CA - Off Duty Police Officer shoots man and parents after altercation in Costco, Corona, June 2019

[gitana1]

I used to work in a very reactive, contentious environment (with attorneys, imagine that). Anyway, I noticed that in my personal life, I reacted to everything in an adversarial manner, because that was the personality I was developing from my professional career. I interpreted everything as an "attack", even if it was just a question.

I can see how a police officer may respond to as interpreting something as a threat, but that doesn't justify or excuse the over reaction.

I switched jobs, and am a much nicer person now.

The job title isn't what provides the excuse. Being a cop who gets knocked down from behind, in line to get food with your family, in the same county where a cop was shot in the head recently, also while in line to get food, IMO, it is an excuse. A moral excuse.

Context matters.

Again, it's not a legal defense but could mitigate.

And I wouldn't have a problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is different treatment from the outset. Covering up what happened. Not releasing the tape.

And with my belief that even when the evidence is incontrovertible, LE almost always gets away with unlawful shootings/killings of unarmed people.

 

[NervousNellie]

I frankly feel more threatened by some yahoo with a gun shooting wildly in a supermarket because someone pushed them than I am by some huge, mentally ill guy pushing me down.

RSBBM
I almost feel guilty for snipping your entirely awesome post, but I really think this is one of the most important factors in this entire situation!

If I'd been knocked over in line somewhere, I know I would be scared by the incident. But I would be absolutely freaked <modsnip>out by "some yahoo" shooting recklessly.

 

[mickey2942]

Off-duty LAPD officer who allegedly shot man at Costco placed on administrative leave

Officer Sanchez is now on Administrative Leave.

 

[gitana1]

In all probability, yes.

The officer tried to use lethal force against not one, but three people. Though it is theoretically possible that the use of force was justified, the totality of available information suggests that even proving that lethal force against the deceased was justified is going to be an uphill battle.

For example, to justify lethal force against the two other victims, the officer would probably need to show that they were either directly participating in an attack- or say, ordering an ongoing attack in which could have killed the officer or severely injured him. Given what we know, that is extremely unlikely, but still possible.

Even with the deceased, the officer had regained his feet and there is no current evidence indicating that the deceased was continuing the attack, was say, fixated on the child, or that the officer was incapable of defending himself with his hands, retreating, warning him off with the weapon etc. . Though it is possible that evidence may come to light that establishes these things, it does not seem very likely.

Then factor in the conspiracy angle:

- Shooting was extremely public, thus harder to spin.
- The two surviving victims are probably going to be attractive to the public (no criminal records, were not wearing gang colors, were not intoxicated or high, were not engaged in any kind of criminal activity). Thus less room to spin the encounter.
- The police officer is going to be investigated by officers who are not from his department. Less chance of a friendly investigation.

If lethal force is an accident due to self defense against another it may not be a crime. Possibly some form of criminal negligence. I'm not sure. I will have to look it up.

 

[mickey2942]

This is copied directly from the LAPD website.

"Objectively Reasonable: The legal standard used to determine the lawfulness and appropriateness of a use of force is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Graham versus Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Graham states in part, The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The test of reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. The force must be reasonable under the circumstances known to the officer at the time the force was used. Therefore, the Department examines all uses of force from an objective standard, rather than a subjective standard. (2009 LAPD Manual 1/556.10)"

 

[jjenny]

If lethal force is an accident due to self defense against another it may not be a crime. Possibly some form of criminal negligence. I'm not sure. I will have to look it up.

Father was reportedly standing between his son and the cop. So in order to shoot the son, it would be pretty obvious it was likely the father was going to get shot.
And if the son was no longer attacking, I fail to see why it would be necessary to shoot him.

 

[Cryptic]

If lethal force is an accident due to self defense against another it may not be a crime. Possibly some form of criminal negligence. I'm not sure. I will have to look it up.

I believe it can be crime depending on totality of the circumstances.

Fore example, I remember reading that criminal charges were filed against a man in Utah who through fired at people breaking into his home (permitted), but then continued to fire a dozen or more rounds at them as they fled through a residential neighborhood (endangerment type charge- even though nobody was injured).

 

[gitana1]

Father was reportedly standing between his son and the cop. So in order to shoot the son, it would be pretty obvious it was likely the father was going to get shot.
And if the son was no longer attacking, I fail to see why it would be necessary to shoot him.

I kind of doubt they were all just standing still. And he purposefully shot the dad to get to the son.

The picture the witness paints is of something happening rapidly. Man is knocked down and comes up and starts shooting at his target.

If we wasn't still attacking I think it's quite clear it wasn't necessary to shoot at all.

 

[jjenny]

I kind of doubt they were all just standing still. And he purposefully shot the dad to get to the son.

The picture the witness paints is of something happening rapidly. Man is knocked down and comes up and starts shooting at his target.

If we wasn't still attacking I think it's quite clear it wasn't necessary to shoot at all.

Well I am not sure how accurate that particular witness is. Per the family's lawyer, father stepped between the cop and his son and was trying to explain son's mental condition when the cop started shooting.
"A lawyer for the family of a man fatally shot at a California Costco conceded that the man pushed a police officer. They were standing in line for food samples at the time, and the father of Kenneth French, 32, stepped between his son and the off-duty officer."
Police Officer: Here's Why I Opened Fire at Costco - finance - att.net

 

[jjenny]

Here is another article, stating father was trying to explain son's mental condition to the cop, and mother was behind the son. So father would be in front of the son and mother behind. Per the family's lawyer, son was not attacking or trying to attack when he was shot.
"Russell French, the father, “was trying to de-escalate and explain that his son had a mental disability” when he was shot, Galipo said. The mother, Paola, was likely struck because she was standing directly behind her son, Galipo said."
Clashing views emerge in Corona Costco shooting, with family’s attorney saying gunfire was ‘unjustified’ – Press Enterprise

 

[Wagtales10]

Well I am not sure how accurate that particular witness is. Per the family's lawyer, father stepped between the cop and his son and was trying to explain son's mental condition when the cop started shooting.
"A lawyer for the family of a man fatally shot at a California Costco conceded that the man pushed a police officer. They were standing in line for food samples at the time, and the father of Kenneth French, 32, stepped between his son and the off-duty officer."
Police Officer: Here's Why I Opened Fire at Costco - finance - att.net

Of course the family lawyers will say one thing, the cop's lawyer will say the other.

What I am sticking to is witness statements that say the cop got up, a brief pause, then shot 6-7 times hitting 3 people.
Thats not self defense.

 

[jjenny]

Another article, saying father stepped between the two men (son and cop), per family's lawyer. But supposedly it's on tape.
"Before the officer fired his gun, there was a gap in time when he declared he was a police officer and French’s father stepped between the two men. Galipo said the security video showed that interaction."
Costco shooting: Did LAPD officer face ‘imminent threat’ when he opened fire?

 

[jjenny]

Of course the family lawyers will say one thing, the cop's lawyer will say the other.

What I am sticking to is witness statements that say the cop got up, a brief pause, then shot 6-7 times hitting 3 people.
Thats not self defense.

Well it's on video per the family's lawyer, where the father steps between the cop and the son. So we don't just have lawyer's word for it, once the video is released. Cop's lawyer can say whatever he wants, but this is on video per the family's lawyer.

 

[mickey2942]

The Los Angeles Police Protective League, Exposed

This is interesting to read.

 

[Wagtales10]

Well it's on video per the family's lawyer, where the father steps between the cop and the son. So we don't just have lawyer's word for it, once the video is released. Cop's lawyer can say whatever he wants, but this is on video per the family's lawyer.

I hear you. Im just stating there will be obvious bias in what the lawyers say. (even though I believe French's side)
Witness statements tend to be unbiased. And those even back French's account.

 

[AzPistonsGirl]

what's with the "brief pause" I see mentioned in so many articles. What was going on there, why mention it, what is the significance? To show that the pause should have given folks time to figure out what was going on? To stress that there was a pause at all just seems to be saying something else. Not sure what we should be picking up from that. It doesn't leave me feeling warm and fuzzy though.

 

[AzPistonsGirl]

witness statements also tend to be unreliable. Just sayin... Good thing there is video.

 

[Jax49]

witness statements also tend to be unreliable. Just sayin... Good thing there is video.

Police Chief has used the word ‘erroneous’. I'm trying to be patient.

 

[fannneee]

This is copied directly from the LAPD website.

"Objectively Reasonable: The legal standard used to determine the lawfulness and appropriateness of a use of force is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Graham versus Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Graham states in part, The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The test of reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. The force must be reasonable under the circumstances known to the officer at the time the force was used. Therefore, the Department examines all uses of force from an objective standard, rather than a subjective standard. (2009 LAPD Manual 1/556.10)"

But this guy was not on duty, does he still get "on duty officer" status under the law? He shouldn't. It looks to me like it may be a case by case basis.
Legal Authority of Off-Duty Cops
"But the Ninth Circuit, however, recently ruled that off-duty police officers working private security jobs are not entitled to the same qualified immunity as they would be if they were working on behalf of the government. So, in some cases, legal protections for officers may be limited to their on-duty conduct."

 

[mickey2942]

But this guy was not on duty, does he still get "on duty officer" status under the law? He shouldn't. It looks to me like it may be a case by case basis.
Legal Authority of Off-Duty Cops
"But the Ninth Circuit, however, recently ruled that off-duty police officers working private security jobs are not entitled to the same qualified immunity as they would be if they were working on behalf of the government. So, in some cases, legal protections for officers may be limited to their on-duty conduct."

Right, but it seems like Officer Sanchez was treated like "an officer on duty". He was not arrested. His name was not released.

It would be interesting to know what his personal life is like...did he have an anger management problem? Argument with his wife, recently? Could a mental state have contributed to his reaction?

Read the link I posted above about the union...Officer Sanchez is now on paid leave.