HOME: DECEMBER 7, 2007: NEWS
text size

Acevedo Fires Olsen

APD chief concludes that the Kevin Brown shooting warrants 'indefinite suspension'

BY JORDAN SMITH



These photos show the paths taken by Kevin Brown, Austin Police Department Sgt. Michael Olsen, and Officer Ivan Ramos from the parking lot at Chester's Nightclub, over the back fence, and into a nearby apartment complex, where Olsen intercepted Brown's flight and shot him twice in the back – first as he turned to run away and again when he was on the ground ("X" in photo below). Brown had apparently dropped the handgun he was carrying before he reached the courtyard and was unarmed when he was shot. APD Chief Art Acevedo terminated Olsen, ruling that he had failed to use "common sense, good judgement, and proper police tactics" and that the shooting was unjustified.
Download a larger image

On Nov. 28, Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo handed Sgt. Michael Olsen an "indefinite suspension" (the civil-service equivalent of termination) for the fatal June shooting of 25-year-old Kevin Brown. Following a disciplinary review board meeting at Austin Police Depart­ment headquarters last Wednesday, during which Olsen answered questions about his conduct for Acevedo and others in his chain-of-command, Acevedo issued a 10-page memo describing the shooting as a consequence of Olsen's "failure to follow his training and his failure to exercise common sense and good judgment." According to Acevedo, Olsen made a string of bad decisions in confronting Brown, ultimately culminating in an "avoidable" escalation to deadly force.

Flanked by members of his executive team and Olsen's chain-of-command officers outside APD headquarters, Acevedo addressed a group of reporters. "Let me start by saying, this day is a tragedy for the community," he began, "for Kevin Brown and his family, for Sergeant Olsen and his family," and for APD. While we've "got to teach kids, our young people" that running from the police is never a good idea, Acevedo said, the onus was on Olsen to accurately assess and appropriately react to the situation as it unfolded on June 3. Olsen's "tactics leading up to [the shooting] were problematic for us and played a role in this tragedy," he said. "I think everybody has lost a little bit this afternoon."

In his decision memo, Acevedo recounted the shooting and its context in considerable detail. Kevin Brown died from two gunshot wounds to the back, fired by Olsen in the early morning hours of June 3, in the courtyard of an Elm Ridge apartment complex on Harvey Street, near the now-defunct East 12th Street after-hours club, Chester's Nightclub. Alerted to a possible concealed weapon by a club staffer, Acevedo noted, Olsen called for nearby backup (Officer William Norrell), but instead of waiting for Norrell to arrive, Olsen approached Brown and, sensing danger, decided to go "hands on." Brown pulled away and ran off through the parking lot, slipped through a hole in the fence, and made his way onto the property of the neighboring apartment complex. Olsen and his partner, Officer Ivan Ramos, followed, but Olsen broke away from his partner in an attempt to cut off Brown's flight. Olsen emerged into the courtyard opposite Brown, whom he said he saw fidgeting with the right side of his waistband, presumably groping for a weapon.

Olsen never saw Brown with a gun and never saw his hands, but he told APD investigators that he was "100 percent sure" that Brown was in fact armed and that Brown had a look in his eyes "like he's just going to try to kill me." Olsen raised his weapon and fired two shots; one caught Brown in the back and dropped him to the grass, where he lay prone. Olsen said Brown was still fidgeting at his waistband and that he still feared for his life; he shouted for Brown to show his hands again, then fired two more shots, nailing another round into Brown's back.

Brown died at the scene. No weapon was found on him, although police recovered a .22 pistol less than 30 feet away.


No Justification

Ultimately, in Acevedo's opinion, Olsen's failure to use "common sense, good judgment, and proper police tactics" began almost immediately after he decided to check out the report of a patron carrying a gun. That decision accelerated a chain of events that culminated in the unjustifiable use of deadly force against a civilian. Olsen first erred, Acevedo noted, by failing to wait for backup. "This was an especially poor decision since there were only two officers [present] and several hundred potentially intoxicated and unruly people outside the club that might turn on the officers if they tried to arrest Mr. Brown," Acevedo wrote.

Olsen was obligated to check out the citizen complaint, but Brown was simply standing in the parking lot talking with others and not doing anything that required Olsen to take immediate action. Although Olsen said he felt threatened and that he was sure Brown was armed, Acevedo noted that Olsen did nothing to defend against a potential use of force: He didn't employ any tactic to cover himself from possible gunfire and, by focusing on Brown's eyes instead of his hands, failed to properly assess the situation. "It is unreasonable to think that an officer can use deadly force because of the look in someone's eyes," Acevedo wrote.

Ultimately, reviewing the facts in a light most favorable to Olsen's version of events, Acevedo concluded that it is "conceivable" that an "ordinary and prudent officer" might have "perceived a threat that justified" firing the first round of gunshots. However, he said, there is no justification for the "second volley" that Olsen fired after Brown was already on the ground. There were "insufficient facts" to suggest that Brown was actually an "immediate threat" – in part, Olsen's account that Brown continued to fidget with his waist while wounded in the grass was disputed by Officer Norrell, who arrived in the courtyard shortly after Olsen fired the first round of shots; he told investigators that both of Brown's arms were actually "underneath his body." ("It is also important to note that Officer Norrell did not feel the need to shoot at Mr. Brown after he went to the ground," Acevedo added.) Olsen justified firing the second round of shots by saying that he was left in the open and vulnerable to an assault without any cover, but Acevedo wasn't impressed: Olsen "fails to understand and acknowledge that even if there was no cover available to him, it was his poor decision making and unsafe police tactics that put him in that position."

During the lengthy disciplinary review hearing, Olsen told his superiors that he'd reviewed the investigative file and believed that his decisions on the night of June 3 were correct and said that he "wouldn't slow down, even after knowing that he shot a citizen who was not armed at the time that he pulled the trigger," Acevedo wrote. "These statements are extremely troubling because it leads me to conclude that ... Olsen does not understand the errors he made, nor will he change his behavior in similar situations in the future." (Acevedo noted that in reaching his decision to terminate Olsen, he also considered the officer's disciplinary history, which includes a 60-day suspension for lying in connection with a use-of-force incident on Sixth Street.)

In sum, Acevedo concluded, "When an officer violates policy, and that policy violation(s) result in the death of a citizen, indefinite suspension is warranted. Consequently, I believe it is in the best interests of the Department, the City of Austin, the citizens we are sworn to protect and serve, and Sergeant Olsen himself, that he be indefinitely suspended."


Appeal Pending

Attorney Adam Loewy, who is representing Brown's family in a federal civil-rights lawsuit against Olsen, applauded Acevedo's decision, which he said confirms that family's assertion that excessive force was used that night that "could have been avoided." Olsen's attorney, Jason Nassour, was reportedly not pleased with Acevedo's decision. Although he did not return a call requesting comment, Nassour told the Austin American-Statesman that the chief is a "coward" and made his decision not based on facts but based on his desire to be "liked."

Olsen will appeal Acevedo's decision to the three-member Civil Service Commission, Nas­sour told the daily. Unlike an appeal to an independent arbitrator, whose decision is final and binding, an unfavorable ruling by the CSC can be appealed to district court. While a court appeal would offer Olsen the chance to present additional evidence in support of his case, the judge is required to give deference to the CSC opinion and may only deviate from its judgment by finding that there is less than "substantial evidence" to support Olsen's termination. (Since the arbitration option was added to state law in 1987, very few Austin officers have chosen to appeal their disciplinary sentences to the CSC.)


Download Chief Acevedo's complete memorandum concerning the indefinite suspension of Sgt. Olsen.

Related documents:
Memorandum from Citizen Review Board to Chief Acevedo

Kroll's Review of the Internal Affairs Investigation

Share Digg Twitter Facebook Del.icio.us LinkedLn Email Print article
COMMENTS
6
 
About Time! [ guest ] Dec 10, 2007 - 03:19 pm
We may finally begin clearing out the real gang members of this town - that is the APD! What really needs to happen is fire all of them and start from scratch with honest and professional officers. I am never afraid of going anywhere in this City except where a policeman might be - because I can run, defend, and protect myself from everyone except the APD. Having been permanently and severely personly injured twice in 2 years in the "nice" part of downtown- in both cases found to be entirely innocent and records expunged- I warn everyone not to live, rent or own a residence downtown. The real gang members (APD) could kill you more likely than anyone else and that is a fact!


[ law abiding citizen ] Dec 10, 2007 - 08:08 pm
what a foolish comment to make grouping all of the austin police department into one group. i wonder if you group all people into their own groups and hate them all equally. your comments are not only stupid but also full of hate. i would bet you are probably a racist also. get an education and a life. i know that i personally have never had any trouble with apd but i am also a law abiding citizen. let me guess....you were coming home from church both times that you had run ins with the law and you were completely innocent. you are the definition of what an idiot is.....


To Law Abiding citizen! [ Another law abiding citiz ] Dec 10, 2007 - 09:41 pm
Just because "about time" feels the way he or she feel does not make him either a racists or and idiot. I myself a law abiding citizen have had trouble with APD but I Know it was just those two cops who happened to patrol my neighborhood. They used to treat everybody in the neighborhood bad just because they could and they would tell us that. I had to get my sick mom to call my uncle who is a sheriff to get with APD to get these two cops from our neighborhood. So don't call people names if you don't know what you are talking about. We have witnessed a cop beat a guy up for no reason just waiting on the bus stop and the cop swore the kid was doing wrong and he wasn't he was own his way to work but by the time the cop got done with him he was on his way to the ER. So Know the facts before you go to calling people names.


good cops and bad cops and middle of the road cops [ guest ] Dec 10, 2007 - 10:04 pm
Realistically, not all cops are good or bad. When you're in a situation like we are now, it's not safe to think that all the cops are there to save you when they act as Olsen did even before he killed Kevin Brown. Some people don't have faith in APD and can't trust them. The best we can hope for is change within the force and change between police and citizen relations.


aware of the facts [ law abiding citizen ] Dec 12, 2007 - 08:07 pm
I can promise you that I have a very intimate knowledge of the facts sorrounding these cases. I do know what I am talking about and would debate this issue as long as you are willing. Your post shows your lack of understanding as to what it takes to work in a situation that is stressful and dangerous. Anyone who lumps a group of people into one single definition e.g. "all cops are gang members" is a dumb person. What is the difference in lumping together a group of people based on their chosen profession as opposed to lumping a group of people together based on race. You also are oblivious to this situation and truly do not have any knowledge as to what you are talking about. The one commonality in all of the cases against the APD over the last 2-3 years is that the person who was "wronged" always turns out to either be actively involved in breaking the law or has a history of being a criminal. I am sorry for this mans family and their loss but I have no sympathy for people who cant live a life that is within the parameters of the law.


[ guest ] Dec 12, 2007 - 10:58 pm
You are reading a whole lot of meaning into what that person said and I am not getting it at all. I think you're being harsh, law abiding citizen, calling that person an idiot just because they've had a different experience and life and perceptions than you have.

Plus, if you're saying that Kevin Brown got what he deserved for running from Olsen, you're saying the police have a right to shoot you for jaywalking because that's against the law too, you know.





POST A COMMENT

(optional):
:

Permission to Print. Letter to the editor.
 
See our
Elections
Page
for
the voting
scoop.

FURTHER READING
Keywords
for this story
Art Acevedo
Kevin Brown
Michael Olsen
Chester's Nightclub
Civil Service Commission

Deep Focus
Public Safety

Cap Metro Service Changes Public Forum

BLOGS
The Sunday Survey: 9/5/10
The Daily Hustle: 9/3/10
The Daily Hustle: 9/2/10

Gimme (Animal) Shelter
What Happened to the No-Kill Millennium?
Water, Water (Plant) Everywhere

ARCHIVES
More from
December 7, 2007
News
Arts
Books
Food
Screens
Music
Columns
Sports

Browse the
Archives by
Issue
Author
Column
Review
Section

More by
Jordan Smith
Panel Attacks Roots of Wrongful Convictions September 3, 2010
Recommendations on improving witness identification and evidence testing head to the Lege

Forensic Science Commission Draws Heat August 20, 2010
Former FSC chair all fired up over outdated arson science

Women's Health Care in Political Jeopardy ... Again August 13, 2010
Senator wants to reinvent the wheel on women's health care

Oops, Fleet Did It Again August 13, 2010
City takes one step forward, two steps back in tire cleanup efforts

all stories by
Jordan Smith


Hot Sauce Festival
Online Contests
Chrontourage
Chronicle Merch
Chronicle Coupons

Ads of the Day