The fifth video in the Dustin Griffin shooting, the one that Augusta County Sheriff Donald Smith said Friday night would not be released “due to its graphic nature,” apparently doesn’t capture the moment a deputy shot Griffin in the back of the head.
Why? Because the deputy who fired the final shot did not have his bodycam engaged until after he’d fired the final shot.
We’re learning this after a day of back-and-forth communication with the attorney for the Griffin family, Elliott Harding, and Tim Martin, the Augusta County Commonwealth’s Attorney.
Harding indicated to us that the family had been shown the fifth video, which shows the aftermath of the sixth and final shot that was fired at Griffin, 42, on the night of Dec. 17, after a struggle between Griffin and a group of three sheriff’s deputies trying to serve an arrest warrant, which escalated when Griffin produced a gun and fired at the deputies, striking one in the shoulder.
ICYMI
From the four videos that were released to the public on Friday night, we can see the shot from Griffin, from the perspective of the deputy who was hit and, separately, from an approaching deputy, and then the five shots fired at Griffin’s torso from the approaching deputy.
We can also hear, from those two videos and a dashcam video that doesn’t show the shooting scene, the audio from the sixth shot, the one to the back of the head, after a gap of four seconds from when the final of the flurry of five shots to the torso.
What we can’t see is what transpired in those four seconds, because none of the four videos made public give a view of Griffin after the flurry of the first five shots.
There’s no question, based on the publicly available evidence, that the deputy who fired the volley of shots that hit Griffin in the torso was justified in doing that, to protect himself and the other deputies at the scene from the clear and present threat.
That final shot, though – was Griffin, struck five times, presumably facing away from the deputies, given that the final shot was to the back of his head, still a threat at this point?
Was the gun that he’d produced seconds earlier still in his possession, or vicinity?
We don’t know, at least not from the evidence that we have from the four videos made public, and the fifth video, the one that hasn’t been made public, doesn’t appear to hold the answer there, either.
What’s happening here?
The video evidence won’t help us find out what happened in the four seconds between the five-shot volley and the sixth shot, to the back of the head.
So, how is it that Smith and Martin have determined that the final shot was also justified?
Smith has not responded to multiple requests for comment, which we initiated on Friday night, within minutes of the public release of the videos; Martin did, in an exchange of several emails on Saturday afternoon.
“Just a few seconds elapsed from Dustin firing on the deputies until that final shot. The VSP investigator, who is very experienced, found the deputy’s perception of a present threat at the time he fired that last shot to be credible,” Martin wrote to me by email.
I replied to Martin – in an email exchange on which Smith was cc’d – to let him know that a Virginia State Police contact had told me earlier in the day that the VSP considers its investigation into the Griffin case to be ongoing.
ICYMI
Martin’s reply didn’t let on that he was aware that the State Police doesn’t consider the matter closed.
“The VSP investigator, who is very experienced, found the deputy’s perception of a present threat at the time he fired that last shot to be credible. His extensive knowledge of police training and his lengthy experience as an investigator carry a great deal of weight in that regard,” Martin wrote in reply.
I asked Martin if we were supposed to “just take his word for it and move on with our lives.”
“No, but a bona fide expert, from an independent agency, finds that perception credible,” Martin replied. “He has an incredibly distinguished career in law enforcement and is the best (and brightest) investigator I have ever worked with in my 18+ years. So, his informed, expert opinion does matter. I know there will be lots of opinions out there, most of them uninformed or misinformed, but his conclusions matter to me more than theirs.”
ICYMI
- Augusta County: Prosecutor exonerates deputies in Dec. 17 shooting; still waiting for details
- Augusta County: What happened on Dec. 17 on Parkersburg Turnpike?
My final question for the prosecutor, who has already exonerated the deputies, in a statement that he made public back on Jan. 7:
“Will there be an opportunity for an independent review of his conclusions that you have adopted as your own?”
Short answer: no.
Longer answer, from Martin:
“You have the videos, I have now told you, in part, what my conversation with the investigator revealed. If you don’t think some of this was justified, that’s fine,” Martin replied.
“I understand you are advocating for Dustin Griffin’s family, and I’m sure they, and maybe you, will think one of these officers should be charged with murder – even though Dustin shot a deputy and all of the return fire was finished in seconds. I do not agree, and neither does the investigator.”
It’s worth repeating here: the State Police is telling me that the investigation is not complete.
The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner hasn’t finalized its report on Griffin’s death.
Is it standard protocol for a State Police investigator to come to conclusions about culpability in an officer-involved shooting case before the investigation is complete?
If so, these investigations are nothing more than dog-and-pony shows.
Video: Three angles of the Dec. 17 shooting
Support AFP
Share
Chris Graham
