Las Vegas Police Kill Wrong Man Over 1.8 oz. of Marijuana

I’m sitting in PDX waiting to fly out to Las Vegas for Netroots Nation (watch my presentation at http://live.norml.org at 1:45 pm Pacific) when I happen upon a Las Vegas story by Mike Meno at the MPP Blog. Remember the story we brought you about the Las Vegas man shot and killed by police in front of his pregnant fiancée?

Turns out, the police shot the wrong guy.

(Las Vegas Review-Journal) Las Vegas police say they thought Trevon Cole was a hard-core drug dealer with a long record of arrests in Texas and California when they broke down his apartment door and pointed a gun at his head last month.

They were wrong.

Cole, 21, was unarmed when he was killed by a single rifle round fired by Detective Bryan Yant, who a week before the raid swore under oath that Cole had a “lengthy criminal history of narcotics sales, trafficking and possession charges” in Houston and Los Angeles.

But Cole’s record in his native California was limited to a conviction for misdemeanor unlawful taking of a vehicle. He probably never even visited Houston.

Investigators might have confused him with another Trevon Cole — one with a different middle name who is seven years older, at least three inches shorter and 100 pounds lighter, records show. That Trevon Cole has several marijuana-related arrests in Houston, all misdemeanors.

So not only was the dead Trevon Cole not the guy they were looking for, but the guy they were looking for had only a misdemeanor marijuana record.  Some “hard-core drug dealer”.

But surely they must have had some evidence that the dead Trevon Cole was involved with drugs, right?

Undercover detectives had bought marijuana from Cole four times over five weeks, a total of 1.8 ounces for $840, according to the affidavit. Both Yant and the undercover detective positively identified Cole as the dealer, the document said.

But Yant, in the affidavit to Judge Diana Sullivan in support of a warrant to search Cole’s apartment, gave the impression that police thought they were going after a serious drug dealer. He noted that “almost all” people who sell drugs maintain “sophisticated and elaborate” records and that police expected to find those records, with guns and other drug paraphernalia.

Police found no such records. Nor did they find any weapons. They did seize an unspecified amount of marijuana and $702. Cole’s fiancee, Sequioa Pearce, said the cash was rent money. She recently had pawned her jewelry for $350, according to a copy of the EZ Pawn receipt.

So, based on four purchases of less than a half-ounce of marijuana totaling less than a thousand bucks and cops who don’t check middle names and who shoot at “furtive movements” made by large black men in their own homes, Trevon Cole’s pregnant fiancée will be raising his child without a father.

dburg55's picture

now its miller time ,we got our man,and now they will get so loded they cant walk but still can drive a car sortof, and on the way home hit a car or someone walking, but thats alright because im a COK,I MEAN A COP .

FreeRoy's picture

Sorry to have been out of this loop for so long, but perhaps this will be read anyway.

My congratulations to both "sean joshua" and "SolarSanitizer" for a civil discussion!

This event was a tragedy, of course, and I too deplore the increasing use of SWAT teams in normal arrests. In my view, it leads to civilians being killed when there's no reason for it -- as in this instance.

As far as marijuana laws are concerned, I have worked to end them literally for decades. That said, Sanitizer is right: laws should be enforced.

I would personally like to see the marijuana laws enforced more strictly! The situation we have now, where it's officially against the law but often not enforced, and often lightly punished when it is enforced, just prolongs the struggle. The common misperception that "nobody gets busted for pot any more" has done more than Harry Anslinger to perpetuate the laws. If they were strictly enforced, they would be repealed in a year.

sean joshua's picture

Just an observation about human fallibility.

politicalair's picture

Thanks for making that connection .....lots of people won't see this without a little help from their friends.

Clay's picture

When they initiated swat teams it was to be used only for hostage situations and shots fired reports. Now they are used all over the country every day.
When you expose that many people to that many situations of extreme dangers there are going to be "accidents".
The police want to be as safe for the officers as possible and
that is understandable but they are sacrificing the safety of the public in doing so.

SolarSanitizer's picture

With less tactical training equals a safer outcome?

I think your logic got reversed somewhere. Swat stands for Special Weapons and Tactics.

The weapons are not death rays, so you can relax, and the tactics are such that create less public risk. Yes, we hear about one of these thousands of daily raids going bad every other month or so, but you don't hear about the raids going smoothly. It just isn't newsworthy.

You are then left with a distorted picture. Try not to run with that distorted picture, it makes you look drug-addled.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Don Skakie Sensible NW's picture

No, because using more force than necessary ends up with raids going bad and PEOPLE dieing!
I'll bet you wouldn't be so supportive if it were your family misidentified, your door kicked down, the guns put to your head and you or your family members being killed . Or is that a price YOU are willing to pay for blind support of military tactics against civilians?

And yes SWAT does stand for Special Weapons And Tactics. So why are they used so frequently when the situation does not call for it? They are in a heightened state and burst in home invasion style. What happened to knocking and giving the occupants to comply before the damage and danger? There's your safer outcome.

Try to see it from both sides of the bottle or you come off looking like a drunken fool.

Support REAL reform!

cannabischildprotectionact.org

SolarSanitizer's picture

And you may have heard something different, police could not predict the future.

Can you look at a house and determine how dangerous it would be to enter it and arrest its occupants? I know I cannot, and I know police cannot, but if you can, why don't you join the police department and put your superpowers to good use?

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

denbee's picture

So Solar Santitizer...you must think that military style swat teams and the invasion of our homes, the killing of our animals , the ransacking of our homes, the arrest , the jailing and evan the removal of our children is justified in our Governments efforts to protect us from consuming marijuana ? You are a sick man!

SolarSanitizer's picture

When the ballots come out here in California.

You are mistaken on my position. Very mistaken.

I approve of all those things you listed for the purpose of enforcing the law as written. As long as there is due process, the government has the power to relieve the people of life, liberty, and property. However, I do not agree that the criminalization of marijuana is just, even while agreeing that the enforcement of laws , is just.

I support curing this problem by changing the laws, not breaking them. This is why I will do my part to change the laws.

This is how a civilized society operates. If that makes me sick, what does it make you?

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter

 

randomness