There were no fingerprints on the can.
Just when you thought a Denver policeman’s shooting of Frank Lobato couldn’t get more controversial, you find out that the forensic evidence contradicts the cop’s story.
Since officer Ranjan Ford Jr. fatally wounded Lobato in July 2004, the citizens of Denver have believed Ford shot Lobato because Ford mistook a shiny soda can in Lobato’s hand for a gun.
But when the city announced its long-awaited disciplinary recommendation for Ford last Friday, we discovered that no identifiable fingerprints were found on the Big K soda can that Lobato supposedly held.
We also found out that Lobato could not have “bolted upright” from a bed as Ford claimed.
Lobato apparently died unarmed and naked, having done nothing wrong, having barely moved.
Denver Manager of Safety Al LaCabe called the forensic evidence inconclusive.
“The lack of fingerprints and lack of saliva on the soda can neither proves nor disproves that the can was in the possession of Mr. Lobato at the time of the shooting,” LaCabe wrote in a 24-page, single-spaced report explaining why he thought Ford needed 90 days off without pay. “It should also be noted that a number of soda cans of the same brand were found in the bedroom.”
While we’re taking notes, let’s write down LaCabe’s statement that “forensic evidence based on the bullet’s trajectory indicates that Mr. Lobato was raised out of bed only about 30 degrees when he was shot.”
Take a rectangular piece of paper. Draw a line from the lower left corner to the upper right. Now cut the angle created by that line by a third. That’s about 30 degrees. Barely off the mattress.
Get the picture?
It grows uglier and uglier.
Frank Lobato didn’t jump up from his bed waving a soda can when Ford came into Lobato’s room looking for a domestic-violence suspect.
Lobato didn’t threaten Ford at all. He startled him. As Ford opened the door to the room where Lobato lay in bed, Lobato shouted, “What the $%@#&?”
For that Frank Lobato died.
And Ranjan Ford will lose 90 days’ pay for violating the police department’s use-of-force policy.
Or not.
Ford will appeal his suspension to a Denver civil service hearing officer, his lawyer said Friday.
The police officer may well prevail. Last year, a hearing officer overturned a 10-month suspension LaCabe tried to mete out to Denver officer James Turney in the shooting of Paul Childs, a developmentally disabled 15-year-old.
“Officer Turney was dealing with the known; Officer Ford was dealing with the unknown,” LaCabe said Friday, distinguishing between the punishments.
It is true that Lobato, 63, was lying in bed behind a closed door. But LaCabe suggested that Ford had decided before opening the door that he was going to have to shoot anyone behind it.
This was the case despite the fact that the woman who reported she had been domestically assaulted also told police that an uninvolved man she called “uncle” was in one of the bedrooms when she fled her apartment.
Add to that the fact that Lobato weighed roughly half of what the 290- pound suspect weighed and you have some idea of the size of the oversight.
You also have some idea why Ken Padilla, the lawyer for Lobato’s family, saw LaCabe’s proposed discipline for Ford as little more than a license to kill.
The message from the city to police, Padilla said, seems to be shoot first and ask questions later.
And don’t worry when the forensic answers to those questions don’t add up.
You can still take refuge in a system that can’t or won’t hold you accountable.
Jim Spencer’s column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. He can be reached at 303-820-1771 or jspencer@denverpost.com.
