One backs officer's actions in shooting; another disagrees

By Sarah Langbein, Rocky Mountain News
October 26, 2004

Experts on Monday presented conflicting testimony about whether Denver police officer James Turney's actions leading up to the deadly shooting of a developmentally disabled teen were appropriate.

The paid experts in police training and use-of-force policies were brought in for the fifth day of testimony in Turney's appeal of his 10-month suspension following the July 5, 2003, fatal shooting of 15-year-old Paul Childs.

Advertisement

Childs was reportedly threatening his family with a knife.

In April, Manager of Safety Al LaCabe handed down the unpaid suspension, saying Turney made a "tactical error" before shooting Childs.

The officer should have shut the door leading to the boy's home and backed away once he determined there was no one else inside, LaCabe said.

An expert for the city and one in Turney's defense offered differing opinions on whether the officer should have shut the security door between Turney and the teen.

"He forced confrontation," said expert Larry Danaher, of Indiana.

Danaher testified that Turney's approach was unsafe because he did not create distance between himself and the teen and did not seek concealment and cover.

He also faulted Turney for not communicating with the other officers on scene or talking with Childs' family members.

But expert David Grossi, of Denver, said, "I find no fault with officer Turney for holding that door open."

Had he closed the security door, Turney would have shut out options for less-lethal force, such as a Taser, had there been time, Grossi added.

He also testified that the other officers on scene should have known to cover other areas of the home and that there was no need for a "caucus or conference" on the front lawn.

Copyright 2004, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.