Video: Defendant Lunges for Oregon Officer's Gun in Court

[volshayes]

Thanks again to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

https://www.officer.com/command-hq/technology/security-surveillance/news/21027278/video-defendant-lunges-for-newport-oregon-police-officers-gun-in-court?utm_source=Officer.com+Newsday+E-Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CPS181015007&o_eid=5113J4674090I4J&rdx.ident[pull]=omeda|5113J4674090I4J

Video: Defendant Lunges for Oregon Officer's Gun in Court

A man tried to grab a police officer's gun in a Lincoln County courtroom this week and the Sheriff's Office said Thursday that a 1-year-old federal appeals decision contributed to the near-disaster.

AIMEE GREEN

 OCTOBER 15, 2018

THE OREGONIAN, PORTLAND, ORE.

0

 

 Tweet

 Share

A man tried to grab a police officer's gun in a Lincoln County courtroom this week and the Sheriff's Office said Thursday that a 1-year-old federal appeals decision contributed to the near-disaster.

LINCOLN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

LINCOLN COUNTY, Oregon -- A man tried to grab a police officer's gun in a Lincoln County courtroom this week and the Sheriff's Office said Thursday that a 1-year-old federal appeals decision contributed to the near-disaster.

 

 

 

A judge had denied a request by deputies to restrain defendant Scott Patrick Lemmon, 27, according to the Sheriff’s Office.

In a scuffle caught on courtroom video Wednesday, a man identified by the Sheriff's Office as Lemmon suddenly stands up and lunges for a gun worn by a Newport police officer sitting at the counsel table nearby. 

The officer was able to turn away in a split second and a courthouse deputy quickly tackled Lemmon to the floor.

Sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Josh McDowall said the response averted a possible catastrophe.

"There would have been a shootout in the courthouse,” McDowall said. “I don’t like to think about it. It would have been scary."

This is the first case, he said, of a Lincoln County defendant grabbing for a gun since the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision came down in May 2017.

The 9th Circuit ruled in favor of federal public defenders who challenged a U.S. Marshals policy of restraining criminal defendants with handcuffs, belly chains and leg shackles when they are escorted into the courtroom.

Defense attorneys have long argued that handcuffs and other restraints often are unnecessary and can prejudice not only juries but judges by sending the message that defendants are so dangerous that authorities must control their ability to move freely.

In August 2017, the 9th Circuit again sided with public defenders in a second ruling.

The result: Many courthouses across the nine states covered by the 9th Circuit made dramatic changes to their rules for restraining criminal defendants. In Multnomah County, Lincoln County and a number of other Oregon counties, that has means judges first must give the OK for each and every defendant to be restrained during courtroom hearings.

Previously, the decision whether to shackle was often left up to sheriff’s deputies in charge of courthouse security.

Lemmon was on trial on allegations that he pointed a realistic-looking fake gun at two guests at a beachfront condo in Newport, threatened to kill them and then robbed them of cash and valuables, according to a probable cause affidavit.

Because it was a trial, the Sheriff's Office had requested an "electronic restraint" -- an anklet concealed under his pants -- instead of leg irons that would be seen by jurors.

If Lemmon acted up, deputies could shock him remotely with the press of a button. But a judge denied the request, and Lemmon was unrestrained when he lunged for the gun, McDowall said.

An electronic anklet probably wouldn't have stopped the lunge for the officer’s gun, McDowall conceded. But he said if Lemmon had been wearing it and he had unholstered the gun, deputies could have incapacitated him an instant later with an electric shock.

Defense attorneys, however, have sharply criticized the use of the shock anklets or similar devices, saying they're barbaric and can make defendants appear nervous, uneasy and jittery while on trial.

The Sheriff's Office said the devices are effective as a deterrent and its deputies have rarely if ever had to shock a defendant.

During Lemmon’s trial, deputies considered him high-risk because he was swiveling in his chair, leaning backward and forward and fidgeting, McDowall said.

“They were catching him paying extra close attention to the officer’s gun,” McDowall said. “He kept looking at it.”

McDowall commended the quick thinking of Newport Police Officer Jon Humphreys for turning away and the Sheriff’s Office employees -- Cpl. Giovanni Barbers and Deputy Lisa Mathies -- for tackling McDowall and handcuffing him.

The Sheriff’s Office expects to pursue additional charges against Lemmon for the scuffle, McDowall said.

-- Aimee Green

[GlockSpock]

I understand completely the rules against us carrying in a court of law. I also think it should apply to officers. Between victims, defendants, etc, there are too many people that potentially have too many extreme emotions.

It doesn't seem to happen often, but it is a possibility that one of these hot headed people grabs an officer's firearm. Of course, dependent on location, most courtrooms have other officers outside the courtroom. They should be armed. Officers within the courtroom could easily make due with tasers. Tasers generally will ruin someone's day, but generally won't take someone's life.

Glad this circumstance was prevented before becoming tragic.

[DaveTN]

There have been plenty of courtroom shootings and attempts. When a Judge overrules the department charged with courtroom Security (Usually the Sheriff’s Department); they are then responsible for that security. Weapons can get in from the outside.

There should be an armed Deputy or Officer in the Courtroom that is not in close proximity to the accused or the security handling the accused. An armed Officer should not have been sitting at the counsel table.

Waiting for armed Officers to come from the outside won’t work; it’s too late.

This ain’t rocket science.

[bersaguy]

The judges in these court rooms must think they are there to hear a case on the theft of a piece of candy from Walmart!!!! Wait till a Judge is the one shot during one of these deal and you can bet from then on the bad guy will be  handcuffed, chained, shackled and electrified with ankle bracelet before he is brought in the court room. Judges don't mind playing with fire out there on west coast huh?

[GlockSpock]

15 hours ago, DaveTN said:

There have been plenty of courtroom shootings and attempts. When a Judge overrules the department charged with courtroom Security (Usually the Sheriff’s Department); they are then responsible for that security. Weapons can get in from the outside.

There should be an armed Deputy or Officer in the Courtroom that is not in close proximity to the accused or the security handling the accused. An armed Officer should not have been sitting at the counsel table.

Waiting for armed Officers to come from the outside won’t work; it’s too late.

This ain’t rocket science.

That is a good point. I guess I was going with the assumption that everyone must pass though a metal detector before entering. I also concede that that is likely not always the case nor would it be foolproof.

Your assessment that one of the guys with the guns should probably avoid close proximity with the defendant is a good one.

[joe4vol]

16 hours ago, GlockSpock said:

I understand completely the rules against us carrying in a court of law. I also think it should apply to officers. Between victims, defendants, etc, there are too many people that potentially have too many extreme emotions.

It doesn't seem to happen often, but it is a possibility that one of these hot headed people grabs an officer's firearm. Of course, dependent on location, most courtrooms have other officers outside the courtroom. They should be armed. Officers within the courtroom could easily make due with tasers. Tasers generally will ruin someone's day, but generally won't take someone's life.

Glad this circumstance was prevented before becoming tragic.

I was on a jury in federal court in Chattanooga a few years ago. All of the police officers had to store their gun in a locker when they entered the courthouse. The marshals were armed though. 

[Grunt67]

I worked as a Deputy locally, and also as court officer. First mistake, ( MHO ), was to not allow restraints. Asking for trouble eventually. I agree, the officer should not have been seated at the table in close proximity to the defendant, while armed.

This is very similar to the catastrophe in Atlanta a few yrs ago, that went bad, and caused the court system to begin courtroom security program we have today. Not all courts follow the rules.

You can rightfully blame the judge if things go bad, but that won't restore someones life.

 

[Pain103]

14 hours ago, joe4vol said:

I was on a jury in federal court in Chattanooga a few years ago. All of the police officers had to store their gun in a locker when they entered the courthouse. The marshals were armed though. 

 In federal court only federal officers are armed. Funny thing those court security officers working for US Marshals can only carry while working but most are retired officers and carry their piece once out the door. 

[btq96r]

Concur the location of the officer was less than optimal.  Teaching point on this one, thankfully without a bad ending for emphasis.

Restraining a defendant who hasn't been convicted during their trial should stay a no-go unless the defendant has somehow proven to be a threat.  The protection for impartial due process is too important and justifies the risk, IMO.  I know I'd want the protection in place if I was ever on trial and being looked at by a jury.