this to death. Promise.

However, you mention the number of officers v. suspect as if this is going to turn into a wrestling match. You mention the length of the blade, as if a 3" inch blade cannot kill a person...or 6 people.

The fact that his family were there probably doesn't help the situation. We don't know the guys state of mind. You said he may have been on drugs. If he was on drugs and if he was going to do harm to a sexual predator, who knows what he could have done.

My point is this: A subject with a weapon, be it a gun, knife, screwdriver or a rock, who will not drop that weapon is good to go. And if all 6 officers dumped on him, well... 

gr8, all valid points my friend. Let's just agree to disagree and move on, and consider ourselves lucky that we live in a country where the police are subject to review. 

agreed.

Just a side note to this discussion: just because the officer is cleared departmentally and criminally doesn't mean that he isn't subject to a civil suit or federal inquiry into a civil rights violation. A career in Law Enforcement is fraught with pitfalls.

what short memories you guys have...what about the CHP officers just a few months ago that fired into the cars that were racing, and didnt report that they discharged their weapon?

i think i remember you commenting on it more than once ADAM, about how bad police officers are....i could be wrong though about your comments....maybe it was dave, aka djemDAVE

Pogo is misstating and omitting facts in the earlier shooting. The suspect wasn't "banging on the door," he was breaking it down. The cops tried to Taser him, and it didn't work. Only when the door was coming open and the cops thought he was going to get in the house did they shoot him. I'll assume "blew him to bits" is just reckless hyperbole.

As for the sex offender, that's hindsight. The fact that he was a sex offender and was running out the back was probably unknown to the cops who were trying to stop a knife-wielding irrational assailant from forcing his way into somebody's house.

Review of the police is an important and good thing. Spreading false information to suit your opinion is wrong.

Good point learnem. It was on these very forums that the same crowd claimed that the CHP/drag racer shooting would be found justified. I claimed then it wouldn't and we were right. Usually police shootings are justified because they are justified. Occassionally cops do stupid things and when they do and they get caught, they are held accountable.

A subject with a 3" knife trying to gain access to a house is a justifiable shooting. If six cops shoot, they still stopped his actions. Don't do drugs and try to break into people's houses after being tased.

The actual shooting in the CHP drag racer case was justified. The fact the officers didn't report it was not. That's what they got in trouble for.

Steve E. Swenson

HMMM, guy breaking down door, cops don't know if anyone in house - so no one goes out back to try a rescue. Guess they might have missed the shootout.

and you are exactly right elrojo, if one breaks the law, one can expect punishment. I would not challenge the police in this town, they will shoot.

The shooting you are refering to happened in the neighborhood at Harris & stine. The sex offender was in the house the the "kid" was kind of a "big brother" to the kids in the neighborhood. He heard about the sex offender moving in & went to confront him. The sex offender who was registered called the pd & stated a guy was at the door trying to break it down, the banging is on the recorded 991 call. The officers tried to talk the kid down & did hold there fire until the kid got the door open, at that point they dropped him. Even though the sex offender was a "lowlife" he still has right & the police have no choice but to protect him, the kid was still intent on harming the guy & the cops dropped him, thats why it was justfied.