Cops have the right to defend themselves from armed thugs

Back in March, 2018, four Oakland cops shot and killed a man who was holding a semiautomatic gun and who had refused to drop the weapon and to not move when they ordered him to remain still.

As things turned out, the man, Joshua Pawlik, had been unconscious when the officers arrived, although reports at the time say he was “apparently waking up” just before the shots were fired. The officers claimed they feared for their safety when they saw Pawlik “stir,” but—needless to say—the lawyer John Burris, who makes a living suing cops, showed up and, claiming that Pawlik “was not bothering anyone,” accused the four cops of constituting “a firing squad.”

Pawlik’s mother eventually bought suit against the officers, and the city paid her $1.4 million, with Burris getting his usual cut.

In the Spring of 2020, the four officers were placed on leave by OPD, shortly after the notorious Robert Warshaw, who has been overseeing OPD in a Court-ordered settlement that is now in its 20th year, weighed in. Warshaw said he thought the officers had “over-reacted.” He then proceeded to fire the four officers.

The story, however, was far from over. In March, 2021, under pressure, the city of Oakland hired an independent attorney to review all the circumstances of the incident. The attorney found that the four officers “did not violate the department’s use-of-force policies when they opened fire on Pawlik.”

The four fired officers also were cleared by the Alameda County District Attorney and by an investigation by the Oakland Police Commission.

Based on these developments, in May, 2021 the four officers appealed their firing to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court. I’m not aware that the Court has yet ruled on their appeal.

But, just yesterday, an Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled that Oakland must rehire the four fired cops. Judge Frank Roesch wrote that Oakland had “improperly manipulated” reports on the incident. He ordered the cops rehired with back pay. Where the situation is at this moment is uncertain, but I’d like to offer some observations.

First and foremost, it’s crystal clear by now that Robert Warshaw will go to any extreme in order to harm OPD. Every investigation into the Pawlik shooting proved that the four officers were entirely within their rights when they shot the homeless man. He had a semiautomatic pistol and was beginning to move. Cops have the right to defend themselves. Yet Warshaw, once again abusing his power, overruled all the Courts, the Police Commission, and the District Attorney, and tried once again to wreak vengeance upon OPD. Nothing Warshaw does should have any credibility any longer. The next Mayor and City Council must take Warshaw back to Court and demand that the unfair Negotiated Settlement Agreement be immediately terminated.

It’s been my experience, as a consumer of the news, that nearly every time a police officer is accused of abuse of power in shooting a suspect, that officer is found not guilty in the Courts and in other investigations. Sadly, there are some people, including the progressive social justice warriors in Oakland, who believe that whenever the cops shoot and kill anyone, a crime must have been committed—and usually a racist-inspired crime. This is a lie. I wish the public would see through this myth. Cops shoot suspects when they feel their lives are threatened. That is lawful, correct behavior. We also need to limit the ability of plaintiff’s lawyers like Burris from making millions by filing frivolous lawsuits.

Steve Heimoff