2 IMPD officers will keep their jobs after hearing on Aaron Bailey shooting

Erica Bailey sat, head in hand, waiting.

A citizen review board in just a few moments was expected to announce its decision on whether the two Indianapolis police officers who fatally shot her unarmed father in the back would keep their jobs.

“I’m scared,” she whispered.

Bailey remained silent Thursday afternoon as the board announced its decision: Officers Carlton J. Howard and Michal P. Dinnsen were not in violation of the department’s policies when they shot 45-year-old Aaron Bailey.

Minutes later, standing on Market Street outside the City-County Building where the three-day Civilian Police Merit Board hearing was held, Erica Bailey was quiet no longer.

“You should have left my dad alone,” she sobbed. “You followed him. You wouldn’t leave him alone. You followed him. My dad could have still been alive this day.”

The merit board made its decision 5-2, with only Ronald Covington Sr. and Joe Slash voting to support Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Chief Bryan Roach’s move to fire the officers. Officers Howard and Dinnsen already had been cleared by a special prosecutor of criminal charges.

In brief comments after the hearing, Roach said he was disappointed by the decision but prepared to accept it as a result of the appropriate process.

"I think there's a lot in the community that are probably upset,” Roach said. "They're not going to accept it, but I at least hope they understand it."

That process immediately drew criticism from Roach’s boss, Mayor Joe Hogsett, who released a statement suggesting the merit board system must be changed as the city pushes to reform the criminal justice system.

“The fact that Chief Roach’s experienced, well-reasoned decision to terminate two officers has been overturned by the votes of five individuals highlights a merit board system that must be changed if we are to continue building bridges of trust between our brave police officers and the communities they proudly serve,” Hogsett’s statement read.

Thirteen organizations associated with the African American Coalition of Indianapolis released a statement saying the local criminal justice system is facing a “crisis of legitimacy.”

“How can African-Americans in Indianapolis continue to be shot with impunity and leaders in the criminal justice system not be concerned?” the statement read.

There were no winners following the board’s decision, said Rick Snyder, president of the Indianapolis Fraternal Order of Police, which backed the two officers.

“There’s still a family who have lost a loved one,” Snyder said. “These officers and their families will have this for the rest of their lives, as well.”

David Wantz, a merit board member who chaired the hearing, kept his comments brief after the hearing. The board did its job, he said, and considered only the evidence and testimony that were presented.

Early June 29, Bailey fled a traffic stop initiated by Howard. Bailey had a lengthy criminal record, the officers knew, including instances of resisting law enforcement and robbery. A passenger in the vehicle was being monitored in a homicide investigation.

Moments later Bailey crashed into a tree after a brief police chase. Howard and Dinnsen pulled up in separate patrol cars.

Bailey did not show his hands after repeated commands, the officers said, and reached for the center console before turning left toward Howard.

The officers said they thought Bailey was reaching for a gun and fired 11 shots into the back of Bailey’s car, striking Bailey’s back four times.

That turn proved to be a point of contention that didn't land in the city's favor. Chief Roach said the two officers described it as a "slight" or "kind of" turn, which he said did not warrant deadly force. In their testimony at the hearing, however, Dinnsen and Howard characterized it as a sudden movement that they believed to be leading to Bailey firing a gun.

The absence of a gun in the car also did not sway merit board members. Nor did any potential tactical errors made by the officers, such as parking their patrol cars too close to Bailey's vehicle. Witness after witness called by the officers' attorneys noted that a perceived threat is what matters and that officers are trained to adapt their actions to each situation.

The hearing also exposed disappointment by Roach in the criminal and internal affairs investigations conducted by his officers. Roach and the city's attorneys repeatedly criticized the reports and instead emphasized the unanimous findings of the department's firearms review board, which said the officers violated policies and training.

The officers' attorneys used the chief's own criticism to suggest that Roach would stubbornly push for firing both officers regardless of what his detectives' investigations showed.

CATCH UP ON PRIOR REPORTING:

Special prosecutor's report: How he reached decision to clear officers of criminal charges

What to know: Merit board will decide whether to fire two officers

Merit board, 1st day: 'Unreasonable' that 11 shots were fired, IMPD deputy chief says

Merit board, 2nd day: 'I thought I was going to die': IMPD officer utters first public words in Bailey shooting

The attorneys for the officers and the city both said the merit board needed to rely on the evidence.

The evidence cited by one of the officers' attorneys — including the basis of the chief’s recommendation, the perilous situation the officers found themselves in and their training to protect themselves as well as others in uncertain situations — proved more persuasive.

“The evidence, ladies and gentleman, is overwhelming that these officers did not violate” police policies, John Kautzman said.

Kautzman said the officers followed their training and should not become a scapegoat for broader issues.

“The terrible tragedies of police action shootings” should be addressed in the community, he said. But officers can’t be “magicians” solving the “growing turmoil” in society.

Edward Merchant, who also gave closing arguments in support of the officers, said the officers were well-trained. He said they were “begging” for Bailey to show his hands. The officers didn’t want to shoot, he said. They just did what they were trained to do.

Perhaps the most important thing, Merchant told the merit board, is how to judge the officers. It’s not with 20/20 hindsight, he said. It’s with the facts as the officers knew them at the time of the shooting.

It does not matter that a gun wasn’t found, Merchant said. Both officers believed there was one.

The attorney representing the city, Melissa Coxey, tried to sway the merit board toward a different understanding of events. She, too, pointed to evidence — evidence that she said showed the officers’ accounts were not credible.

The officers were facing the rear of Bailey’s vehicle just prior to the shooting, she explained. Officer Dinnsen said that he had to fire because Bailey, still seated in his vehicle, turned to the left toward officer Howard, Coxey said.

But why then, she asked, were there bullet holes in the center of the car’s console? It wasn’t a slow turn, Coxey said. It was a fast turn. “It just doesn’t make any sense,” Coxey said.

What makes sense, she said, is that they began firing when Bailey was still turned to the right in the vehicle.

Bailey was shot four times in the back.

Coxey said there had to be another explanation for Bailey turning in the vehicle, such as reaching for a seat belt, because there was no gun.

Bailey’s movements while seated in the car just before the shooting was a key moment scrutinized by those questioning both Howard and Dinnsen.

Dinnsen said he yelled commands to the car’s occupants to get their hands up. He saw the passenger raise her hands, but Bailey did not.

Dinnsen said he saw Bailey turn to the right and open the car’s center console.

“After he got that lid open, he began to dig in the console, to frantically search in the console,” Dinnsen said.

“Him digging in the console means he’s trying to retrieve something,” Dinnsen said.

Dinnsen worried that Bailey was reaching for a weapon.

“This is all happening very quickly,” Dinnsen said.

Bailey was not reaching for a seat belt, Dinnsen said. His hands were inside the console.

Howard said he saw Bailey digging near the console. He said he saw Bailey raise his arm and turn toward Dinnsen.

“How far did Bailey turn before you shot?” city attorney Coxey asked.

“I don’t know how else I can articulate,” Howard said. “I cannot tell you to the exact degree.”

If Bailey was turning quickly, Coxey asked, how did you get off six shots, while moving, only hitting Bailey in the back?

Howard said he aimed for Bailey’s back. “That would have been center mass,” Howard said, where officers are trained to fire.

Wantz, the chairman of the merit board hearing, asked whether Bailey was wearing a seat belt?

I don't know, Howard said.

Wantz asked: What else is between the console and that seat?

Just that gap, Howard replied.

Wantz asked: And the seat belt?

"Yes, yes sir," Howard said.

Howard commanded Bailey to show his hands, which Bailey did not do, Howard said. Instead, Howard said, Bailey reached between the seat and console, raised his right arm and moved to the left, where Howard was standing.

Howard fired, he said. Dinnsen, too.

“It’s awful having to take someone else’s life,” Howard said. “Hindsight being 20/20, sir, I don’t think I could have waited another split second. ... I thought I was going to be shot that night.”

Howard, whose tears were evident during his first day of testimony on Wednesday, expressed regret over the shooting.

"It’s not, it’s not something that I wanted to do,” he said. “It’s not why I came here. It’s not why I joined the department. The fact that he wasn’t armed … that’s my burden to carry.”

Thursday’s testimony proved emotional for Dinnsen, too.

“It’s never something I wanted to do or be a part of,” Dinnsen said, his voice rising higher with breaks. “I didn’t become a police officer to do this.”

Call IndyStar reporter Ryan Martin at (317) 444-6294. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter: @ryanmartin

Call IndyStar reporter Holly Hays at (317) 444-6156. Follow her on Twitter: @hollyvhays