by Thomas Breen | Apr 20, 2022 9:47 am
(25) Comments | Post a Comment | E-mail the Author
Protesters outside police HQ the week after Soulemane's death.
Mubarak Soulemane (right), whom a state trooper killed in 2020, shown at his high school graduation in 2018.
More than two years and three months after state trooper Brian North shot and killed New Haven teenager Mubarak Soulemane, the state has wrapped up its investigation of the case — and has arrested and charged the law enforcement officer with one count of first-degree manslaughter.
Inspector General Robert J. Devlin, Jr. made that announcement in a Wednesday morning press release.
The press release states that North was released on a $50,000 bond and is expected to appear in Milford Superior Court on May 3.
The email announcement was also accompanied by a 133-page report that describes in detail the investigation that led to North’s arrest. Click here to read that report in full.
The charges stem from the shooting death of Soulemane, a 19-year-old Fair Haven resident and child of Ghanian immigrants, on Jan. 15, 2020.
That’s when state troopers engaged in a car chase with Soulemane up I‑95 while the New Havener was in the grip of an apparent schizophrenic episode.
“ On January 15, 2020, at approximately 5:05 p.m. on Campbell Avenue, West Haven, Connecticut, after an extended pursuit on I‑95, Connecticut State Troopers Brian North, Joshua Jackson, and Ross Dalling successfully stopped a stolen 2012 Hyundai Sonata being operated by Mubarak Soulemane,” the introduction to the investigation reads.
“ The troopers’ police vehicles effectively blocked-in the Hyundai. Shortly after the stop, Trooper North fired seven shots through the driver’s side window of the Hyundai. The bullets struck and killed Soulemane who was seated in the driver’s seat holding a knife.”
Ultimately, at the time that North fired his weapon, “ neither he nor any other person was in imminent danger of serious injury or death from a knife attack at the hands of Soulemane,” Devlin’s report continues. “ Further, any belief that persons were in such danger was not reasonable. I therefore find that North’s use of deadly force was not justified under Connecticut law.”
Click here, here, here and here to read more about Soulemane, this case, his family, and public protests in response to his death.
The report goes into great detail on the events that preceded the car chase and the shooting: Soulemane’s apparently not taking his medication while his mom was out of the country; his getting in a fight with his brother and suddenly leaving home; his attempt to purchase, and then steal, a phone from an AT & T store in Norwalk; his subsequent theft of a Lyft driver’s car and high-speed flight, and police chase, up I‑95.
The report also quotes North at length to get his side of what happened at the time of the fatal shooting in West Haven.
“ After multiple strikes of the baton on the window, I believe about five or six strikes, the window shattered,” North told investigators.
As soon as the window shattered, I saw the suspects eyes open wide. I also saw the West Haven Officer’s head had dropped below the roofline of the suspect vehicle, and it appeared to me that he was going to enter the car to remove the suspect. I know through my training and experience, when a suspect refuses to comply and law enforcement officers force entry into a vehicle through a window, the immediate response is to move in and pull out the suspect. The suspect quickly sat straight up in the driver’s seat.
As the West Haven Officer was trying to enter the suspect vehicle, the suspect quickly moved his right hand and went straight for his right front pants pocket. I heard someone yell out, “ He’s reaching. He’s reaching.” I am unsure which officer on scene was the one yelling. At this moment, I remember thinking to myself, I do not want to shoot the suspect based only on furtive movement. The suspect continued to make furtive movements, was reaching into his right front pants pocket, appeared to be pulling something out, and quickly looked to his right in the direction of the West Haven Officer and Tpr. Jackson.
I immediately became concerned for the safety of both the West Haven Officer and Tpr. Jackson, as Tpr. Jackson only had his Taser out, and I did not believe that the West Haven Officer had his weapon drawn. At this point, I felt my field of vision narrow, focusing on watching the suspect’s hands. Immediately the suspect, using his right hand quickly removed a silver colored object from his right pants pocket. As the suspect raised his right hand from his right front pants pocket with the object still in it, I recognized the object the suspect removed from his pocket to be a fixed blade knife. The knife had a silver colored serrated blade that was approximately four inches long.
The suspect held the knife in his right hand, in a closed fist at a 90 degree angle with his body. The knife was held with the tip of the blade facing upwards towards the roof of the suspect vehicle, and the serrated edge facing towards the front of the vehicle in the direction of the front windshield. While the suspect held the knife in his right hand, he began to abruptly move in the driver’s seat. I quickly took my eyes off the suspect and looked in the direction of Tpr. Jackson and the West Haven Officer. I saw Tpr. Jackson quickly advancing towards the open passenger window and I could not see the West Haven Officer anymore. This led me to believe that the West Haven Officer had already begun to enter the suspect vehicle to take control of the suspect. I immediately looked back at the suspect and saw that he still had the knife in his hand, and was making furtive movements.
The suspect was moving and holding the knife in an aggressive manner, and appeared to me to be preparing to attack either Tpr. Jackson or the West Haven Officer. Based on these circumstances, I believed that Tpr. Jackson and the West Haven Officer were at imminent risk of serious physical injury or death, and could have been stabbed in the neck or face as they attempted to enter the vehicle and remove the suspect. As a result, I discharged my duty firearm to eliminate the threat.
I discharged my duty pistol, a Smith and Wesson M& P 2.0 9mm, several times aiming for center mass on the suspect in an effort to stop the threat. At the time, I was unsure how many times I had discharged my duty pistol. After discharging my firearm, I immediately activated my portable radio and Broadcast, “ Shots fired.” I then looked into the suspect vehicle, and I could see the suspect was still moving. I then yelled, “ He’s got the knife. Drop the knife. Drop the knife.” The driver’s side window was shattered. I crouched down to look through the hole in the shattered glass of the window. I then yelled out, “ It’s out of his hands. It’s on his lap.” I could see the suspect was still moving at this time, but noticed the knife was now on his lap. Then I used my pistol to remove some glass so I could see clearly into the suspect vehicle.
In the “ Analysis” section of the investigatory report, Devlin lays out the facts of the case, and the reasoning that ultimately lead him to conclude that North should be arrested and charged.
“ In the present case, North makes no claim that he used deadly force to defend himself from Soulemane’s use or imminent use of deadly force against him,” he wrote. “ Nor could he. Soulemane was seated in the driver’s seat of the Hyundai. He could not open the driver’s door enough to exit because Jackson’s cruiser blocked him in. The car windows were all up. Even though he held a knife, he posed no imminent threat to North. North asserts, however, that he used deadly force in defense of third persons, namely Jackson and or Rappa.
“ As an initial matter, it is important to note that, at the moment that North fired, neither Jackson nor Rappa faced any actual or imminent danger of deadly force being used against them. Soulemane was in the driver’s seat of the Hyundai and they were outside of the vehicle. Although he held a knife in his right hand, he was not using the knife against them nor presenting any imminent threat to do so.”
Devln notes that North’s immediate statements to supervisors 20 minutes after the shooting make no mention of his trying to protect fellow law enforcement officers Jackson and Rappa from harm.
“ To the contrary, his immediate statements to Sergeants Kiely and Hennessey suggest that he fired when he saw Soulemane pull out the knife,” Devlin wrote.
Devlin also called into question the necessity to use deadly force at all in this situation.
“ Once the police effectuated the stop,” he wrote, “ they had control of the situation. It is fair to ask whether they disregarded less lethal options.”
Jackson yelled for Soulemane to get out of the car twice as he approached the driver’s side of the Hyundai. There was no further communication with him before North discharged his weapon. Only thirty-six seconds elapsed between North taking a position next to the driver window and his firing his gun through that window. Would a reasonable officer have made further attempts to talk to Soulemane either himself or possibly waiting until an officer with crisis intervention training could respond? Rappa told Inspectors that he broke the window to communicate with Soulemane, and facilitate the use of less lethal means to gain control of him. A reasonable police officer would have realized that the police were in control of the situation and the opportunity existed to take a tactical pause to explore the use of methods other than deadly force.
North fired seven shots. Was that reasonable? It is certainly possible that one shot might have disabled Soulemane from attacking others yet not kill him. The law is clear that 20/20 hindsight is inappropriate in evaluating an officer’s conduct given the split second decisions officers must make in dangerous situations. The law is also clear, however, that the officer’s conduct must be reasonable to be justified.
In the present case, that standard of reasonableness was not met.
Don't want to miss a single Independent article? Sign up for our daily email newsletter! Click here for more info.
Share this story with others.
Commenting has closed for this entry
The conclusion is obvious to anyone (including laypeople) watching the dashcam video. So why did it take 27 months for authorities to reach this conclusion. That's the real story here.
The Supreme Court has disagreed with you since 1985. And, there is absolutely no Use of Force legal analysis that doesn't start with objective facts. "Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.
I remember seeing the video at the time and thinking that the suspect could not exit out of the car doors because they were wedged closed by the police vehicles. He wasn’t going anywhere. He couldn’t get out to threaten anyone with the knife. If the cops had waited a moment and talked to him to get him to throw the knife out of the window, and then to negotiate him out of the vehicle, then the outcome could have been different. Too many times in videos of events like these we have seen police all adrenalined up and acting in the heat of the moment like they were in a movie or tv show, when a calmer, more rational and measured response could have had a less lethal outcome. I understand this was a high risk situation before they had the suspect’s vehicle hemmed in by their squad cars, but the moment they had him trapped, the situation changed and the risk to injure others or flee was no longer possible until he exited the vehicle. We need officers of the law to be able to change their tactics once they have some control of the situation and to only use the minimal amount of force necessary to subdue the suspect. I would think that this video and others like it could be used to retrain and train officers as to what they could have done differently in the situation to have a different outcome and for them to consider alternatives if they are faced with similar high stress situations in their job.
I agree 100% with what you said!! We definitely need officers to understand when they’re in control and to use their training to guide them and the situation to a safe space. Not continue to heighten things and ultimately kill someone who wasn’t even in control of the situation at hand!
Once you head down the road of weapons, robbery, carjackings, high speed chases.....you get what you get. No one should have risked their life for this man. He made his bed.
Two years and three months after this young man did a robbery with a knife, a car jacking and led police on a several mile car chase crashing into other vehicles he ended up like a lot of people who commit violent felonies do. In this case unfortunately shot by Trooper North. Trooper North had a sterling reputation prior to this incident and I am hoping he prevails in court. Don’t commit violent felonies and you will be ok. Criminals and those who engage in criminal acts aren’t the people to be lionized
What does his “Sterling” reputation have to do with the fact that he committed a murder? And since you acknowledge his “Sterling” reputation, are you going to acknowledge that the victim was suffering schizophrenic episode due to being off his medications? I mean if we are going to give Trooper North credit for his reputation, surely you can allow some grace for the fact that this kid was not in his right state of mind, at all, due to being off his meds! As someone who has worked with young adults with mental health challenges, when even one dose is missed, you can clearly see the change in their affect, rendering them unable to make sound choices. But this officer with his “Sterling” reputation, surely could’ve used that great background of his to see that he was now in control and no longer did he need to have his gun out to ultimately kill the victim!
@HenryHillowski The report goes into great detail on the events that preceded the car chase and the shooting: Soulemane’s apparently not taking his medication while his mom was out of the country; his getting in a fight with his brother and suddenly leaving home; his attempt to purchase, and then steal, a phone from an AT&T store in Norwalk; his subsequent theft of a Lyft driver’s car and high-speed flight, and police chase, up I‑95. Did you watch the video. Brain North job is protect and serve. Not to be an executioner for all people of color that doesn’t take their medication.
Soulemane gave up the right to be protected when he endangered people of all colors that day. Off meds, robbery with a knife, carjacking, high speed chase for many many miles. At that point don't you think the logical conclusion of an officer is that this person is extremely dangerous and is willing to do anything in order to either get away or satisfy their next bad idea? The officers job was to protect himself, his coworkers and all other citizens that were not Soulemane. It is unfortunate that this young man lost his life but he made a series of snowballing decisions to end up where he was risking his life and the life of others. What about all the other people he put in danger? Cell Phone Store Employees, Lyft Driver, People on the Road and then his final non compliance with Police. Officers aren't there to play psychiatry at that point, they are there to eliminate the deadly threat that the public was faced with.
very sad that anyone could blame the police for this....clearly a person who committed a felony, resisted arrest, endangered officers and innocent bystanders, them pulls out a lethal weapon. With that backdrop, some then blame the policeman for having adrenaline...which is a basic human reaction. Maybe some blame should be reserved for the criminal? Just don;t commit crimes and resist arrest. It's not the the police just wandered around looking for someone to harass.
Reading truly is the key to full understanding. So my question is, did you read the entire report? (I’ll take that as a yes but you’re still stuck on the crimes he committed prior to being murdered by police after being trapped by their vehicles and unable to move. Regardless of the crimes committed by the victim, the police were in control at the time of his murder! Trooper North should’ve had his taser out, if anything, like Trooper Jackson did. The next question I would pose, why is it that officers always resort to deadly force when it’s a person of color? Maybe you don’t think it that way because you don’t live the life of a person of color, who is always seen as a threat to others, even when we aren’t in control of the situation!
NHPS2021 - why are you making reckless assumptions? "Maybe you don’t think it that way because you don’t live the life of a person of color". I don't understand how you can make statements about whether I identify as a person of color.
At last. As Robn said, this is long overdue, although the charge should be murder, not manslaughter. The situation was stabilized when North shot Soulemane with the intent to kill him. Cjl215: The world is a safer place for me with Soulemane dead. That fact does not justify his killing. Like Soulemane, North propensity to unwarranted lethal force makes him a danger to society. As frequently reported here and elsewhere, many cops are themselves criminals. NHPD has a policy of employing violent criminals as police officers. The police unions are currently arguing to the legislature that serious misconduct, including crimes, are simply "mistakes" that should not bar a person from employment as a police officer. M Pittman: Soulemane mental illness should not have been in the report. It has no relevance to the trooper's actions, and Soulemane's own crimes cannot be excused by it. The fact is that Soulemane's illness made him a danger to others, and should not have been institutionalized rather than allowed to be free threatening others. Nonetheless, at the time he was shot Soulemane was no danger to anyone, so his killing is simply murder, not manslaughter as he was charged.
Sterling reputation? I doubt that the troopers on the other side of the car feel the same way. There's nothing in the event videos that would justify Brian North's reckless and deadly behavior. Even if he perceived that their suspect was reaching for a firearm, he could have simply ducked or backed behind the many vehicles pinning the victims vehicle in place. The trooper also put his fellow troopers at risk by firing in their general direction (they were on the opposite side of the car). But don't believe me, just watch the video. This is a view of the shooter on the driver’s side, shot from his own dash cam. https://youtu.be/NyKF1LiDpJU?t=3722 This is a view from the body cam of the police across from the shooter on the passenger side. https://youtu.be/NyKF1LiDpJU?t=2706 This is a view from behind the car showing police activity on both sides of the car (shooter on left). https://youtu.be/NyKF1LiDpJU?t=5577
@NHPS2021……If someone with schizophrenia off their meds commits a murder, should they get a pass?
@NHPS2021: "...being murdered by police..." Be mindful of how you word things. Mubarak Soulemane was shot by one police officer. Your use of the term "police" seems to be used as a collective term implying that all the police at the scene are culpable for Mr. Soulemane's death. They are not. The use of the term "murder" is a legal term and is only an opinion. His death and the arrest/fate of the officer are to be determined by the courts.
As some have noted, the officer who fired the shots was shooting in the same direction of the officer who he supposedly thought was entering the vehicle to grab the suspect. So by letting his adrenaline get the better of his decision making, he was also endangering his fellow officer at the time. This behavior has been seen time and time again in videos where police have not taken a more measured and rational approach and not used only the least amount of force necessary to subdue a suspect. At the time that the suspect was trapped in the car, he was no longer a threat until he left the car. The officers need to be able reassess the situations and change tactics as circumstances change. Even as the adrenaline of the high risk pursuit was in their minds. It is a terrible tragedy that this young man who was well liked and who wouldn’t hurt anyone while on his meds, went off his meds and was controlled by his schizophrenia at the time. Mental illness and the treatment of people who struggle with it is who can be at risk of harming themselves or others when not medicated properly is a very difficult issue. We can have compassion for him, at the same time we can realize that the police pursuit to stop him from potentially injuring himself as well as others was necessary. As would be an arrest and a trial and hopefully psychological treatment and monitoring for medication compliance would be in his future. But his death at the hands of an officer who reacted with more force than was necessary at the time, was an unnecessary tragedy. We have to ask for the training of officers to handle high adrenaline situations rapidly changing as the situation unfolds, and how to shift their actions and their decision making to suit the circumstances as they change. We also have to train them to be able to handle people who are mentally altered at the time, whether it is from mental illness or substance abuse.
Brian North was wrong.Sulemane's driver's side door was blocked by the police vehicle and Brian North's gun was ready in position to be fired.He didn't give Soulemane a chance to get out of the car to be arrested.You know some of you commentators said that Soulemane deserved this because of his behavior and the fact that he was endangering others safety. Recently there was an incident in Connecticut that involved a White couple that was wanted for car thefts and once the police spotted them they attempted to escape crashing into law enforcement vehicles ,endangering other peoples lives I would say with a motor vehicle and the police only had his gun pointed but clearly didn't use it it even appeared that he didn't really want to use it.If I'm not mistaken the officer even asked the couple to stop and few times while his gun was pointed.Why didn't the officer fire his weapon to stop this couple that were clearly disobeying the law not following orders and hitting vehicles in the meanwhile to attempt to get away ?
Manslaughter is putting this lightly. Soulemane was outright murdered. As other commenters have written, there was no way the suspect could have gotten out of the car and he posed little if any threat to the multiple officers on the scene despite wielding a knife. The saying "shooting fish in a barrel" comes to mind. Glad this cop is being charged and I hope he is fully prosecuted. I believe any Jury who watches the tapes will arrive at a swift conclusion that the officer is guilty and convict him.
Soulemane committed an armed crime of violence in the carjacking, then aggravated assault on law enforcement when he rammed their cruisers. They got him stopped and clearly the officers decided the pursuit was going to end right there, one way or another. Even after being stopped, boxed in, tazed, and held at gunpoint, the suspect threatened officers with a knife, and was still in control of his vehicle. So what do you do, engage in an empty hand fight with a violent felon with a knife? Or just get back in your cruisers and let him go? In my view the decision to charge that trooper is prosecutorial misconduct. They will never get a conviction and they know it, and that makes the charge the folly of an unethical prosecutor.
Many assume the officers know what you know now. Officer doesn't know if there is a gun in the vehicle but has to assume that. You also don't know what moves Soulemane was making inside the vehicle. The officer didn't pull up and unload his gun immediately. Was he revving the engine, reaching around in the vehicle, you have no idea. This wasn't a pullover for tags or a headlight. Armed Robbery, Car Jacking, High Speed Chase.
This incident resonates for me on a different level. As a parent of children who have historically struggled with mental health issues, and will soon be of driving age, the outcome here is a recurring nightmare of mine. I feel like I want to prepare a laminated card for my son to have in easy reach in the car that says something like “I have mild autism and also process verbal information a little more slowly than most people. I may not be able to respond immediately or appropriately to commands in a tense situation. I can sometimes be snarky. I mean no disrespect. I am under a doctor’s care (contact info) and my parents are (contact info.) I am not a safety risk.” Not meant to be a ‘Get out of Jail Free” card, but more of a “Please don’t kill me” card. And not wholly relevant to the current discussion....more about those routine stops that go bad. But when I read about incidents like these, this is where my fear takes me. I’d welcome feedback from any PD officers reading....
The State of Connecticut passed the “Blue Envelope” initiative in 2020. The driver, who has been diagnosed on the Autism spectrum, places their vehicle registration and insurance card in the blue envelope. The entire envelope would be handed over to the Police Officer during a “routine” traffic stop. I have included a link with information regarding the “Blue Envelope”, see page 18, and some other helpful information. https://www.cga.ct.gov/jud/tfs/20200116_Police Transparency and Accountability Task Force/Related Materials/DSS Autism and Police Interaction Presentation.pdf
@9876go: That is useful information that I did not know. Thank you.
It looks like from his writing that 1644 writes a statement that he tries to attribute to me and that statement says “the world is a safer place for me with Souleman dead”.I never wrote or would say that. The arrest of the trooper will end up with no conviction unless carjacking, auto theft and robbery are legalized.
One of two red lights towards the Broadway shops (eastbound) is not… more »
This is my third report about this in about 4 years The catch… more »
©2005 – 2022 New Haven Independent