January 5, I am writing to convey the results of my consideration. of the events of the early morning of December 21, 2011

Transcription

1 January 5, 2012 Commanding Officer Pennsylvania State Police Troop H Harrisburg 8000 Bretz Drive Harrisburg, PA Dear Captain: I am writing to convey the results of my consideration of the events of the early morning of December 21, 2011 during which four Troopers from PSP Troop H Carlisle discharged weapons resulting in the death of Christopher Unger in Southampton Township, Cumberland County. I was informed of the incident approximately 0700 on that day by the Assistant DA who was on call. I was regularly informed of events as they took place that morning. Later that day I spoke with the Lieutenant regarding the incident. The Lieutenant and I discussed the incident and how the investigation would be handled. The Lieutenant suggested, and I agreed in keeping with our past

2 practice, that the PSP Major Case Team would assume responsibility for the investigation under the Lieutenant s supervision. The Lieutenant informed me that the investigation would be handled by experienced Troopers from within Troop H, but not from the Carlisle station. On January 4, 2012, I met with investigators on the case. During the meeting and thereafter I reviewed numerous investigative reports and other items including but not limited to: police reports, statements by the four Troopers involved in the shooting, in-car video, dispatch audio, scene and autopsy photos, total station diagrams of the scene and text messages of Christopher Unger and the victim. Prior to the meeting on January 4 I discussed the autopsy and findings with Cumberland County Chief Deputy Coroner Matt Stoner. Under Pennsylvania law, a police officer is justified in the use of force he believes to be necessary to effect a lawful arrest and to use whatever force he believes is necessary to defend another person from bodily harm while making an arrest. Furthermore, a police officer may employ deadly force when he believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another person. The facts of this incident, corroborated by the physical evidence, the statements of witnesses and

3 the video and audio recordings preserved by the State Police, clearly justify the level of force used by the police officers involved. While this determination is based on the totality of the circumstances, several important facts bear specific mention: the information available to the responding Troopers; how the Troopers followed their procedures and training; the scene; and the sequence of gunfire and the physical evidence. The information available to the responding Troopers, provided by fellow Troopers at the original scene in Franklin County based on the victim s statements and based on the Trooper s previous experience with Unger, indicated that Unger was armed, possibly intoxicated, certainly agitated and possibly suicidal and had been in the past hostile toward police. The audio recordings of PSP dispatches corroborate that this information was provided to the Troopers. As a result, the Troopers met and took precautions prior to going to Thompson Hollow Road. It is not an exaggeration to note that this information and preparation may have saved their lives. Second, it is evident from the statements of the Troopers involved and corroborated by the evidence that the Troopers under the supervision of the Corporal followed

4 their training and procedures. The Troopers briefed before proceeding to the scene. They prepared to face a potentially dangerous, agitated person with a rifle by ensuring quick access to their long guns. At the scene, where they were immediately fired upon, the Troopers continued to follow their training by taking cover, ensuring each other s safety and, at their first opportunity, seeking assistance for Unger. In addition, the Troopers repeatedly commanded Unger to drop his weapon and exit his vehicle and that EMS had been called. Finally, the Troopers ensured the safety of the residents of the house at the scene by repeatedly telling them to stay inside and then removing them to a safe location when it was possible. While Unger died from his injuries, the Troopers ability to follow their training and procedures ensured the safety of all others at the scene. Third, the circumstances of the scene increased the danger to the Troopers. According to the Troopers statements and the physical evidence at the scene, there wa s a dim, dawn-to-dusk light some distance from where Unger s vehicle came to rest. The spotlight in PSP car 10 was the only significant light at the scene. The Troopers could only respond to what they saw and heard: muzzle flashes and rifle shots. The physical evidence corroborate

5 s that Unger shot directly at the driver s side of car 10 upon its arrival directly at a Trooper. Not only was the response of all the Troopers to return fire reasonable, it was necessary. Finally, the evidence clearly supports the conclusion that Unger fired first. The Troopers then returned fire. This evidence is corroborated not only by the statements of the Troopers and the in-car video, but also by the statement of one of the occupants of the house at 195 Thompson Hollow Road who indicated that he recognized the sound of the rifle shot from Unger s rifle and that it was the first shot that he heard. We in law enforcement understand that actions involving police use of deadly force will and should always be questioned. None of us shies away from public scrutiny. However, we cannot expect experienced police officers, who put their lives on the line during every shift, to delay or desist when they are confronted with deadly force. For the purposes of this determination, the conclusion is not difficult to reach. Four experienced Pennsylvania State Troopers were confronted with deadly force while lawfully effecting their duties. They responded in a measured and reasonable manner, based on their training, to eliminate the danger and the possibility of their own death or

6 serious bodily injury. Based on all of the facts and evidence, and my discretion as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of Cumberland County, I find that their use of deadly force is clearly justified under Pennsylvania law. Sincerely, David J. Freed District Attorney