Bakersfield Police Shoot 73 Year Old Unarmed Man With Dementia
BY Herschel Smith
8 years ago
Courtesy of Wynn, this:
An unarmed 73-year-old with dementia who was shot and killed by police early Monday was struck nine times, the man’s son said in a video posted to Facebook. However, police say the son is “misinformed.”
The officer was answering a report of a man brandishing a handgun around 12:30 a.m. in Bakersfield, Calif. When a witness pointed to Francisco Serna, who was standing in a neighbor’s driveway, one officer fired and killed him, Bakersfield police spokesman Sgt. Gary Carruesco told CBS Bakersfield affiliate KBAK-TV.
No gun was turned up in a search of the scene, Carruesco said.
So where is the gun? If he was armed, then a gun was recovered. Where is the gun?
On December 14, 2016 at 10:19 am, Ned Weatherby said:
A replay of what happened to an elderly man having some sort of episode in Huntington Beach in the mid 80’s. Police were called to help and shot him to death. Do the police have a training film that promotes this behavior?
On December 14, 2016 at 10:44 am, Herschel Smith said:
And besides, what if he did have a gun? What the hell difference does it make? Oh yea. It’s the land of communism, the People’s Republic of California.
And besides, even if he did have a gun, did he brandish it?
And where is the gun?
On December 14, 2016 at 10:51 am, Ned Weatherby said:
Exactly. In the earlier version, the elderly gent had a golf club he retrieved from the back of his car (which he had just dropped off at a dealership). He was walking down the median, waving the golf club and shouting. I could have taken the club away and helped the guy. Police cowards just murdered the guy. This stuff should be unbelievable. Too bad it’s now routine.
On December 14, 2016 at 10:43 am, Blake said:
When there is an officer involved shooting, I like to play a little game called: “What if I had done the shooting?” In more than a few cases, I would still be in jail, unlike the officer, who is let off.
On December 14, 2016 at 10:45 am, Herschel Smith said:
If we do things like this we go to prison for a long time. As it should be.
On December 14, 2016 at 11:33 am, Blake said:
I agree that I should go to jail for such a thing. It’s the fact I am held to a higher standard than a police officer I find troubling.
On December 14, 2016 at 12:37 pm, Frank_in_Spokane said:
Forget it Jake, it’s Kalifornica. Where scared cops were excused for shooting up a truck in which two older ladies were delivering newspapers during the Christopher Dorner manhunt:
“The fear of Dorner was understandable and justified. There is no evidence to suggest that the officers did not honestly believe that Dorner was in the vehicle, nor is there evidence to suggest that the officers did not honestly believe they were being fired upon.”
So re. the Bakersfield shooting, city officials simply need to say:
“The fear that Francisco Serna was armed was understandable and justified. There is no evidence to suggest that the officer who shot Mr. Serna did not honestly believe that Mr. Serna was armed, nor is there evidence to suggest that the officer did not honestly believe Mr. Serna posed a threat to others.”
On December 14, 2016 at 4:52 pm, Archer said:
All true, of course (including the proposed comment regarding the Bakersfield incident)…
BUT…
During the Chris Dorner manhunt, those poor women were not in a car “exactly like” Dorner’s. IIRC, his was a silver Nissan Titan. Theirs was a blue Toyota Tacoma. Even non-car people who don’t know the difference between the Titan and the Tacoma (which police officers should), know the difference between silver and blue. (Plus, the LAPD officers had plenty of time to run the plates.) Additionally, Torrance PD officers rammed and opened fire on a black Honda Ridgeline with a white male driver (Dorner was black). Again, even non-car people who can’t differentiate makes/models (which police officers should) understand the difference between silver and black (not to mention [again] the license plates not matching up).
But all that’s irrelevant when it comes down to one key point in any claimed “appropriate use-of-force” incident, be it defense of self, others, community, etc.: What one “believes” matters only up to a (very limited) point, after which what actually happened (i.e. the facts) takes over. If no gun was recovered, then he couldn’t have been waving a gun. The report doesn’t say if any object that could reasonably be mistaken for a gun was recovered; I personally assume there wasn’t one. So absent that real and factual “object” to create a reasonable fear in the officers’ minds, the fear was by default unreasonable and the shooting was unjustified.
At least, it would be if you or I pulled the trigger. In a police shooting, once police administrators get involved, it’s anybody’s guess.
On December 14, 2016 at 8:55 pm, Frank_in_Spokane said:
I don’t disagree with a thing you wrote, so the “BUT” seems out of place.
Perhaps you meant, “Furthermore … “?
On December 15, 2016 at 4:22 pm, Archer said:
No, I meant “BUT”. I was agreeing that the police brass’s official statement will likely exonerate and support the officers’ statements and actions. However, the evidence and every reasonable observation from the scene refutes them.
That juxtaposition of opposing conclusions makes the “BUT” the appropriate choice.
On December 15, 2016 at 6:42 pm, Frank_in_Spokane said:
OK. That wasn’t a “But Frank …”, but rather a “But Mr Police official … ”
On December 16, 2016 at 11:24 am, Archer said:
Right! Sorry for the confusion. :)