BART Cop Won't Face Charges for Fatal Shooting
District attorney concludes officer "acted lawfully" when he shot Charles Hill
BART police Officer James Crowell "acted lawfully" when he shot and killed a knife-wielding homeless man last July, according to a San Francisco District Attorney's office report made public by BART Tuesday.
The seven-month-long investigation concluded that Crowell was acting in self-defense when he opened fire on Charles Hill on the Civic Center station platform July 3, 2011.
"Officer Crowell only fired at Hill after recognizing an imminent threat of serious bodily injury and commanding Hill to drop the knife," the report said. "Officer Crowell fired at Hill in self-defense."
Investigators praised Crowell for maintaining a “calm and professional demeanor” when faced with an “aggressive individual who was under the influence."
The report offers the first direct testimony from Crowell about what led him to shoot Hill 25 seconds after he and his partner, Myron Lee, arrived at the Civic Center platform in response to a call about a “wobbly drunk."
Crowell told investigators that Hill, who was wearing a tie-dyed shirt, was waving his arms around and spilling vodka from a Smirnoff bottle when they arrived. Crowell said he told Hill to “come back over here,” and Hill responded by tossing the bottle at the officers. It shattered on a metal sign.
According to Crowell, Hill began approaching with a “pretty big” knife "with a 3- or 4-inch blade." Crowell estimated that Hill was 10 feet away when Crowell noticed the knife. Crowell told investigators he drew his gun and yelled, “Drop the knife!” He said Hill then cocked his arm and took a step toward him. Crowell said he believed “for certain” that Hill was going to throw the knife.
Investigators concluded that Hill was 15 feet away when Crowell fired his gun three times. Two of the bullets hit Hill, killing him, and one hit a nearby pillar. Citing his training, Crowell told investigators that the homeless man was within the 21-foot "danger zone" that a suspect armed with a knife can cover before an officer has time to draw his gun.
“This could be it, I could, you know, that could be, then I could be dead if I don’t do something,” Crowell told investigators. “You know, it’s me or him at this point, and my partner’s life’s in danger and my life’s in danger, you know. Yeah, I feared for my life.”
Investigators pressed Crowell about why he didn’t use the Taser that was on his belt. The officer said he “wouldn’t have even thought about it” because Hill had a deadly weapon.
“My training tells me to present, you know, an equal or greater force, and that’s why I’m instructed to fire, because I didn’t feel that any other weapon or anything else on my belt is going to meet what he’s presenting,” Crowell said.
At the time of the shooting, Crowell’s partner was on the ground, having slipped on the spilled vodka, the report said. But Crowell didn’t appear to be aware of that fact, telling investigators that he thought his partner was on the other side of a BART sign. According to the report, Lee was 30 feet away from Hill and did not have a Taser.
The district attorney will not file charges against Crowell, who had been on the force 18 months at the time of the incident and has since moved on to a job at the FBI.
John Burris, an attorney representing Hill’s family in a lawsuit against the transit agency, said that he was not surprised by the report's conclusions.
Jonathan Nack
This is a travesty! The law needs to be changed towards more protection of civilians and away from the being overprotective of police who use deadly force. Two police officers should be able to restrain and arrest one intoxicated man, who was obviously in poor health, without killing him.
I hope the civil suit succeeds in winning a measure of justice, since the criminal court failed so miserably.
Robert Montgomery
...because you were there, and you know....
R T
Yes they should- provided the person is not in possession of a knife and is not waving it around. Once that is factored into the equation- all bets are off and the officer has every right to use deadly force to defend himself. Just because you wear a badge doesn't mean that you give up those rights.
Meldipoo
Are you aware of the affects being intoxicated on alcohol, meth, and THC have on a person? I'd like to see you restrain this person who is threatening you with a knife. Not to mention the other weapons he was carrying on his person.
As for the civil suit....no freaking chance. If his family cared about him they would have been in his life trying to help him get back on his feet. They didn't care enough about him while he was here but now all of a sudden their money grubbing hands can't wait to get a hold of some money. "Wow, he was not important to us while he was alive, but maybe he can help us out now that he is dead" Incredible.
Frank DeFelice
If Officer Crowell had been in the Marine Corps, he could easily have disarmed the man.
R T
Your logic is painfully bad.
Frank DeFelice
Makes sense to me.
Meldipoo
Then maybe we should be putting Marine Corps in charge of this type of criminal activity....yeah, I think not.
Frank DeFelice
Dumb comments. I'm suggesting officers should need more training.
R T
Really. Because from your dumb comment, no one had any way of figuring that out. Try adding clarity to your comments and say what you mean.
Frank DeFelice
Thanks for the suggestion. I will make every effort to be clear.
voltairesmistress
I often wonder where the family of this kind of police shooting victim is BEFORE its family member dies a violent death. It seems the family relinquishes any responsibility for looking after its deranged and difficult relative. It has lost contact with said family member, usually on purpose, because he scares them. He wanders the streets threatening others, sometimes assaulting people but most certainly causing others inconvenience and fear. Then the families lodge lawsuits for their "loss" when he dies.
In any case, the last person I would hold responsible would be the police officer. Charles Hill, yes. His family, yes. All of us for not demanding and paying for institutionalization, yes. The police officer for protecting himself and the public, no.
Robert Montgomery
Well said.
Athena Bunting
A 3 or 4 INCH blade knife is big? And an excuse to kill someone? PCP or Meth is one thing. A recognized homeless guy that has issues but generally non-violent...what is up with killing the guy? Because he threw a bottle of vodka at them?
I've been around guns and handguns for decades. The cop could have easily just shot the guy in the knee or shoulder and disabled him. A drunk guy with a 3 inch blade ...OK, for anyone that doesn't know, it's about the size of a large paring knife....isn't about to be of any threat to anyone.
This whole situation and the DA's ruling is totally fucked up.
R T
Actually what is messed up is your line of thinking.
1. A 3-4 inch blade on a knife can kill you. Don't think it can't. Plenty of dead people knifed with one. How close to the surface of your neck is the Jugular? Less than 3-4 inches. What about your heart? Again, less than 3-4 inches.
2. Police are not trained to shoot in the knee or the shoulder etc. They are trained to shoot to stop the threat. When a person is faced with what they perceive to be a life or death situation, there is this thing called adrenaline. It has a variety of effects, including raising your heart rate, trouble breathing, tremors in the hands, shaking. If you have any experience around guns, like you claim to, you know that all of these things make it very difficult to make that range perfect shot on a moving target.
3. Say you make the perfect shot and the threat is hit in the shoulder. Does that put him on the ground? not necessarily. And he may or may not still have a knife.
4. "A recognized homeless guy that has issues but generally non-violent" He may have been non-violent in the past- apparently he wasn't all that non-violent that night.
5. What exactly would be your preferred method to taking out a guy 10-15 feet away that has a knife? Judo? Good luck not getting cut or worse.
S.F. Peaches
We have laws which are intended to protect the general public from being institutionalized against our will. Unfortunately, those laws have to be very strict if competent people are going to be protected from abusive relatives or psychiatrists.
The downside is predictable. People who aren't capable of behaving responsibly are wandering around and waving knives on train platforms.
The fact that some people used to get away with abusing the mental health system is responsible for the current mess. The effort to stop locking up people with few or no questions asked resulted in a whole new problem.
I won't speculate on how this trauma is affecting Officer Crowell, Mr. Hill's family or anyone else.
In fairness, we should admit that any legal protection has the potential for being abused. Do we allow the mentally ill to pose a threat to themselves and others, or do we make it easy to have anyone committed? It all depends on your vantage point.
Kurt Turner
Sorry Lefties. Your blatant witch hunt failed. I will never understand your alternate universe logic where the police are the bad guys and the criminals are the victims.
Gonein2013 #
Is this a reasonable and fair decision? If you say yes; ask yourself how a legally armed citizen would have been treated under the same circumstances? You can bet he/she would be in jail and charged with, at the very least, manslaughter. Then again this is CA so there is very little chance such a situation (a legally armed citizen) would occur. Cops have become judge, jury and executioner. Think Judge Dredd. We have become a Police State and it is getting worse every day. Open your eyes before it is too late.
R T
And what would you have done in the police officer's position?
Gonein2013 #
You called him an "officer" so my guess is that you're a cop somewhere, or a cop wannabe/cop worshiper. With that said, however, I can't honestly answer the question since I wasn't there and I wouldn't presume to know how much fear he felt, or how serious the threat to his life actually was. I will tell you that from what I have seen personally, I don't trust any cops now, they presume guilt and treat the citizen as beneath them. I avoid them when I can and I take care not to provoke them. I just know from what I have seen since I moved to CA that cops can shoot a citizen dead here and they ALWAYS get the presumption of being in the right, when they should be held to a higher standard since they supposedly have the training and have been psychologically screened. I ride BART every day and I know better than to call them for help.
Back in my home state I worked closely with PD as a volunteer FF/EMT without incident, and before you ask, I have never been arrested or had a "run in" with a cop; but here they have a different attitude. You may call me paranoid, or say that I have an irrational fear of cops, but I am just trying to stay alive long enough to escape with my wife from CA and the Bay Area.
R T
So basically you don't like cops- in the SF Bay Area that is, and based on that you think that the DA's decision was unfair and wrong, yet you have no idea what you would have done if you were the cop faced with this situation. So even though the DA reviewed all the evidence, witness statements, ballistics, video tape, officer statement, etc. they made the wrong call, but you have no answer as to what the cop should have done.
Brilliant insight.
Gonein2013 #
No, I said don't TRUST them; like was not used and is a meaningless term in this instance. I have an idea what I would do if faced with a knife wielding thug, but that doesn't mean it would be the same action that a cop would take. I would have used any NON-lethal means available first then whatever I had I would use. That has no bearing on what a trained cop should/could do. I have weapons training but no self-defense training and I can't legally carry a baton or a firearm. Your sarcasm as to my "brilliant insight" is a BS response.
R T
Pardon- you do not trust cops. My apologies.
In your original post you clearly disagreed with the DA's decision. It seems logical that if you disagree with the decision with the DA, you feel that the cop should have acted differently. Fine, you cannot say what YOU would have done, but again, what should the COP have done? If you have an opinion that the DA's decision was the wrong one, then logic dictates that you have an opinion on what he should have done.
Michael Boyd
We are all Charles Hill, just like we are all Oscar Grant, the potential victims of police violence. When the police are more concerned with protecting the tyrannical interests of the existing ruling class, instead of us, we are all the victims here. Mr. Hill's family, like Oscar Grant's will get some justice someday, since this type of treachery never goes unpunished for long. Karma always catches up to the perpetrator of injustice; its inevitable. All police states throughout history eventually drown in their own feces.
R T
I really don't think the cop was so much worried about the interests of the 1% that night. Probably a bit more concerned with his own life.
Robert Montgomery
WRONG. I am nothing like Charles Hill or Oscar Grant. Both of them made incredibly bad decisions for an incredibly large portion of their lives. Neither, apparently, had any respect for anybody but themselves, and even that is questionable. On top of that, there is a way to interact with the police even when you think they're wrong. Fighting them, throwing things at them, and provoking them is not on that list.
Do not include me in the delusion that "we are all Charles Hill or Oscar Grant." That comment couldn't be farther from the truth.
Gonein2013 #
RT
Why don't you admit you're a cop first of all.
I would like to clarify that when I said I had no "self defense" training, I meant hand-to-hand or with edged weapons, etc. I have taken a civilian firearms course and I was trained in the militery to shoot multiple weapons including handguns.
Personally I feel cops are too darn quick to shoot now for "officer safety" and that he should have taken any non-lethal means at his disposal to neutralize the threat, then if NO other choices including backup troops were readily available, take the shot. I know about Center of Mass and all that, but he did not necessarily need to kill him to stop him. OK, does that make you happy now. In my experience BART cops are either poorly trained and/or selected or both. As I said I trust ZERO CA LEO's with my life or the lives of my family and I trust BART cops least of all.
R T
Sorry to disappoint you... Not a cop and never been one. I disagree with you regarding the steps the officer should have taken prior to shooting. Sorry you have such a distrust of CA LEOs.
Gonein2013 #
OK RT you're not a cop, sorry for the presumption. BTW, thanks for the dialog; we will have to agree to disagree. I admit that I could be wrong about this given the fact that my judgement is influenced by my mistrust, but it is what it is, perception is reality. I take no pleasure in my attitude regarding CA LEOs, but nothing I have seen or experienced here has given me any reason to think differently. There are many reasons why, IMHO, cops act as they do but that is a topic for another day.