http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7000509.html By BRIAN ROGERS Copyright 2010 Houston Chronicle May 11, 2010, 5:10PM A Harris County jury found Bellaire Police Sgt. Jeff Cotton not guilty of aggravated assault in the 2008 shooting of an unarmed motorist in his front yard. Cotton, a 10-year veteran officer, was accused of aggravated assault by a police officer in the Dec. 31, 2008, shooting of then-23-year-old Robert Tolan after Tolan and his cousin returned home a restaurant. Cotton testified that he believed Tolan was digging into his waistband when he got up from the ground to protest the officer’s push of his mother. He and his lawyers portrayed the shooting, which occurred just 32 seconds after he arrived on the scene at the Tolan’s home in the 800 block of Woodstock, as self defense, saying the veteran officer feared for his life. I don't see how that cop isn't in prison.
It is unfathomable to me. If the cop thought the kid was going to get physical, had had a night stick and a taser. Instead, he made the decision to use deadly force against an unarmed man...in his own front yard in front of his mother. Pathetic. And people wonder how the Bellaire PD got its reputation.
If I am in an altercation with a cop I sure as hell wouldn't be reaching into my waistband at that time. I probably would have shot the fellow as well. I'm glad the court system works.
I guess the jury is what confuses me. It is a county trial, so it wasn't like the jury pool was white middle class professionals from Bellaire. Do county DA's ever "throw" jury selection if they a prosecuting because PR requires it, but they don't want to convict? 12 random people from Harris County decided he was innocent. It would be interesting to see who those people were. I'm also interested in the fact that people seem to think the trial results indicate guilt? If he had been convicted, would the Bellaire PD been viewed as less corrupt? I think if you really believe that the cop was afraid for his life - if he thought the kid was "going for a gun" the gun is absolutely what he is trained to go for. If someone is pulling a gun on you, you don't pull out the night stick. They would give you bad grades at cop school if you tried that. I just question whether he needed to be in that position in the first place. Obviously I wasn't there, but it sounds like the cop escalated the situation by pushing the mom. Now, if the mom was all up in the cop's business screaming epithets, and he pushed her off because she was trying to physically restrain the officer from arresting her son, I might have a different view. So much of how I imagine the situation occurred hinges on the wording of the story. Again, if the jury consisted of middle aged black mothers and young black men, I'd feel that maybe there is something not being being properly communicated. If it's 12 55 year old white men who just renewed their 100 club membership for the 20th consecutive year, I'd have a different opinion.
The thing is did he really do that? Because there was no gun right? So the cop pushed his mom and he got up and the cop shot him. Then the cop said he believed he was reaching for his waistband. It's just fortunate that no one died.
He was pushing his mom against a wall. He also shot him on the ground. I could maybe understand if this was a bad neighborhood, but if someone comes out of their house in bellaire to tell the cops they have the wrong person. I don't know what the cop was thinking.
I did a quick search to see. The most I came up with was 9 women and 3 men. They left race out of the story. [Honestly . .. when they do that I suspect an agenda . . . . but we will see I figure it will be revealed. I also suspect they may not have been all white I think Quannell would have mentioned that but the news could have censored that as well . . they only have like less than a sentence long snippets] Control the input .. .your control the output Rocket River
Ignorant post. If the guy was your brother, cousin, or close friend you'd be pissed and want the cop in jail . Cops these days are getting caught with video evidence sad there was none in this situation. Not all cops are bad but this is BS.
People are missing the whole point. These cops said they thought it was a stolen car because they typed the wrong plate number in and they came up with the plates of a stolen car.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8DtbPOXFk00&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8DtbPOXFk00&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
I'm not taking a position on this case as I don't know any of the facts (Thought it certainly appears like a "WTF?") but this bolded statement is crazy. What you said is based on emotion. Our justice system shouldn't work that way. It should weigh the facts, not "I'd want revenge for my brother!"
OK the fact is the cop typed in the wrong license plate number and pulled them over for no reason. Had he typed in the RIGHT number this wouldnt have happened, and someone help me understand self defense bull**** the cop claims. The guy was on the floor, the cop pushed his mother natural reaction is you get up of the floor to help your mom. Hmm now if your laying on the ground and wanna get up your hands are near your waist arent they? Oh but he was supposedly reaching for something. The guy never attacked the cop and never pulled out a weapon. I thought self defense was after youve been attacked?
Don't waste your time. I'm not saying the cop is innocent. Like I said in my post, I know nothing about the case. If you want to say "Based on all the evidence considered, I think he should be guilt" that's cool, I respect that. You could be right. Based on the limited info I've read/heard it seems suspect. My point was don't use what you would want the verdict to be if your brother was shot as the basis for what this one should be. That has no place in determining innocent or guilt. He either shot an innocent kid or he shot a kid in perceived self defense. That doesn't change whether the kid is your brother or your worst enemy. Edit: Self defense doesn't have to be "after you were attacked." If he shot the kid because he feared for his life that qualifies for use of deadly force. The kid didn't have to actually shoot him for him to be OK to shoot the kid. He just had to have reason to think the kid WOULD shoot if he didn't shoot first.
That's not necessarily true. I mean if you can shoot somebody before they pull out the gun then it is better for you. I realize there was not one in this situation but I'm just saying waiting to be attacked is not a good time to invoke self defense measures. That said, I remember seeing the segment about this on Real Sports and I certainly thought the cop was wrong. After the short reading on the outcome, I still don't see how he could have been right but I know little of the story so...
Yeah I just can't see see in the limited information I've read/heard how he is innocent, but I have no idea what was said in trial, what evidence was presented, etc. Why did the cop shove the mom? Was she ranting and raving and getting physical? What was the kid saying as he got up? What had he said to the cop when the cop pulled him over? Was their language hostile to a point that the cop was on serious alert for potential violence to break out? Those are things I haven't heard that could change my opinion, but right now I feel like the cop got away with a crime.
