http://www.thereviewnews.net/v2/content.aspx?ID=16162&MemberID=1799



Defendant Ira Hadley Jr. talks with attorney Michael Mitchell during the jury�s deliberation. (Photo by Mark Thornton)

Hung jury in officer shooting case
A Jones County jury deliberated for a little over an hour Thursday before declaring that they were �hopelessly deadlocked� in the case against a teenager who was accused of shooting a Laurel police officer on Dec. 29
Ira Hadley, 18, was found guilty of possession of a weapon by a convicted felon and Judge Billy Joe Landrum sentenced him to the maximum 10 years on that charge. But the jury � made up of six black women, four white women and three white men � was unable to reach a verdict on the aggravated assault of a police officer charge.
A day earlier, jurors saw a videotaped confession in which Hadley admitted to shooting Detective Kim Stewart in the foot during a struggle and say, �He got what he deserved for trying to play hero.�
Hadley had a different tone when he took the stand on Thursday morning, saying, �I would like for Mr. Kim Stewart to forgive me ... the incident was my fault.�
The shooting stemmed from a tip that Stewart received on the morning of Dec. 29 that Hadley � who had escaped from the Jones County jail two months earlier � was hiding out at 317 W. 17th St., which is his mother�s house. Stewart and a group of officers went to search the house and found Hadley hiding in a closet. When they ordered him to come out, Hadley told them he had a gun and he threatened to shoot them, Detective Michael Reaves testified. Officer Rob Norman attempted to tase Hadley, then Stewart rushed and grabbed him, leading to a struggle for the .38 revolver Hadley was holding.
�(Stewart) was trying to get the gun so no one would get hurt,� District Attorney Tony Buckley said.
While they were wrestling for control of the revolver, the gun discharged and a bullet went through Stewart�s foot before Hadley was taken into custody.
Buckley pointed out that the bullets in the .38 had been filed down �to create more damage to flesh,� but Hadley testified that he filed down the bullets so they would fit in his gun. Buckley also noted that Hadley carried bullets that were held together by a rubber band, a contraption that�s referred to as �a �hood reload.� Officers also found a shotgun, a rifle and a mattress in the attic of the home, with a hole leading down to the closet Hadley was in.
�He had no intention of giving himself up,� Buckley said in his closing argument.
Hadley testified that he had the long guns because �I like hunting� and that he kept the revolver for �protection from wild animals.�
In his closing argument, defense attorney Michael Mitchell said that his client �may have been in an emotional state� when he said that Stewart got what he deserved. He also complained about not being able to cross examine the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation investigator who gathered evidence at the scene of the shooting.
�You can�t get into a Mexican standoff with the police and say it�s not your fault,� Buckley said in his closing. �The attitude and anger of that young man ... he is dangerous. His only defense is sympathy, and that has no part in a trial.�
Buckley also said that Stewart and other local officers put themselves in harm�s way to protect the public.
�What Kim Stewart did, on a Laurel police officer�s salary ... he did that for me and you,� Buckley said.
During their deliberation, the jury sent out two questions � one asking why officers didn�t send in a police dog to get Hadley, the other to ask the court�s definition of �accident� and �reckless.�
An hour and eight minutes after going into deliberation, the jury foreman reported that jurors were �hopelessly deadlocked,� and unable to reach a decision. Buckley said it was �one or two� jurors who believed that the shooting was an accident.
�I�m outraged,� Buckley said after the trial. �We�re not finished yet. We�re going to try it again.�
Stewart praised his co-workers and said �I did what I had to do at the time,� to get Hadley off the streets and he said that�s what he would continue to do to keep the city safe.
His brother and Assistant Police Chief Tyrone Stewart admitted that he was upset by the decision.
�If not for officers like Kim Stewart, Rob Norman, Kevin Flynn and Michael Reaves, no one would be safe to go anywhere in this city,� he said.
Hadley was already serving a 20-year sentence for two counts of armed robbery and the 10-year sentence will be tacked on to that. He still faces a charge of escape.
� By Mark Thornton/[email protected]

[bleep]. It does not surprise me though.

Dink

I have no problem with the decision of the jury. Just rememeber that when it swings the other way when a cop is found not guilty for shooting the POS between the eyebrows during a violent crime later.

Should have put him down right then.

So, an escaped, armed felon won't drop his gun & they went hands on while trying to taze him? Damn, seems like a crystal clear authorization of deadly force. Lucky the officer and/or his partner weren't killed. Shoot the $hithook next time.

Now he will go back to jail and brag about shooting a cop and getting away with. We don't need them to get that kind of encouragement...just causes more prob.'s later. For his NEXT victim's family.

This tells me a lot about it all. It turned on "intent" which is a big element in assault cases, and also what the police might have done instead. The second thing is becoming an increasing problem with juries. I tried 2 jury trials this past week, both DUIs. One jury hung at 7 for Guilty, 5 Not Guilty. After they were released from their service, one of the jurors, telling me he was sorry and that he had been one of the ones for Guilty, said "It might have gone another way if you'd have just shown us the dash cam video. We might could have talked those others in to believing the officer." No evidence was offered to show the officer was lying about anything, aside from the fact that he is a police officer I mean. It wasn't that we didn't show a video...there wasn't one, but the jury assumed there was. The defense nor the I even once hinted a video, or the lack of one...it was never mentioned. Why did they just assume? TV I guess. It wasn't that there wasn't one because the camera malfunctioned, or the tape got lost or the digital copy destroyed...there was no camera in the car of the part time officer working for a small, poor rural department. And because they assumed there was one I didn't show, then they assumed the officer or I must have something to hide. Juries are funny things...never shocked by ANYTHING they do, despite the evidence.

Well, if the police had shot the guy, I predict at least three separate threads about jack booted thugs mowing down innocent poor underpriviledged folks that they (LEO) had , prejudged because of his felony record and blah, blah, blah . . . . You all are familiar with the drill by now.

Bull. An armed, escaped felon who won't drop his weapon... Smoke 'em. Some of the actual thuggery (Madison, WI, Dearborn, MI, etc..) that goes on is in no way comparable to this. Your chip must weigh heavily on your shoulder.

It is not only a surprise... but a SHOCK.

This is the real problem� not the punk criminals� we will always have them.

When we the people can�t tell the difference between right and wrong or won�t stand up for what is right� this is what you get.


If things don�t change with US we are PORKED

All that's necessary for some these days. TRH.... for a PRIME example, well, him and his idiot savant lover Jason.

HUGE +1.

Of course, when you do know the difference and stand up for it, you'll have such actions called reprehensible by the culls...

That's interesting, regarding your situation. It's getting to the point that if it isn't on tape either video or audio, it didn't happen. I remember working before dashcams etc. Sometimes it was easier, i wished i'ld of had one at times.

But now it's become an almost mandatory piece of equipment. I'm not surprised that some Fed. ruling will come out, that all LE vehicles are required by law to have one. There's grant money out there for them, every agency needs them, if nothing else to protect the officer.

Taser Inc. even makes a camera now, built into the Taser, to catch the actions of the person to be Tased, prior to Taser deployment.. There's even small camera's that fit onto an LEO's uniform to record every incident he/she is involved with, that the dashcam doesn't get. As i work in plain clothes, i'm wired with a digital recorder, if i ask anyone a question about an incident or crime, they're being recorded, as to their response.

I think this was just as important:



The odds of six black women finding a young black man guilty, are generally pretty poor.

You are right... but we must change that... our lives depend on it

Open to suggestions as to how, though I'm afeared the only real way to do so.... ain't NEAR PC.

When I was still a working Deputy he would have been shot and with justification unquestioned as he was a convicted felon escapee and armed. TILT GAME OVER for him.

But yes, today all the panty wetters would be screaming police brutality, over reaction by the cops, too much force, Etc, Etc, Etc. In my best Yul Bryner voice.

Hunter1960 I just talked with our insurance rep the other night and he said that the insurance company is going to pay for tazer cams and the officers personal cameras to worn on the uniform. Its coming.

Dink

Jim:

Sounds like something you can cover in voir dire in the future.

"Are you going to hold it against the State that the police department doesn't have the budget to put a video camera in Ofc. Jones' car?"

- Tom

Had a similar problem on my jury this week.

Hammered it home in the second trial this week. Didn't think to cover "non existent video" in the first case. Darn sure did in the second one...got a guilty verdict in less than 30 minutes on that one.

I had figured that since he had shot a black cop that it would have been a slam dunk. On another note, The Black mayor and police chief are being called Uncle Toms, because blacks are being arrested more than whites. Go figure.

Since blacks are the majority in Laurel MS, that doesn't sound all that unusual.

OP is correct


if the facts were known to the cops, convicted felon, escapee, but the biggie, holding a gun and telling the cops you'll shoot them.


that alone should have turned him into a Xmas ham, SMOKE HIM

There are LEO's who are reluctant to use deadly force. I've met a couple, one let a woman chase him around in the woods with a large butcher knife. He tried OC, ASP, with no results. He did finally wound her, she's now serving a sentence of attempted murder. I would of revoked her birth certificate, but everyone is different.

The use of deadly force policies, give you the when, they don't give you the have to. It's still officer descretion, when to use deadly force.

Thank goodness, you don't have to use deadly force everytime, you draw your weapon. There's probably some here, who'ld think bad PoPo for pulling a weapon on John Q. Public, when my life isn't directly in danger. Done more then one traffic stop, with a weapon behind my leg on approach to the veh.

I'll let you do a traffic stop way out in the boonies, on a car load of meth.heads, with your backup 15-20 miles away. That or on some homeboys, are shuffling around in the car. A Surefire laser on a G20, can be a very intimidating attention getter, it encourages people to put their hands up, when requested.

I'ld love to have the resources to do a big, shoot, don't shoot, Officer Survival Seminar, with the non-LE members of this board using Airsoft systems. It would show many how easy it is to get shot, and how you have to work, to stay alive. That on the most plentiful of calls, traffic stops, domestic calls. Put you behind the badge, making those decisions.

It wouldn't all be PC and Officer Friendly stuff. It would show some that, Oh schit, i just shot John Q. Public, because he quickly stuck his hand in his pocket, after telling him to not put his hands in his pocket, and pulled out what appeared to be a weapon, by the way he was gripping it, but it was only a cellphone. Oh heck, you just shot an unarmed citizen, what will the fellows on 24HCF think of the bad PoPo.

Or any force...

One of my many issues with Tasers is the mindset they're bringing about in regards to the use of deadly force. I was having a discussion this week in regards to a "close encounter of the edged kind" that a pard had recently (6 feet or so). The schithead got lucky and didn't get ventilated. The officer I was having the discussion with stated "would have been a good place for a Taser".

A Taser! WTF! A dude has a pair of knives 6' from me and he's pushing flowers.

The mindset is changing and not for the better.

George

Agreed with both George and Hunter1960 in their above posts.

It is a whole different world out there when you wear a badge or star that has to be experienced first hand, over time, to understand.

You can Monday morning QB all you want but till you BTDT you really are clueless.

Hunter I just read that there was a study done on reaction to a violent encounter. The LEO reacted in 2 to 5 seconds and the general public took 10 to 15 seconds. So most would not make it through a shoot or don't shoot.

I would like to see how many 24HCF could even get there gun out of the holster in time. Then they have to make a decision on what to do with that gun once it was clear.

Dink

Good point George. Have any of the you seen the video that have been playing at the taser re-cert classes? It's one of the large swat teams from Arizona (I think) doing try outs and they show officers that were around before the taser and officers that have only worked since the taser. Officers that have only worked while wearing a taser would not fight hands on and would run until they could pull there taser and then they would tase the subject but still would not fight hand to hand.

I think thats bad.

Dink

Oh yeah brother, i'm a big fan of the OODA loop when dealing with encounters, observe, orientate, decide & act. Folks have to remember that, action (the bad guys) is quicker then reaction, (yours).

It's funny, but sad. I've seen the same happen over the years, with other less then lethal Wpns. When "Cop in a Can" OC became so widely used, same type of issue. It was used in situations where LEO's were injured, where a more direct approach would of worked. I've read incredible stories of LEO's using an impact weapon (ASP) against an edged weapon, with injuries to the LEO.

I imagine that makes prosecutors pull their hair out plenty.

Did you see that case Ford lost with the minor league baseball player in Mississippi recently?

Kid tries to drive from Port St. Lucie (Mets training camp) back home to Mississippi. Falls asleep at the wheel, get's thrown from the Ford Explorer and dies. Seat belt wasn't on. Passenger had his seat belt on and walked away.

Black females made up majority of jury. Found against Ford for like 8 or 9 figures.....Boggles the mind.

Don't put too much emphasis on anything a Jones County jury does. The incidence of large jury verdicts for plaintiffs in Jones County caused the Supreme Court to revise the rules on venue to make it more difficult to bring such actions in Jones County. It didn't get the name "Free State of Jones" by accident.

Stryker60

I'm thinkin there might be a few on the ole 24hr Campfire that might surprise you how fast they can get into action mode.

the part that chafes me is how differently it's viewed when a citizen either draws or uses his weapon vs.when a LEO does same.

when help is just minutes away I like to have my finger right outside the trigger guard. YMMV


P.S. I don't blame you a bit for some of the rural stops you've made with weapon drawn. If you look up Trooper Allen Hines, my sis dated his lil brother all thru high school. Great family Curly, Helen, Allen and Keith. What happened to Allen and even more sadly to his partner should never happen. Godspeed to the guys in LEO, you get up close and personal with elements most of us in society have the option to go around the block to avoid. But when they can't be avoided, I'll have my finger just outside the trigger guard.

Boy, you said a mouthful there, 2L2Q. Not being there is not an option most of the time.

It would be nice if some of the fine folks here could get an opportunity to ride along for a week or so with a street crimes unit in one of the country's finer cities.

Really? You want some of these folks in a cruiser with you for a few hours?

Hell, I don't like spending a shift in the car with another cop if I have a choice. I sure as hell don't want anybody else in there with me for that long.

Probably why I work a dog.....

George

Sounds exciting to a civilian until the fecal material hits the oscillating device. Then the recliner by the TV looks pretty alluring.

Big +1

Haven't seen the vid but I'm not surprised.

No doubt Randy. Unfortunately, the campfire doesn't represent the average American anymore.

Some interesting thoughts here. I seldom EVER agree with anything Hunter1960 posts, but he did make a very good point about police actions during contact with the public. The one that stood out to me was about traffic stops.

When I went to the police academy years ago, our instructer in traffic/felony stops made a frightening point with paint guns. He bet the class that in a simulated traffic stop, one of two things would happen......the officer would be shot, or the officer would shoot an innocent civilian.

The set up was him in one car....the officer in one just behind it as if a traffic stop had been made. The instructer may-or may not-be armed......and made all kinds of sudden or provocotive moves that "sometimes" incuded going for a weapon.

He bet $20 against anyone's $5 that he would "win". After all 42 cadets attempted the scene the score was 35 "killed" or shot a civilian, 4 "passed" (with all 4 drawing on but not "shooting" the civilian)....the other 3 mistakenly fired 2-4 shots at the civilian whout hitting their target.

His point....keep your cool during stops because you "may" be dealing with a nervous citizen, not a "killer". His second point.....if a person actually "wants" to kill an officer in these situations.....the officer is probably going to be shot no matter what he does.

That's why many feel a "simple traffic stop" is one of the most dangerous things the typical officer will ever face.

As to the original case.......two things come to my mind.

First was that this could have easily been seen as a "deadly force" encounter (admittredly armed suspect who threatened police). If that had been assumed and the suspect killed as he exited the closet, with gun in hand.......very few juries would have blamed the officers actions. Quite possibly that's what "should have happened in this case.

However......since officers did NOT draw their weapons and CHOSE to engage with less than lethal force (the taser is questionably less-than-lethal....but that's how it's taught and mostly judged)......then by police action this was NOT a deadly encounter. When the officer in question engaged in hands-on force, he AGAIN decided this was NOT a deadly situation requireing firearms.

In the struggle, the officer was accidentaly shot in the foot. This WAS obviously an accident, not an attack as the suspect had a "deadly weapon" in his hand and chose NOT to use it (which the officers MUST have agreed was the case as they did not respond with their own firearms. It was an accident.....pure and simple.

The only way I (if a juror) could be convinced that this was "assault with a deadly weapon" would be some testimony or evidence that the suspect escillated the incounter after the fight began.....and "deliberately" shot the officer.

Assault????....yes definitely assault of an officer just for fighting, but not "with a deadly weapon" as the officer's own actions showed they did not believe this to be a deadly encounter.

Don't get me wrong.....this is NOT an attack on police. I'm NOT a cop basher. I'm not saying the wounded officer is a dumb ass (other than the decision to NOT shoot the SOB as soon as he emerged with a weapon in hand).... However, I can easily understand why the jury voted as they did.

"Hadley testified that he had the long guns because �I like hunting� and that he kept the revolver for �protection from wild animals.� "


Here we are, we want more young people to get into the hunting/shooting sports and the cops are tazing them and sending them off to jail. I wonder what kind of "wild animals" he has in his attic?

Alan