September 27, 2004

• I'm not sure whether to laugh or be really pissed off...
• In 2002, Bojcic was arrested for swinging lumber at police officers and smashing windows of a patrol car in Concord after learning that his impounded car had been sold, according to the Contra Costa Times. Premilovac said that after that incident, Bojcic spent a year at the Napa State Hospital. Somehow I get the feeling that smoking was the least of his problems, es el Queso.
• It sounds like the police did everything to subdue him appropriately, yet still things got out of control. Except for the part where the cop decided to shoot the unarmed man. Cops aren't carrying guns to help win a fistfight. They carry guns for much more dangerous situations. If a person needs a gun to deal with a no-smoking violation, then that person is way to incompetent to be given a badge, let alone a gun.
• If a business has a rule about smoking inside - I'll abide by it. If I want to smoke outside the establishment - I'll smoke no policy will prevent me from lighting up. What troubles me even more about this story is that a cop decided the only means of resolving the situation was to use force. At one point the cop retreated and called for backup but then decided to get involved again, tazering the guy, escalating the situation. I find it offensive that the article spent so much time highlighting the fact this guy had been violent before, felt to me like it was justification for subsequent shooting. "Oh look he's been violent before there must have been a good reason to kill him this time." We've had situations like this in Canada before. A cop killed a man because he was taking a baseball bat to her police vehicle, a man walking down the street in Vancouver wearing a walkman, the cop called out to the guy, guy turned, cop pulled out his gun and fired thinking the walkman was a gun. Guy wearing the walkman is dead. A woman killed at the skytrain station in New Westminster. There are so many more examples. ps: other post mentioned trigger topics that make peoples blood boil - this is one of them for me.
• Cops are trained in hand-to-hand, Knickerbocker, but when they find themselves on the losing end of a scuffle, there's a danger their opponent will go for the cop's gun. In that case, shooting first is justified. Fighting a cop is *always* a bad idea.
• You can't even smoke outside a Starbucks? And, don't patrolmen carry night sticks? Isn't the ol' tolchock on the litso the next step in the process of subduing a person who is out of (police) control?
• rocket88, my brother is a detective at SJPD. he said the cop didn't follow procedure and from what he knew about it, 'the cop was an idiot' (his words, not mine.)
• That may be, PatB, and none of us have all the info on this story...but anytime someone attacks a cop, armed or not, they lose my sympathy. This is far different from the cases beeza pointed out, where neither the police or the public were in any danger at all.
• All that caffeine, I'd have an itchy trigger finger, too.
• What puzzles me most is why a person smoking outdoors results in a call for a cop in the first place. Is smoking outdoors now banned in the US, too? Also curious, did this guy somehow present any danger to anyone but the cop? And why didn't the cop wait for reinforcements to help subdue the guy? What made the cop feel such urgency that waiting was not an option? Too many unanswered questions.
• Mmmm... excessive force. Would like to try our new freedom fries with that, sir? It might be worth noting that he wasn't smoking inside the starbucks, even. And really, it's amazing that people get so pissy about second-hand smoke but have no qualms whatsoever about huffing that sweet, sweet Cali smog. Fucking prioritize that shit, at least. On preview: he may lose your sympathy, rocket88, but I'd hate to think that every/any dumbshit that throws a punch at a cop deserves the death sentence... especially considering the multitudes of (other/superior) nonlethal methods available.
• Coffee and Cigarettes: they go together like love and marriage - smoking is cool and these folks know it
• Dixon said the officer told police that Bojcic immediately became confrontational, and picked up a patio chair and threw it, striking the officer. The officer said he retreated and called for backup, then pulled out his Taser and fired. Taser is a contact weapon, right? Dozens of Bosnians gathered in the parking lot of the shopping center late Sunday and said they believed the police officer could have done more to avoid shooting Bojcic. huh. Well, but you know how those Bosnian's stick together.
• Smoking isn't even an issue here. The shop owner was having problems with a guy loitering outside his store, and asked the cop to talk to the guy. The guy starts throwing furniture at the cop. Cop backs off to call for backup, then re-engages the guy. The guy's still belligerent, so the cop tazers him, but it doesn't work. Then the guy gets really mad and attacks & (apparently) overpowers the cop. Up to this point there's nothing that can be called police brutality. The decision to use deadly force is questionable, but under the circumstances, not patently unreasonable.
• Survivor of a Croat internment camp... had become more and more unstable over the last couple of years. This has nothing to do with smoking. And perhaps the cop was acting in self-defense, but that doesn't stop this being a sad end to a sad life; Bojcic deserves our sympathy.
• The decision to use deadly force was wrong.
• The decision to use deadly force was wrong. ...as was the decision to buy coffee from fucking Starbucks.
• I don't think we have enough info to make a judgement either way. What if, during the scuffle, Bojcic made attempts at the officer's holstered weapon? Would that change anything?
• Wow, it really took 1 hour 21 minutes for the obligatory "Starbucks sucks" comment to appear? You're going soft, people!
• Cops have to be very careful in their use of force, and a lot of times they aren't (especially the VPD of late); however attacking a cop is like poking a bear with a stick. Really stupid, and liable to end badly. I do think, in the incident related in the post, that the cop should have backed off and waited in the car for backup, unless the guy was going after other patrons. But then again, I'm not a cop.
• What if, after the guy threw the chair at the cop (NOT 'started throwing furniture') and the cop called for back-up, he'd stayed out of the man's reach until backup got there? I looked all over that article and couldn't find the word 'loitering' anywhere. Nor can I find where it says the officer was overpowered. you're right, rocket88, none of us know the whole story. That doesn't mean we get to put our own spin on it.
• On the stick front, and I am not saying right or wrong...aren't they falling out of favor in PD's? Does the SJPD carry sticks? I imagine they cause more problems for police than they "solve". Lawsuits spring to mind first and foremost. Kind of like the old chestnut about if an intruder gets hurt commiting a crime on your property you are better off shooting him? Again, just thinking aloud.
• It's a story where everyone is wrong. The cop, the smoker, Starbucks. And as an aside, I remember when we started getting Starbucks here (Vancouver) prior to not being allowed to smoke indoors, I was incredulous that you couldn't have a cigarette with your coffee, in a coffee shop.
• I asked my brother about that pivo..well, I sent him an email. I'll let you know when he responds.
• My thoughts. I am genuinely thankful that: 1) Bitains doesn't have such ludicrous anti-smoking policies. 2) British cops don't carry guns. 3) I am not an unstable internment camp survivor. 4) British cops don't carry guns. 5) I don't get coffee from Starbucks. 6) British cops don't carry guns. 7) See 6. That is all.
• backup was on the way. everything after that was a deliberate provocation followed by murder. there was no earthly justification for tazing the guy.
• And yet, somehow, the New Zealand police seem to manage to subdue people without tasers *or* firearms. British police, too. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
• 8) I have no idea what the word "Bitains" means in the context of my statement 1 (above).
• This is far different from the cases beeza pointed out, where neither the police or the public were in any danger at all. Have to disagree. In all those instances including this one there was a perceived sense of danger that was acted on. The woman at the skytrain station was running towards the police officer, the guy with the walkman turned quickly towards the cop in what I call the "combat walkman position" My problem with the use of extreme police force is that most of it is preventable. The cop who called for reinforcements should have waited til they arrived. Rather he engaged Bojcic again and escalated the situation further. That was his mistake IMO. In fact after the cop killed the guy attacking the car in Toronto the Toroto City Police created a new program to train police officers to negotiate rather than use force to resolve an issue. A large number of these cases involve someone who is mentally ill or high on drugs, something police forces don't focus on when training people to be cops. One has to wonder if Bojcic wasn't mentally ill. Accounts say he used to be quiet and unassuming and the violent behaviour was something new. Maybe he had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and perceived the cop was a threat? Other news wire stories are saying he spent time in the Napa State Hospital and that he was a regular customer to that Starbucks shop.
• Disclaimer: there is no proven link between Starbucks and admittance to the Napa State Hospital.
• Although I pretty much agree with quonsar, I'd be interested in hearing coppermac's take on this.
• In the future, this will happen to all smokers.
• *takes deep drag, exhales into thread* You'll never catch me, copper!
• Except for the part where the cop decided to shoot the unarmed man. Cops aren't carrying guns to help win a fistfight. They carry guns for much more dangerous situations. If a person needs a gun to deal with a no-smoking violation, then that person is way to incompetent to be given a badge, let alone a gun. Let me give you the straightup as a homeless man who has seen cops in action. I have seen a cop pull his gun at a man holding a rubber hose. Cops only get into fistfights in movies.
• I'm moving to Bitain.
• There are too few details in the story to make many absolute statements on the actions of the deceased and the officer, but some of the information provided does lead to some rather obvious conclusions. That said, when further details are reported, any conclusions I make here could very well change. To begin, the clerk who approached the officer may or may not have had legitimate reason to do so. It's not clear from the article that Mr. Bojcic was smoking at the time, or drinking coffee -- only that he had done so in the past, and that the new management of the shop had recently begun "cracking down" on the outdoor smoking in general. Note that this indicates that past management had overlooked the behaviour, and, depending on how recently the new management had adjusted policy, this may have been the first time Mr. Bojcic (or any patron) had been confronted about a routine he'd established at the shop. Not being certain of California law here (or the county and municipal variations), I can't state absolutely that smoking outdoors in the near vicinity of a privately owned business is either legal or illegal. However, unless the smoker is deliberately standing three inches from the door and blowing smoke with the intention of irritating patrons and staff, I'd guess that Mr. Bojcic was innocently sitting with some friends on a patio, drinking a purchased beverage and smoking, as he had done with some frequency in the past.
• We don't know, but let's assume that the officer approached Mr. Bojcic with some measure of politeness. From there, for whatever reasons, the confrontation began. We are told that Mr. Bojcic had previously had difficulty with the police (and his beef was potentially quite legitimate, depending on unreported variables), but the officer in question certainly didn't know this at the time. In any event, from this point on the officer completely mishandled the situation. The first priority for an officer in such a situation is to de-escalate the potential for violence. At risk are the offender, the officer, and all bystanders, not to mention passerby if gunfire is a consideration. We're led to believe that the deceased behaved in an unstable manner, but such is the case with a great number of people who run afoul of the law. Domestic violence incidents in particular often result in a high degree of hostility for intervening officers, but that's what we're trained for. All officers know that their presence is unwelcome in many situations, and that's why we undergo much training directed at helping us pacify angry or violent suspects. Perhaps Mr. Bojcic was utterly impossible to pacify without the counterattack by the officer, but my experience has always been that a good officer can talk down even the most brutally offensive suspect if he or she tries and has been trained properly. We have only the unnamed officer's words to go by, unfortunately, but even his own words indicate some irresponsibility. Having had a chair thrown at him, he called for backup, but no indication was then given that any other act from the deceased had prompted the tasering. The taser was either mishandled by the officer (partial hit only on the target) or was in faulty working order. I have no doubt in my mind that Mr. Bojcic did not receive a full charge -- he'd have been in no shape to attack the officer if he had. At that point, the officer should have cuffed Mr. Bojcic, who would have been incapacitated. If the officer indeed missed his shot, the appropriate course of action would have been to re-engage the deceased in discussion in an attempt to de-escalate the increasingly tense situation. Hand-to-hand combat is obviously to be avoided by lone officers, and it is rare that such an event occurs. No officer with whom I've ever worked would have voluntarily opted to risk being disarmed by a suspect. I'd like to hear what the eyewitnesses have to say about the ordeal before offering much more. And, es el Queso, I have to take exception to your line "It sounds like the police did everything to subdue him appropriately...." -- very little in the article indicates that this is the case, but our expectations of the police do lead us to hope so.
• This has nothing to do with smoking. And we still do it (and are able to) in Dallas.