Larson Case and Carnation Updates

I was going to just append the last post, but these updates seem to require their own post.

Larson Case Update:
There are some new details coming out about the Aaron Larson case, courtesy of the Seattle Times, with more witnesses stepping forward questioning why the officer involved continued to fire on Larson after he fell to the ground and appeared to be incapacitated.

Some nurses and a paramedic who witnessed the shooting and rushed to aid Larson but were told by the officer that he was already dead. But when they checked he was still moving and he had a pulse. This would seem to indicate that if the officer had stopped firing after Larson had fallen to the ground that he might have survived the incident.

It was also revealed that Larson had a history of mental illness for the last couple of years and that he had recently tested negative for drug use during an employment related drug screening. This seems to back my theory that Larson didn't choose his fate that night, that he was not in control of himself and that lack of control wasn't due to any drug use.

As I said, I am still reserving judgement on this one and I really hesitate to draw any conclusions until more details and witness accounts surface. It is a tragedy no matter which way you paint it.

Carnation Killings Update:
Some horrifying new details have emerged that appear to resolve the question as to whether or not the King County Sheriff's deputies that did not investigate the 911 hang-up call could have prevented some of the 6 deaths in Carnation Washington on Christmas Eve.

From the Seattle Times: (warning, contains sickeningly graphic details)

The last thing Erica Anderson did was try to protect her children.

The 32-year-old woman's husband was dead or dying, and she had been shot twice during a Christmas Eve ambush at her in-laws' rural Carnation home. Still, she managed to crawl over the back of a couch and dial 911 on a cordless phone.

But before she had a chance to speak, according to graphic court documents filed Friday, Joseph McEnroe — armed with a .357-caliber Magnum handgun — walked up and pulled the phone from her hand and popped out the batteries. McEnroe, according to the documents, "allowed [Erica] to huddle with her children before he shot [her] in the head."

"McEnroe made sure to mention that he apologized to [Erica] after she pleaded with him not to shoot her, saying '... You don't have to do this,' " according to the court papers. "McEnroe recalled how he looked at her and said, '... Yes, we do.' "

McEnroe shot 5-year-old Olivia Anderson in the head "at very close range," said Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg. Then he turned to 3-year-old Nathan Anderson, the last survivor in the home.

The boy had picked up the batteries McEnroe had torn from the phone and held them up in one hand. McEnroe told detectives the child gave him "... the look of complete comprehension ... as if he understood." McEnroe then shot him in the head as well, according to the documents.

"I didn't want them to turn us in," McEnroe explained, the documents say.

Aside from showing just how inhuman these killers were when they murdered those children after they watched their parents die in front of them, this also seems to indicate that the officers would have arrived much too late to have saved any of those poor victims' lives that day. Though, there is quite a bit of back and forth going on about the exact timelines and the survivablilty times for the types of wounds that were inflicted.

While reserving judgement on this one as well, all I knwo for certain is that it was a truly horrifying crime and utterly inexcusable despite recent stories in the news trying to paint a picture of the two killers in an understandable light. I'm sorry, but the only thing to understand with these two is that they chose to allow their hardships to obliterate any humanity they might have had when they killed those 4 adults and 2 children... they deserve no more understanding than that.

Is It Misconduct?

Two horribly sad incidents that occurred this weekend have been spurring some controversy over whether there was a degree of misconduct... or neglegence, to be more precise, involved that might have made the difference between a terrible tragedy and something that might have been less tragic.

I wasn't going to bring these two cases up here, but since people are speculating as to whether there was any negligence involved in both cases I might as well bring it up here for the point of discussion.

Of course, I'm talking about the now well-known Carnation killings that occurred on Christmas Eve and the somewhat less infamous Larson case that occurred on a busy highway during Christmas Day.

Deaths in Carnation
The deaths of the six family members in Carnation Washington are very sad, especially so since there were very young children involved who were apparently murdered merely to cover up the crime. But it is now even more sad since there is a lot of speculation swirling around the 911 call that was recieved but not fully investigated. It turns out that King County Sheriff's officers responded to a 911 call from the residence where the murders took place on the night of the murders, but turned around when they encountered a locked gate at the driveway.

The King County Sheriff's Office opines that, based on preliminary investigative findings, that the officers arrived too late to have saved anyone anyway, so turning back at the gate didn't change the outcome. Of course, we could speculate that maybe some of the victims were still alive when the officers arrived at that gate, and maybe someone would have survived if they had broken in to determine the origin and nature of that 911 call... and it may well be so that we will never know for certain what the outcome might have been otherwise. In either case, it is a sad occation for that community and the surviving members of that family... so much grief on what should have been a time of togetherness is hard to fathom.

But, was it misconduct to turn back? Well, the law and court precidents state that officers are not liable in cases where no assurances of assistance are given over the phone during a 911 call, and if that held then this case would be no different since the call was hung up without a caller saying anything... But, in either case, I'm certain that the uncertainty of whether or not such young lives might have been saved will plague the minds of the officers involved and the community as well... which makes this case just that much more tragic for everyone involved.

The people who were arrested have confessed to the crime and the evidence available appears to point their way. If they are convicted then it seems that the true villians of this case will have been brought to justice. But questions will likely remain in the minds of those who survive the victims and in the minds of the officers who may feel as though different choices might have altered the outcome, whether true or not.

Aaron Larson
The controversy here is complex and multifaceted because there are several points of contention insofar as to at what points the officer involved could have made different choices that might have altered the outcome of this event.

As of now, it appears that Aaron Larson, 28, lost control due to currently unknown reasons, and went on a rampage in the middle of a busy freeway in Seattle. He reportedly had been suffering from depression due to a death in his family and severe sleep deprivation due to changing shifts at work which more than likely contributed to his psychotic episode on Christmas Day where he left the car holding his girlfriend and two children to start swinging his belt at cars in the freeway and attempting to force open doors of vehicles that were forced to stop.

A eleven year veteran Washington State Patrol officer responded to a 911 call, reportedly from Aaron's girlfriend, allegedly stating that he might possibly be armed. When he arrived he got out of his cruiser and approached Aaron, reportedly in an effort to calm him down. This was the first point of contention, should the officer had stayed in his vehicle until backup arrived so that more officers were available to subdue Aaron should he be unresponsive to verbal persuation?

Unfortunately, if true, the officer had reason to believe that Aaron might have been armed and acting in a manner that the officer might reasonably assume to be an imminent threat to the public, so it appears that he had little choice but to try and control the situation by himself. Once he got out and started to approach Aaron he was, allegedly, immediately attacked, in response the officer attempted to taser Aaron to subdue but it had no effect. Aaron allegedly continued the attack and had reportedly started to strangle the officer with the belt that he had previously used to beat passing cars. In response, the officer felt threatened and fired several shots, ultimately killing Aaron in front of several witnesses on the freeway.

The other points of contention surround the shooting and whether it was a reasonable assumption that the officer should have felt threatened enough to open fire while being strangled with a belt. Personally, I know that in the military soldiers are taught that every piece of equipment given to them can have multiple uses, and that the belt can be a formidible weapon in a number of ways. Not just as a garrot but also by using the weighted buckle as a weapon by leveraging the swinging belt itself as a makeshift mace. Witnesses at the scene, DOT cameras recording the events, and the officer all appear to make the same claims and all appear to concede that the officer seemed threatened enough to be justified in using leathal force.

Other questions surround whether there might have been other, less leathal, options available to the officer that could have stopped Aaron that day. Unfortunately the situation had degraded so rapidly that it appears the officer had no other real options left available to him, especially since his losing this confrontation might have armed Aaron with his service weapon, if he wasn't already armed.

Some accounts from people who had worked with the officer involved state that he was mild mannered, just as Aaron was, and had never had to shoot his service weapon in his eleven years on the force. It seems to me that it's reasonable to assume that shooting a man who had lost control of himself in front of several witnesses that included the man's children was the last thing the officer wanted to do on Christmas Day.

It seems to me that everyone was a victim that day, Aaron who had lost control of himself for reasons that may not have been of his choosing. For Aaron's family and children who had to witness that event. For the bystanders who witnessed tragedy on that Christmas day. And for the officer involved, who will now have to second guess himself and always wonder whether he might have done something different that day to change the outcome.

So, was it misconduct in either case?

Well, I tend to be a believer in the humanity inherent in people and that makes me believe that all these officers now have their own demons which they must contend with, to be unfortunately haunted with self doubts fueled by much public speculation. For now I'm withholding judgement and any opinions I might have, whether they favor the officers or not. Besides, what I think probably matters little to anyone involved right now.

Instead I only want to wish everyone involved in both these tragic events all the peace that might be available to them, including the surviving families of the victims and the officers involved... Such tragedies are sometimes only made more tragic when we search too hard for villians to blame when there might well not be any to find.