Deadly Force NOT Authorized. Cop Who Killed a Teen Holding a Wii Remote had shady past

I thought that some here might appreciate an update on this tragic story. I'm sure many of you remember back in February when a high school boy made the innocent gesture of opening his door while holding a Wii remote only to be shot dead. There are still a lot of unanswered questions in my mind like why had the officer already drawn her service weapon prior to the kid answering the door but I digress...

11Alive News was first to uncover Gatny’s prior job history. Records show Cpl. Beth Gatny was reprimanded at least 12 times over her 10 years at the Acworth Police Department, the most serious being when she fired her service weapon while confronting three suspects. An internal investigation found the suspect was trying to remove his backpack. She was never reprimanded because she believed he was armed. The good news is that a Bartow County grand jury has ruled that Gatny was not authorized to use deadly force in the fatal shooting of a 17-year-old. thefreethoughtproject.com...

In a decade of working for this department she had a dozen reprimands but was still out working the grind. There is a serious lack of proper over site in far too many instances. It seems that thou they are supposed to be on the side of l and order they simply act like the criminals they are supposed to be taking off the street. Ice they get away with something it will continue to escalate until you end with tragedy.

I was rather amazed that a grand jury decided that she was not justified in her show of force because so much of the public is still under the anachronistic Donna Reed fairy tale that protect and serve is the reality when it is anything but.

The flip side is that despite the grand juries findings her department is still standing strong and expressing regret that there may actually be criminal charges brought against officer Gatny.

Not anywhere near a happy ending, but the finding of the grand jury that she excersised unreasonable force is certainly a start.

The Euharlee Police Department issued a statement saying that “while we are disappointed with the grand jury findings, the City of Euharlee and the Euharlee Police Department will continue to cooperate…with any subsequent investigation.” thefreethoughtproject.com...

a reply to: peter vlar

Well, I guess that answers the question I posted on the original thread as to why she had her weapon drawn in the first place when she was only there to serve a warrant. It would seem that she has a long-standing habit of doing that, as well as firing it. Yet they're expressing regret at the thought of her having to do time for murder? How heartwarming. She belongs behind bars, just like any other murderer. It's the least they could do for the boy's family after she stole him from them, wouldn't you agree?

a reply to: tigertatzen

It doesn't exactly encourage trust in law enforcement as a whole when they opt to stand behind the officer and proceed toexpress puzzlement over a grand jury finding that the force was excessive. It really does show they believe they are a law unto themselves when they show contempt for the appropriate legal process that the rest of us have to be a part of. The ridiculous part is that her own department looks to be the one doing the investigation. Not exactly an impartial investigation.

originally posted by: peter vlar

An internal investigation found the suspect was trying to remove his backpack. She was never reprimanded because she believed he was armed.

My burning question is - why are the beliefs of officers never questioned? No one wants to say "What sort of # is THAT?" when they come out with this sort of thing. "Oh, I thought he had an IED in his backpack" or "I was convinced the cell phone had C4 in it" or "although the dog was offering me a ball and wagging his tail, I decided I was in danger and shot it in the back of the head" is never questioned. At what point should we expect IA or the prosecutor to say "Are you a #ing moron?" as a reply to one of these statements?

Some officers' beliefs are just not worth accepting at face value. But we seem to embrace them all in the spirit of "he's coming right for me" and "you can't armchair quarterback". Well, if the damned quarterback stands up and starts doing the funky chicken with the ball and hands it to the opposing team, yeah, that's questionable. Yeah, it is valid to question some "beliefs" when they're self-serving bull#.

The good news is that a Bartow County grand jury has ruled that Gatny was not authorized to use deadly force in the fatal shooting of a 17-year-old.

That the grand jury got a say in it is WONDERFUL. Generally, the prosecutor won't bring charges, because cop.

The flip side is that despite the grand juries findings her department is still standing strong and expressing regret that there may actually be criminal charges brought against officer Gatny.

I'd expect to discover that half the department was at the scene and is willing to testify in her behalf.

The Euharlee Police Department issued a statement saying that “while we are disappointed with the grand jury findings, the City of Euharlee and the Euharlee Police Department will continue to cooperate…with any subsequent investigation.” thefreethoughtproject.com...

Actually, Chief, you have no option. If you fail to cooperate, they'll just jug you and your little dog too for contempt of court.

a reply to: Bedlam

I don't care anymore who testifies on her behalf. Did she, or did she not, violate the law?

If yes, then that is murder. Regardless of what "policy" says.

a reply to: Bedlam

I wonder the same thing all too often myself. Why is the word of the officer unimpeachable yet the civilians word is always called into question. Just because they wear the bronze and carry the lead doesn't mean they aren't corruptable human beings with all the same failings as the rest of us, only worse in many cases because they have the back up plan of the big blue shield covering their collective asses. They're just another gang like the Bloods or Crips. The only differences are the police are better funded and have defacto authority. The average street gang knows who their enemy is and its usually rather specific while the American police system has just one enemy, anyone who is not their own.

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: Bedlam

I don't care anymore who testifies on her behalf. Did she, or did she not, violate the law?

If yes, then that is murder. Regardless of what "policy" says.

Back home, it was a sad truism that whenever a cop got in trouble, some other cop was always at the scene to refute the testimony. Even when they weren't.

a reply to: Bedlam

When I was young a bunch of us got pulled in on Halloween for having an egg fight be weren't throwing them at private property or anything, just each other. When we got down to the sheriffs dept. a deputy who had never left the station that night filled out the paperwork claiming he was a witness. I thought it was my ace in the hole and smiled to myself thinking that when I got to court I'd mention it to the ADA and it would get tossed. Much to. My young naive surprise he looked st me like I was insane for trying to cite case law and told me in no uncertain term that he didn't care. I would play ball or he would drag it out for months and turn it into a circus and make me look like a jerk off( his words ). I had a deployment date for basic looming and the judge eventually did toss it because my ASVAB scores gave some Colonel a hard on and they wanted me at Benning when they wanted me and he wasnt going to let some Podunk town court screw it up. If I hadn't had that going for me I could've been royally screwed over trumped up charges and false statements by the deputies. The whole scenario is nothing new but its far far worse these days.

a reply to: peter vlar

Another very valid point. I'd be curious to know why they are investigating their own officer...Internal Affairs obviously has to investigate an officer-involved shooting but this is just ridiculous, and you're right...nowhere near impartial. The lack of public reaction is disturbing as well...is this kind of thing just happening now with such frequency that complacency has set in? Or is it just not that newsworthy because he was just some kid from a trailer park? Sickening, to say the least.

a reply to: Bedlam

My burning question is - why are the beliefs of officers never questioned? No one wants to say "What sort of # is THAT?" when they come out with this sort of thing. "Oh, I thought he had an IED in his backpack" or "I was convinced the cell phone had C4 in it" or "although the dog was offering me a ball and wagging his tail, I decided I was in danger and shot it in the back of the head" is never questioned. At what point should we expect IA or the prosecutor to say "Are you a #ing moron?" as a reply to one of these statements?

Some officers' beliefs are just not worth accepting at face value. But we seem to embrace them all in the spirit of "he's coming right for me" and "you can't armchair quarterback". Well, if the damned quarterback stands up and starts doing the funky chicken with the ball and hands it to the opposing team, yeah, that's questionable. Yeah, it is valid to question some "beliefs" when they're self-serving bull#.

It's almost as if the thought escapes them completely that these rogue officers are making the entire department look bad, and that by accepting that kind of garbage as rote just because it's a cop making the statement, they are only fueling the fire of the public's distrust and hatred of law enforcement. I read articles all the time where law enforcement are bemoaning the lack of public support and lack of respect, blah blah blah...well how about not sticking up for the jackasses who are making the whole of law enforcement look as silly and ineffectual as the Keystone Kops on a good day and a bunch of thugs who think they're untouchable the rest of the time? Absolutely boggles the mind, it really does.

a reply to: tigertatzen

The whole thing stinks to high heaven. You would think that if the department and chief had any interest in serving the best interests of justice and the public that they would step aside and request an outside investigation for optimum transparency. They're far more interested in covering their own asses though and the only possible outcome of that is going to be more questions, at least from the random few who actually care compounded with their own culpability in covering for a perpetrator of manslaughter at the very least. Judging by the officers past record, this situation was likely avoidable and the tax payers will become a secondary victim once the payout or settlement talks begin. If you or I shot someone in this manner we would not be given the benefit of the doubt let alone be collecting a paycheck while on an extended vacation, again at the expense of tax payers.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
Absolutely boggles the mind, it really does.

If it wasn't mildly horrifying it would be funny they way they do the "What? Should she not have done that?" thing with the fake astonishment look on TV.

a reply to: peter vlar

Or have the taxpayers pay the cost of my mistake. Why not take it out of the cop's hide? Nothing like a rousing bankruptcy to shove a point home. And after you've broken the cops involved, the rest ought to come out of the police force's various slush funds - the civil forfeiture money and so on. Fewer toys and bonuses might get you some of that internal discipline.

a reply to: Bedlam

Since their union is one of the primary movers and shakers for ass covering, the union should start covering all the lawsuits. I bet they would change tactics quick when it comes to their SOP with dirty cops and covering for them.

a reply to: peter vlar

I've got a great idea for cop unions. One word - PATCO.

a reply to: Bedlam

Which PATCO are you referring to ? The air traffic control union?

a reply to: peter vlar

Rightyright. Decertify FOP and IUPA for starters.

a reply to: Bedlam

I can get behind that kind of action for sure.

a reply to: peter vlar

If you or I shot someone in this manner we would not be given the benefit of the doubt let alone be collecting a paycheck while on an extended vacation, again at the expense of tax payers.

I agree with you, 100%. That is one of the aspects of situations like this that I find to be the hardest to swallow...loose cannon cop has her weapon drawn for a simple warrant call, shoots and kills an innocent boy, makes up a bogus story about it...and still collects a paycheck and will probably never see the inside of a jail cell. And we foot the bill for it. Madness.

a reply to: Bedlam

If it wasn't mildly horrifying it would be funny they way they do the "What? Should she not have done that?" thing with the fake astonishment look on TV.

Isn't that the truth! I suppose if their law enforcement career doesn't work out they can always get a job acting in cheesy B movies instead, yeah?