Trooper in deadly Montgomery County shooting identified, but questions remain

[KLB]

So people would be happier if they had tried to convict him without any real evidence that he actually committed a crime? Just because the whole thing feels wrong?

It looks like the prosecutor put the effort into reviewing the case and evidence they had, and made the correct choice based upon what he saw.

 

[Mossberg84]

My first thought when I read the report was that Rightsell was probably just reaching for his wallet to provide ID to the trooper. I dont regularly carry so I dont have experience in this, but how many of you that do carry keep your wallet on the same side of your gun?

 

[Tactically Fat]

I'm gonna go out on a tiny limb and suggest that Mr. Rightsell probably stood up from under the hood of the vehicle and then moved to pull his pants up - which included movement towards his holstered handgun.

If'in you were in the position of a LEO who was witnessing this act from a few dozen feet away, how would you react in that 1 second? Unknown and armed male stands up, probably turns toward you (ie looking at you), then reaches a hand towards a handgun on a hip. Full stop. You do not get any benefit of hindsight here. This split second in time is all you have to go on.

This is merely for discussion. I was obviously not there.

Also - if I were the family - I think I'd be happy about my chances of a wrongful death lawsuit against any number of agencies / individuals. First and foremost is the fact that the hospital in Crawfordsville is absolutely positively NOT the place for a GSW. Especially a GSW to the head/neck area.

I'm glad I'm not a LEO (Though I thought SERIOUSLY about it when I was younger. If I would've been in better physical condition then, I'd probably be a LEO now, actually). I'm glad I'm not Trooper Organ. I'm glad I'm not Trooper Organ's coworkers, and I'm glad I'm not Trooper Organ's boss/es.

 

[MarkC]

I don't think it's over from the way the article read. The lawyer for Rightsell's family talked about getting to the truth in the civil trial, and how the prosecutors hands were kind of tied in this finding.

This is far from over. This just means the prosecutor, after consideration, does not believe there is sufficient evidence to bring a criminal charge and rebut a defense of self-defense.

The real work will now begin, probably in a civil suit, most likely in federal court.

 

[Denny347]

The real work will now begin, probably in a civil suit, most likely in federal court.

Ah yes, the Federal Civil Rights section 1983 lawsuit. Where all fantastical claims are entertained and argued. Not that this case is that specifically, but what gets past Summary Judgement is a joke. Being the Respondent on more than one occasion, I have NO faith in them.

 

[MarkC]

Ah yes, the Federal Civil Rights section 1983 lawsuit. Where all fantastical claims are entertained and argued. Not that this case is that specifically, but what gets past Summary Judgement is a joke. Being the Respondent on more than one occasion, I have NO faith in them.

Unfortunately, I have to concur; I've also seen some fantastical claims and severe twisting of the truth and importance of alleged action/inaction by officers. Some of the plaintiffs' lawyers who file these are really, really good at avoiding summary judgment, at least on some of the claims.

 

[rosejm]

My first thought when I read the report was that Rightsell was probably just reaching for his wallet to provide ID to the trooper. I dont regularly carry so I dont have experience in this, but how many of you that do carry keep your wallet on the same side of your gun?

I switched pockets specifically for this reason. It's even more of an issue while doing so as a driver during a traffic stop.

I'm gonna go out on a tiny limb and suggest that Mr. Rightsell probably stood up from under the hood of the vehicle and then moved to pull his pants up - which included movement towards his holstered handgun.

If'in you were in the position of a LEO who was witnessing this act from a few dozen feet away, how would you react in that 1 second? Unknown and armed male stands up, probably turns toward you (ie looking at you), then reaches a hand towards a handgun on a hip. Full stop. You do not get any benefit of hindsight here. This split second in time is all you have to go on.

This is precisely how I imagine things went. Could have been a deliberate draw by Rightsell, but that doesn't seem to fit the situation.
Droopy pants/Plumber's crack seems much more likely and wouldn't look very good in the dark to an approaching LEO.

 

[Route 45]

My first thought when I read the report was that Rightsell was probably just reaching for his wallet to provide ID to the trooper. I dont regularly carry so I dont have experience in this, but how many of you that do carry keep your wallet on the same side of your gun?

I carry my wallet on my left side rear pocket, which is opposite of my handgun. Probably doesn't matter, as I don't feel the need to display my pistol.

Half of INGO will wail and gnash their teeth, but IMO open carry was a huge factor in why this guy is now pushing up daisies. I'm not trying to get shot by a twitchy rookie who just got out of an academy that instills the belief that half of the world is out to shoot him on a traffic stop. Shouldn't happen, but we all carry guns because of things that shouldn't happen, now don't we?

 

[HoughMade]

This is far from over. This just means the prosecutor, after consideration, does not believe there is sufficient evidence to bring a criminal charge and rebut a defense of self-defense.

I don't know what evidence there could be to rebut it. No physical evidence to contradict the Trooper's account, apparently. No witnesses. The only thing would be whether his own statements made out a credible claim for self-defense. Theories which, even if given a God's eye view, are 100% accurate will not get you a "beyond a reasonable doubt" if there is no admissible evidence to support them.

The real work will now begin, probably in a civil suit, most likely in federal court.

Certainly. The realm of "more likely than not" is where you can throw theories out there that have little to no factual basis and hope a jury sees it your way. While I agree it will probably be in federal court, if I were the plaintiff's counsel, I would much more prefer the Indiana summary judgment standard. The federal standard may kill the case.

 

[2A_Tom]

This is beyond disturbing. Not sure what I expected but I expected more than "nothing to see here, move on".

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ficer-kills-armed-civilian-9.html#post7774358

Case closed. Move on. There is nothing to see here. 12-30-2018

 

[edporch]

The words of a dying man who had ZERO motive to pull a gun on an Indiana State Trooper.
From the Official Report.
“(The nurse) recalled asking Mr. Rightsell, ‘What did you do?’” the report says. “Mr. Rightsell responded, ‘I don’t know. He just walked up and started shooting.’ (The nurse) recalled Mr. Rightsell making this comment twice. She described Mr. Rightsell’s demeanor as calm and cooperative.”

I suspected Trooper Organ would get by with this.
I will never believe it happened the way Trooper Organ says it did because it makes no sense.
And when it makes no sense, it's more likely than not that it didn't really happen that way.

 

[rhino]

Given that virtually all of the evidence is from the officer's account of the event, I don't see what else a prosecutor could or should do. There's no evidence (known to any of us) that indicates a crime a was committed, even though that's tough for most of us to accept. We have a feeling there is more to the story, but . . .

For good or bad, it seems the criminal aspects of this situation are resolved. If the officer's account of events is factually correct and true, then it's the right outcome. The only way anything is going to change that is if officer offers more information, which I do not expect to happen.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I have seen many prosecuted with far less evidence with identical facts in my 24 years.

The Trooper is beyond lucky.

 

[rhino]

I have seen many prosecuted with far less evidence with identical facts in my 24 years.

The Trooper is beyond lucky.

That is interesting. What were the outcomes?

And are you able to speculate as to why those cases were pursued to that end when this case was not?

 

[MarkC]

Certainly. The realm of "more likely than not" is where you can throw theories out there that have little to no factual basis and hope a jury sees it your way. While I agree it will probably be in federal court, if I were the plaintiff's counsel, I would much more prefer the Indiana summary judgment standard. The federal standard may kill the case.

True, the Indiana summary judgment standard is much harder to overcome, but, for whatever the reason, those practitioners preferred to bring them in federal court.

My opinion, for what it is worth, is they thought the likelihood of success was better in front of a federal judge.

 

[bwframe]

As fishy as this thing looks, I agree with rhino. With the evidence available, I don't think anything can be pinned on the officer beyond his statement.

I'd really, really like to see a reaction out of the state police though. Why would they NOT consider this to be a time to at least research adapting patrol car and or body cameras? Why is Indiana different from other places where this is standard?

Will this officer's training be reevaluated? Also would like to know where this officer will be assigned.

I drive well seasoned vehicles. Been known to be under many a hood roadside. It is unacceptable that the state police should just leave this as if this is normal.

 

[Dead Duck]

As fishy as this thing looks, I agree with rhino.

I agree with Bwframe.
It's fishy to agree with Rhino.

 

[Vigilant]

Given that virtually all of the evidence is from the officer's account of the event, I don't see what else a prosecutor could or should do. There's no evidence (known to any of us) that indicates a crime a was committed, even though that's tough for most of us to accept. We have a feeling there is more to the story, but . . .

For good or bad, it seems the criminal aspects of this situation are resolved. If the officer's account of events is factually correct and true, then it's the right outcome. The only way anything is going to change that is if officer offers more information, which I do not expect to happen.

This^^^^

 

[Anima mundi]

I'd really, really like to see a reaction out of the state police though. Why would they NOT consider this to be a time to at least research adapting patrol car and or body cameras?

It's easier to falsify a report and clear yourself of wrongdoing when you don't have to refer to an objective record of events.

e: Anyone know where to go to look at ISP's expenditures/acquisitions, or is that only accessible through a FOIA request?

 

[Vigilant]

It's easier to falsify a report and clear yourself of wrongdoing when you don't have to refer to an objective record of events.

e: Anyone know where to go to look at ISP's expenditures/acquisitions, or is that only accessible through a FOIA request?

I know they spend a lot switching handguns all the time.