Waller Shooting — Officer Mindset

This is going to be an on-going series of posts about the shooting of Jerry Waller by Fort Worth Police Officers. While I have my own opinion about the Grand Jury’s decision to no-bill the officer; this isn’t about that. What I’m trying to do is use this horrific incident to raise awareness about various factors and current issues. The report, which I referenced in the other post can be found here.

In this post, I want to discuss the ‘mindset’ of the officer(s) involved.

During his recorded interview, Officer Hoeppner stated that they observed a suspicious vehicle parked on the far back portion of the driveway at 404 Havenwood Lane North. Officer Hoeppner thought that the vehicle could have possibly been intentionally parked at the back of the driveway by an intruder to prevent anyone from seeing them approach the residence.

I’m not exactly sure what makes a car parked in a drive way “suspicious” given that most of the homes in the area seem to have rear (or side) entry garages.  Many people have more cars than space in their garages so it is very common to have cars parked on the driveway. We seldom have severe weather that dictates all cars be parked inside.

Click to enlarge

The driveway extended from the main roadway to a parking area in the back of the residence. The driveway was connected to a rear entry garage that was not visible from the roadway. The officers stated that they decided to approach the back of the residence first because of the suspicious vehicle that was parked on the driveway and the fact that the back of the residence was secluded and more susceptible to have been broken into.

This is information is important because of the security habits of some homeowners. Rear entry garages are often left open; either by accident or by carelessness. Most of the homes have locking doors from the garage into the house proper.

( just saw how long this post was — most of it will be below the fold)

According the report, although the summary isn’t exactly clear, Hoeppner and his partner clear the perimeter with no signs of forced entry. No signs of intruders. Hanlon (the other officer) knocks on the front door while Hoepnner stays in back to watch the open garage door.  While I’m not going to critique the Grand Jury’s decision; I have to point out the inconsistency here because it does relate to mindset or experience.

After searching the perimeter of the home, Officer Hanlon approached and knocked on the front door to check on the occupants. Officer Hoeppner remained at the garage until the residence could be secured or until the homeowner could be contacted to ensure that everything was okay. Officer Hanlon stated that he knocked on the door and rang the doorbell several times. He then observed a light come on inside the residence. Officer Hanlon called Officer Hoeppner on the radio and instructed him to come to the front of the residence.

So…..before knowing who is moving in the house, who is going to come out the front door or bolt for the back door — the officer is called to stop watching the most probable entry point of a criminal? The one closest to the ‘suspicious’ vehicle? (no report if they ran the plates on the car to see if it belonged to the home owner or not).

Doesn’t make much sense.

Prior to Officer Hanlon instructing Officer Hoeppner to come to the front of the residence,  Officer Hoeppner, who was still standing near the rear garage door, observed a white male exit the residence from the interior garage door into the garage area. When the white male entered the garage area, the interior garage light was activated and it came on. The garage light illuminated the interior of the garage and the driveway where Officer Hoeppner was standing.

Okay…time to point again — the officers approached the WRONG house. They were seeking 409 and approached not only a house or two away but on the other side of the street.

According to Officer Hoeppner, he was fully illuminated by the garage light and should have been visible to Waller. Officer Hoeppner observed that Waller was carrying a handgun. Officer Hoeppner did not know if Waller was an occupant of the residence or if he was a burglary suspect who had made entry into the residence.

This is part of the issue with the officers separating and the request to come to the front door. Not sure what was said “hey come around front” or “have lights coming on in the house, it’s safe. come to the front”.

The summary report doesn’t cover it but the autopsy report does — Mr. Waller was wearing pants and socks. No shoes, no shirt. Experience and mindset definitely is an issue on this point. An elderly man comes out of a house — not running apparently — only half dressed and the cop doesn’t know if he is a burglar or the homeowner.

Okay….I can understand that but doesn’t Occam’s Razor apply here? The simplest explanation is homeowner, right?

Time line of events: According the Incident Detail Report and radio traffic communications
12:51 a.m.: Officer Hanlon and Officer Hoeppner are dispatched to 409 Havenwood Lane North.
12:58 a.m.: Officer Hanlon and Officer Hoeppner arrived on the scene. The officers began to check the area and Officer Hoeppner remained in the back of the residence while Officer Hanlon attempted to contact the homeowner at the front door. At some point Officer Hoeppner was confronted by Waller in the garage and Officer Hoeppner ordered Waller to drop the handgun.
1:06 a.m. (and 6 seconds): Officer Hanlon called Officer Hoeppner to the front door over the radio. After doing this, Officer Hanlon heard Officer Hoeppner yelling commands to Waller and Officer Hanlon immediately ran to the back of the residence and observed Waller with the handgun. Officer Hanlon and Officer Hoeppner continued to give Waller loud verbal commands to drop the handgun.
1:06 a.m. (and 50 seconds): Officer Hanlon reported that shots had been fired and requested MedStar to the scene.

Again…I’m not trying to critique the Grand Jury’s decision but from the report, it seems very clear the time line isn’t a great (12:58 a.m to 1:06) as this time line makes it out to be. The report seems to indicate that Hanlon called Hoeppner to the Front door (1:06:06 ) and AFTER that Hoeppner sighted Mr. Waller. This is very important  – even if Waller came out before 1:06; no yelling occurred prior to that point.  Let’s go back to the report.

Officer Hoeppner illuminated Waller with his flashlight and drew his city issued handgun and then yelled multiple times for Waller to drop the handgun. According to Officer Hoeppner, Waller did not put the handgun down. Officer Hoeppner continued to give Waller loud verbal commands to drop the handgun as Waller continued into the garage area with the handgun in his right hand, his arm extended to his side and the handgun pointed downward. There was a vehicle, described as a black Volkswagen, parked in the center of the two car garage. Officer Hoeppner stated that Waller would not put the handgun down but continued to walk in front of the parked vehicle, to the passenger side trunk area with the handgun in his hand. According to Officer Hoeppner, Waller then turned and placed the handgun behind his right leg as if he was attempting to conceal it from Officer Hoeppner’s view. Officer Hoeppner continued to give Waller verbal commands to drop the handgun at which point Waller stated “why.” Waller then walked back to the driver’s side trunk area.

Again — the time line is incredibly important in this aspect. Remember Hanlon had been at the front door — and radio traffic confirms his request that Hoepnner join him there.

Officer Hanlon, who was still in front of the residence, heard Officer Hoeppner yelling so Officer Hanlon ran to the garage area. At this point, Officer Hoeppner and Officer Hanlon were standing in the driveway area and both officers were illuminated by the interior garage light. Officer Hanlon was approximately twenty‐five feet from Waller and just outside of the open garage door. Officer Hanlon stated that he observed Waller standing next to the driver’s side trunk area with the handgun in his hand. Officer Hanlon drew his city issued handgun and illuminated Waller with his flashlight and yelled to Waller, “Fort Worth P.D., put the weapon down.” Both officers continued to give Waller commands to put the handgun down and at one point during the confrontation, Waller told the officers to “get that light out of my eyes.” At this point Officer Hoeppner and Officer Hanlon canted their lights downward but kept their handguns pointed at Waller.

So one officer yelling in the middle of the night; telling a homeowner to put down the gun. Let’s not forget that criminals have been known to yell the same thing, have been known to use stolen uniforms. Then a second flashlight shining in his eyes and another person shouting commands. I think this escalates the tension instead of easing it.

Officer Hoeppner and Officer Hanlon then lowered their handguns and flashlights, however both officers kept their handguns unholstered and in a ready position. Officer Hoeppner then approached Waller’s handgun in order to secure it. Officer Hoeppner stated that as he approached the handgun, Waller stepped toward the handgun and “scrambled” to pick it up. Waller then swung the handgun in the direction of Officer Hoeppner and stepped to his right as he continued to raise the handgun up and in Officer Hoeppner’s direction. Both officers observed Waller pointing the handgun at Officer Hoeppner. To prevent from being shot by Waller, Officer Hoeppner discharged his weapon. Officer Hoeppner stated that he fired multiple times, rapidly.

Okay; that is the narrative as told by both officers.

It was 44 seconds from the moment that Officer Hanlon called out over the radio for Officer Hoeppner to come to the front of the residence to the moment that Officer Hanlon reported that shots had been fired. Both officers stated that this incident happened very quickly.

Keep this statement in mind please. It is critical to putting the officer’s after action report in context.

Officer Hoeppner was interviewed on May 28, 2013 and a follow up interview was completed on June 6, 2013. During Officer Heoppner’s first interview, he explained what occurred when he saw Waller exit the residence and explained Waller’s demeanor toward him during the  confrontation. “…the whole entire time I’m giving commands, “Drop the gun, drop the gun, drop the gun.” “And he’s not dropping it and he had this attitude towards us that…it was almost an attitude of, you can’t tell me to drop my gun.” “You know what I mean?” “Like who are you to telling me to, you know what I mean.” “He kind of had an attitude kind of very hostile towards us…

44 seconds — an officer who graduated from the academy last year was able to evaluate the ‘attitude’ of a homeowner confronted on his own property and decide it was hostile.

Officer Hoeppner stated that when he took a “half step” to approach the handgun, it appeared that Waller “panics” or “Freaks out.” Officer Hoeppner stated that he was unsure of what Waller was thinking at the time.

…

During the interview, Officer Hoeppner continuously questioned Waller’s actions. Officer Hoeppner described Waller demeanor as “strange” and because of his demeanor, he questioned if Waller was the homeowner. He continued by saying that Waller had a “very standoffish attitude with us.”

…

During Officer Hoeppner’s second interview, he reiterated the fact that Waller appeared to be confrontational. Officer Hoeppner stated, “I’m pretty sure I told you this; but I wanna reiterate that he…umm, his…his attitude towards us was very malicious.” “It…it was not, pro police at all.” “ He did not seem happy that, that we were there.”

I hope to be able to read the entire report and not just the summary because I would love to know what actions the officer views as ‘strange’ and ‘very standoffish’ — maybe it was simply not instantly complying with commands? I would also like to know how in 44 seconds, two utterances a person is supposed to show he was ‘very malicious’.

This is the statement that really caught my attention when I read the report

When Detective Green asked if he remained cautious, Officer Hoeppner replied by saying, “…Yeah, absolutely, cause like well and I play with my mind I was like, you know, there’s two…there’s two things that are going to happen now…either I’m going to move in here…and come this way, he’s going to fight me for it or at some point in time as I’m talking to him and I don’t ever move in, he’s going to grab his gun and try to shoot us both.”

It seems as if Officer Hoeppner locked into a binary solution set — with both outcomes being a fight. This is where the officer’s mindset really makes a difference. I understand that in high stress situations there is a tendency to get tunnel vision and focus. That officers have to try to narrow down the range of actions someone is going to take but process may have precluded the officer from considering the possibility the home owner didn’t want a firearm to slide off the car, didn’t want to scratch the paint job on the car , etc.

Officer Hoeppner stated, “Is he bluffing me and he’s going to come back up and shoot us if we just stand here or I can make a straight line for it and try to grab it first, and I’m not quick enough or I trip, you know, all these kinds of things coming in there and “bang” he shoots me…” Officer Hoeppner continues by saying, “… or can I try, like kind of show him, you know, hey, you know we’re friendly’s, we’re not trying to hurt you, you know what I mean. Like let’s work this out…I just want the gun.” “We can talk about this, you know, I mean, I didn’t say that but I…that’s a thought…” “…So, you know, that’s why like my movement were extremely slow this way, it wasn’t like quick movements hurry up and get the gun because I figured he’d try and grab it again, if I spooked him.” “So I want to close the distance and that I could get in there quick…” “But, I mean, ideally I wanted to move in and just get between him and the gun and just cut us all out…and go on with it…” “…but, you know, he made that situation possible when he…when he freaked out…”

This is really where the time line comes into play — and definitely affects the perspective of the officers. They had just finished a call, came directly into another one. Viewed a car parked in a driveway as “suspicious”, saw an open door (not uncommon) and treated an elderly man dressed in just pants and socks as a suspicious person.

44 Seconds at most from the time Mr. Waller stepped out of his garage door until the officer reported shots fired.

Could it have been the officer was primed to view any thing as confrontational? That any action not immediately obeyed was seen as hostile? I don’t know.

I don’t know if Mr. Waller was normally grumpy — my father was a grand example of crotchety for example – or if he was just out of sorts at being woken up at one in the morning. He may have cussed them or more, I don’t know.

The report includes two – just two statements by Mr. Waller “Why?” and “Get that light out of my eyes”…..so I tend to think the issue does rest with the mind set of the officers. I really wish I could say this was an uncommon attitude. That officers are not likely to see people as the enemy. I really do.

Unfortunately I can’t. And we gun owners need to be aware of their attitude and act (and react) accordingly. In my opinion, this is one of the greatest reasons to push Open Carry. Officers need to see more than just criminals with firearms. They need to see decent law abiding people going about their business armed. Their conditioned response  seem to be predicated on “gun = bad person”. Or else in 44 seconds; some officer may decide you are acting ‘strange’ and ‘very standoffish’.

Please join the discussion.