Comments (102) | Add a comment
County officials agree to move ahead with coroner's inquests
Tools
-
Activist Gina Greisen, left, talks to Alma Chavez during a protest Tuesday outside the Clark County Government Center before a hearing on backlogged coroner's inquests. Chavez holds a photo of her son, Rafael "Ralfy" Olivas, who was shot and killed last month by Las Vegas police. Jeff Schied/Las Vegas Review-Journal » Buy this photo
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Updated: Aug. 3, 2011 | 7:09 a.m.
Alma Chavez wants answers.
Less than three weeks after her 23-year-old son was shot and killed by police, Chavez implored Clark County commissioners Tuesday to move forward with coroner's inquests, the hearings into fatal police shootings and in-custody deaths, so that she can find out what happened the day he died.
"When the police arrived, in less than a minute they decided my son deserved to die," Chavez told the commission in recounting the July 14 confrontation that left Rafael "Ralfy" Olivas dead.
In the gallery behind her, about 20 people wore matching white T-shirts with a photo of Olivas and the words "Keep On" printed on the front and "Push us one step back we'll take two forward" printed on the back.
"Help me, please, to find the truth," Chavez said to applause.
The commission later obliged, directing Coroner Michael Murphy to start scheduling inquests despite a lawsuit by police officers challenging the constitutionality of inquests.
"At some point, I think, we're going to have to move forward," said Commissioner Steve Sisolak, who put the issue on the meeting agenda in hopes of addressing a growing inquest backlog.
The county's move sets the stage for a legal challenge by the state's largest police union, the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, which has led the fight against the revamped inquest process and backed the lawsuit that put inquests on hold.
Union head Chris Collins said the union's lawyers were reviewing the commission's decision.
He stopped short of promising another lawsuit to block future inquests, however, saying, "We'll take whatever action we have to take on behalf of those officers."
The county hasn't held an inquest since October, creating a backlog of 14 cases. Most of the delay came while the county studied and changed the inquest process, which had been criticized as being too favorable to police.
The key change was the addition of an ombudsman to represent the family of the person killed. The ombudsman works with the family throughout the inquest preparation and can directly question witnesses during the hearing.
The first inquest under the new system was scheduled for last month, but it was postponed when the three Las Vegas police officers facing the inquest filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the inquests.
The officers contend the addition of an ombudsman transformed the fact-finding hearing into an adversarial one and violated their constitutional rights to due process.
That case sits in federal court, and a resolution isn't expected for at least six months.
"It's unfortunate that the police union can hold hostage 13 families who are just looking for the truth," said Lisa Mayo, a critic of the old inquest system, who approved of the commission's move.
During public comments at Tuesday's meeting, several people urged the commission to move forward with the new system.
"These families deserve to know," activist Gina Greisen said.
Chavez said that without the inquest, police had a "license to kill."
Las Vegas police shot and killed her son last month after he approached them with a knife in the street near his home, police said. Chavez had called 911 during an escalating argument with her distraught son, who had been fighting with his girlfriend.
"If the police have nothing to hide, why are they afraid of this process?" Chavez said during comments that were peppered with applause from the gallery.
The applause was replaced by boos and jeers when police union lawyer John Dean Harper took the microphone. He said he hadn't planned to speak but couldn't sit silently while some people called police murderers.
"Contrary to popular belief, officers do not wake up in the morning intending to hurt, kill or shoot someone," he said .
Several hours later, the commission took action after a brief discussion to clarify that the police lawsuit applied only to the first inquest. Commissioners directed Murphy to schedule the next several inquests.
If the police file a lawsuit to stop the next inquest, "then we're back where we started," Sisolak said after the hearing. "It seems like we're just walking sideways."
However, it is possible that the next inquest could go on if the county doesn't agree to a postponement, which it did in the first case, and a judge allows the hearing to go forward, Sisolak said.
Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani said the commission moved ahead because it had passed the inquest changes but wasn't enforcing them.
"If we don't do anything because we think we might get sued, then shame on us," Giunchigliani said.
She wants to give the revamped inquest process a chance to work, but that can't happen until an inquest is held, she said, adding she remained "hopeful" that an inquest would materialize in the next few months.
"I hope at some point there's a resolution because this is not good for our community, and it's not good for the officers," she said.
Contact reporter Brian Haynes at bhaynes@ reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0281.
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
@quintusmaximus. Have you tried to give those commands in 7 seconds? I am waiting to see what is revealed in all three Federal Cases. I have a feeling that there may be some nasty surprises for Metro, the Sheriff and others.
The drop it was because he already "had" it. Common sense would be to not touch your pistol period when confronted by uniformed officers. In addition, he knew the police were there because of him. Most if not all Law abiding, non doped, CCW carriers would have patiently waited for the police, and allwoed the officer to disarm them. Either way dont touch you gun in a officers presence.
@devildog. Is the PPA and Chris Collins willing to take the public heat for stopping the inquests? If you think that support is strong for the police, expanding the suit may destroy much of that support.
I doubt that any of these inquest will ever be convened.
The lawsuit brought by the PPA to block the last one will probably be refiled to encompass ALL the inquests until the Federal Court can determine if they violate officer rights.
I would guess that the next time the legislature convenes a new law will be introduced to change the Coroners Inquest to a Grand Jury, and about time too.
@quintusmaximus. The evidence appears to indicate that Scott was attempting to comply with one of several commands that Mosher gave. The bad news for Scott was that Mosher didn't remember what he said and expected Scott to comply with a different command. In the space of 7 seconds Mosher gave the following commands, "Get your hands up, drop it, get on the ground, get on the ground." Given the HOLSTERED pistol found next to Scott's body, it appears that he may have been attempting to comply with the command to drop it. Mosher didn't remember giving any commands other than "get on the ground" and had to hear his commands on tape before he acknowledged the sequence. Mosher also testified that he expected the command "get on the ground" to be obeyed. That disconnect may have cost Scott his life. He was never told not to touch his weapon, in fact the command "Drop it" seems to imply that he had to touch the weapon to put it on the ground. The Federal Civil rights suits in the Cole, Chamberlain, and Scott cases should be very interesting and I doubt that they will be settled out of court. Look at what just happened to the officers in New Orleans, or if you prefer how about what happened in England in reaction to a questionable police shooting.
The fact is he didnt have to act eratic.He didnt have to do anything.He could have been jaywalking.But once a uniformed law officer contacted him, lawfully, and he put his hand on a gun, after being told not to , then he exposed himself to what he received. It is pretty lame that some of you still dont get it. Put down the base pipe. Some of you need to move on. Especially to something more viable. Eric Scott is a tired, boring argument.
@devildog. How was the victim in theCostco shooting a threat? Was he visibly carrying a weapon as he walked out next to all of the other Costco customers? No, he was not. Was he acting erratically as he walked past the officers? No, in fact he had to be pointed out to the officers by a Costco employee. Was he impared by the proscription medication he was taking. A number of medical professionals testified at the inquest that he was not adversely affected by his medication. The ME said he had "potentially lethal levels" but she never saw him alive to make a determination of the medications effect. Was he a threat because he didn't follow the command the officer expected? Did he not attempt to follow one of the instructions given by the officer, who in his own testimony at the inquest didn't remember the sequence of commands he gave. The officer expected another command to be obeyed. Was he a threat because he fired his weapon in a crowded entry way? No, his holstered weapon was found by his body. The only shots fired that day were by the officers involved. The shooting was found to be justified by the Inquest after the DA hand picked witness and presented only the evidence that supported the Metro version of events. What will happen in the Federal Civil trial not only of this case but the other cases that are pending? I doubt if any of those cases will settle out of court.
@devildog. My concern is twofold. First is the large number of officers with multiple fatal shootings. I have grave concerns if your examples of proactive officers are Derek Colling and Brian Yant. The second concern is using the old Coroner's Inquest system to say that a shooting was looked at objectively. The old system is a dog and pony show, staged by the DA with cherry picked witnesses and evidence to "prove" that a shooting is justified. I think the changes to the system were made in reaction to the public outrage over the old system. The mission of an infantry squad and a police officer are very different. The infantry squad is to engage in armed combat with people who are trying to kill them They have specific rules on what they can and can not do. When those rules are violated, an impartial, objective investigation is done and criminal charges are filed where appropriate. As I said, I have been written several letters to the DA about the Cole case and a number of other issues and have yet to receive a response.
Its clear from reading thes police related posts for months that there are the same 4-5 people on here inciting officer attacks. It goes without saying that the very nature of police work will aquire its mass of detractors.Its Inevitable,go to any city and check their local papers and you see the same types of complaints.going on. 95% of the public they know the good work done by the local pd's. nothing makes the local media happier than negative police stories....they are exageratted and hyped to sell papers.
Tanker,
Stil just because an officer has been involved in a fatal shooting, does not mean that officer was WRONG. A very proactive police officer comes in contact with violent criminals more often than an officer that is not so proactive, and that could, and often does result in more violent contact.
So what you are saying is that if an officer is involved in 1 or two shootings, even though they are justified, completely and fully investigated and the officer is cleared, you still want to punish them by taking them off the street.
I am not talking about the Yant shooting of Cole, but the Costco shooting was justified no matter what you or the family might believe.
So in essence, from your posts, if an officer is forced to kill someone, you want them punished no matter how justified the circumstances?
How is that fair to an officer trying to do his job?
And yes the infantry comparison is valid, just like the military, the police are trained to meet a threat with various levels of force, and fight if required.
If a threat is a deadly one, then it is met with deadly force, how is that different from the military?
Again I'll post this that you did not respond to,
"You say that Yant should be indicted and tried, well go to the DA, demand that the DA try him, it does no good ranting about it here. If you are that passionate, make an appointment with David Roger and tell him, grow up a little and make your point to someone who can do something about it."
The readers of these posts cannot try Yant except in the court of public opinion. So stop the crying and go to the DA and make you case there, where it might do some good.