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

[MsFacetious]

If the parents had time to plead with the shooter, then the shooter had time to retreat.

This is attempted murder, attempted murder and murder.

 

[mickey2942]

I sure wish that I had an option here aside from "like". Because I don't "like" that parents who were shot, defending their disabled son, need to have a press conference. And I definitely don't "like" the fact that LAPD has not yet completed their investigation and made a decision regarding termination of an officer who used deadly force on a man who was not armed. Even if he was aggressive, the officer had the opportunity to step away and deescalate the situation. Why didn't he walk away? Mr. French was not doing any physical contact violence against the officer or his son, aside from the initial shove. The officer did not have any injuries sustained nor did his child.

Why didn't he walk away?

 

[RANCH]

Looks like most here feel that the police officer is guilty of murder and that LAPD is covering it up.

Is this an accurate assessment or am I off base?

 

[mickey2942]

Looks like most here feel that the police officer is guilty of murder and that LAPD is covering it up.

Is this an accurate assessment or am I off base?

Well, we haven't been able to view the video. And the officer was never charged. He is back to work. Maybe there is an internal investigation, but it seems to be taking awhile.

My issue here, is training. Does LAPD train their officers to shoot unarmed individuals? When there is no apparent direct physical threat?

 

[RANCH]

Well, we haven't been able to view the video. And the officer was never charged. He is back to work. Maybe there is an internal investigation, but it seems to be taking awhile.

My issue here, is training. Does LAPD train their officers to shoot unarmed individuals? When there is no apparent direct physical threat?

If the officer did shoot and kill French when there was no direct physical threat then he is guilty of murder.

Not sure what you mean by LAPD training to shoot unarmed people. Are you saying that LE officers can only shoot armed people and if they shoot someone who is unarmed it's a crime? JMO

 

[mickey2942]

If the officer did shoot and kill French when there was no direct physical threat then he is guilty of murder.

Not sure what you mean by LAPD training to shoot unarmed people. Are you saying that LE officers can only shoot armed people and if they shoot someone who is unarmed it's a crime? JMO

As I see it, the only way the French's attorney can sue LAPD based on Sanchez's actions is because of training or lack thereof. The liability has to be on LAPD if they want a large amount.

 

[SoCalDavidS]

Looks like most here feel that the police officer is guilty of murder and that LAPD is covering it up.

Is this an accurate assessment or am I off base?

AND the Riverside Department, since I'm assuming it's their case to file.

 

[Eleven_11]

Husband, Wife Whose Son Killed by Off-Duty Cop Speak

 

[Cool Cats]

As I see it, the only way the French's attorney can sue LAPD based on Sanchez's actions is because of training or lack thereof. The liability has to be on LAPD if they want a large amount.

Yes. This didn't happen when the LE shooter was actually on the clock. He was off duty and shopping as a civilian so it will be difficult to %100 tie this in with the LAPD.

The LAPD can say that the LE shooter did not follow protocol for off duty "use of force" and that it's not their fault he was negligent. The family could end up suing just the LE shooter and not recover anything.

 

[SoCalDavidS]

Press conference already happened. Here is a reporter who posted a couple of videos from the conference. The mother sounds unbelievably distraught.

Craig Fiegener (@CraigNews3LV) | Twitter

 

[SoCalDavidS]

Yes. This didn't happen when the LE shooter was actually on the clock. He was off duty and shopping as a civilian so it will be difficult to %100 tie this in with the LAPD.

The LAPD can say that the LE shooter did not follow protocol for off duty "use of force" and that it's not their fault he was negligent. The family could end up suing just the LE shooter and not recover anything.

So the LAPD can say that he did not follow protocol for off duty "use of force," and it's not their fault he was negligent. And at the same time they can say...."He's a fine employee, and we're not going to fire him for this violation of off-duty protocol." Nice double standard.

 

[Cool Cats]

So the LAPD can say that he did not follow protocol for off duty "use of force," and it's not their fault he was negligent. And at the same time they can say...."He's a fine employee, and we're not going to fire him for this violation of off-duty protocol." Nice double standard.

Another LAPD defense --LAPD off duty cops are still considered "peace officers" and have a right or duty to shoot and protect themselves and others when regular people do not necessarily have that same right.

So there's a significant difference between civilian Joe and Jane shooting and carrying a gun, and the peace officer doing the same.

When an officer feels his life or the life of another person is in imminent danger or under threat of serious injury, the officer may use the force necessary to stop that assault. Under California law (Penal Code section 196), peace officers may use deadly force in the course of their duties under circumstances not available to members of the general public. Police officers are mindful, however, that certain limits on the use of deadly force apply to peace officers. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of Scott v. Henrich (9th Cir. 1994) 39 F.3d 912, delineated the circumstances under which deadly force may be used:

"…police may use only such force as is objectively reasonable under the circumstances. An officer's use of deadly force is reasonable only if “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

All determinations of unreasonable force “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."

Los Angeles Police Protective League

The use of deadly force

The mission of the Los Angeles Police Protective League is to vigilantly protect, promote, and improve the working conditions, legal rights, compensation and benefits of Los Angeles Police Officers.[5]

 

[Cool Cats]

So the LAPD can say that he did not follow protocol for off duty "use of force," and it's not their fault he was negligent. And at the same time they can say...."He's a fine employee, and we're not going to fire him for this violation of off-duty protocol." Nice double standard.

He was only put on administrative leave (paid) and his union will keep him from getting fired IF he is not charged with a crime. If he gets a charge he can and would be terminated. If he walks "scott free" they can't fire him or the union will back him for wrongful termination.

...2 Cents...

 

[RANCH]

Not much in the way of new information here.

"I said we have no guns and my son is sick. He still shot."

I wonder what French was doing that caused his mother to say to Sanchez that her son was sick?

Husband, Wife Say They Begged Off-Duty Officer Not to Shoot

 

[mickey2942]

He was only put on administrative leave (paid) and his union will keep him from getting fired IF he is not charged with a crime. If he gets a charge he can and would be terminated. If he walks "scott free" they can't fire him or the union will back him for wrongful termination.

...2 Cents...

Video of LAPD officer shooting disabled man at Corona Costco sealed for 1 year

According to this article, Sanchez is on "desk duty". And they classify this as an "officer involved shooting". My issue is that an officer involved shooting, should be considered only when an officer is actually ON DUTY.

 

[gitana1]

If the officer did shoot and kill French when there was no direct physical threat then he is guilty of murder.

Not sure what you mean by LAPD training to shoot unarmed people. Are you saying that LE officers can only shoot armed people and if they shoot someone who is unarmed it's a crime? JMO

Maybe not murder, but homicide of some sort.

 

[Cool Cats]

Video of LAPD officer shooting disabled man at Corona Costco sealed for 1 year

According to this article, Sanchez is on "desk duty". And they classify this as an "officer involved shooting". My issue is that an officer involved shooting, should be considered only when an officer is actually ON DUTY.

Costco shooting: Man pushed LAPD officer, had recently changed medications, attorney says

Lawyer For Off-Duty Officer In Costco Shooting Says He 'Feared For His Life'

When off duty, an officer still can and will act as a peace officer and basically do whatever they want as if they were on duty. Slippery slope... I totally get what your saying...I think it's a shame that this LAPD shooter will not be treated like the rest of us if we did the same, shooting 3 unarmed people and shooting people in the back in a grocery store food sample line for crying out loud. The parent's lawyer says the officer overreacted and might have gotten angry that he got "pushed" while in line.

"...French was struck by gunfire multiple times... "
"...if anyone other than an off-duty police officer had shot three unarmed civilians in a Costco, that person would be in jail and facing criminal charges for murder..."

 

[gitana1]

Looks like most here feel that the police officer is guilty of murder and that LAPD is covering it up.

Is this an accurate assessment or am I off base?

I'm very troubled by the decision to delay release of the video for a year. The fact that other videos are released quickly does indicate to me that the LAPD is attempting to cover up some sort of wrongdoing. But not in the classic sense. They know it will come out eventually. But public sentiment can play a part in possible charges (whether and what) and possibly they hope a delay in releasing the info will result in less public interest. I do have a problem with that.

I think it's unlikely to be murder because they would have to prove malice aforethought for both first and second degree murder and I think it could have been more of a case of panic, due to the recent shooting of another off-duty officers standing in line to get food, or sudden rage.

To me, if the facts we are hearing are true, it sounds more like a case of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter:

4.2. Voluntary manslaughter
Penal Code 192(a) PC California's voluntary manslaughter law may be charged when the defendant kills another person during a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. This charge is very similar to first-degree murder. The difference is that voluntary manslaughter doesn't involve malice, since the killing is done spontaneously.43

If convicted of voluntary manslaughter, the defendant faces three, six, or eleven years in the state prison.

4.3. Involuntary manslaughter
Prosecutors can charge a defendant with Penal Code 192(b) PC California's involuntary manslaughter law when the defendant kills another person:

1. without malice,
2. without an intent to kill, but
3. with conscious disregard for human life.45

The difference between involuntary manslaughter and killing someone by excusable accident is that with involuntary manslaughter, the defendant at the time of the killing is necessarily involved in either:

1. an unlawful act (not amounting to a felony), or
2. a lawful act which involves a high degree of risk of death or great bodily injury (where the defendant fails to act with the proper caution).46

By contrast, when the defendant accidentally kills another person, he/she is not violating any laws or acting recklessly at the time of the killing.

If convicted of involuntary manslaughter, a defendant faces two, three, or four years in the state prison.48

Penal Code 187 PC - California Murder Laws (first and second degree)

 

[gitana1]

Not much in the way of new information here.



I wonder what French was doing that caused his mother to say to Sanchez that her son was sick?

Husband, Wife Say They Begged Off-Duty Officer Not to Shoot

Pushing a stranger?

 

[gitana1]

Costco shooting: Man pushed LAPD officer, had recently changed medications, attorney says

When off duty, an officer still can and will act as a peace officer and basically do whatever they want as if they were on duty. Slippery slope... I totally get what your saying...I think it's a shame that this LAPD shooter will not be treated like the rest of us if we did the same, shooting 3 unarmed people and shooting people in the back in a grocery store food sample line for crying out loud. The parent's lawyer says the officer was angry he got "pushed" while in line.

"...French was struck by gunfire multiple times... "
"...if anyone other than an off-duty police officer had shot three unarmed civilians in a Costco, that person would be in jail and facing criminal charges for murder..."

They're trained to stop crime and in the use of deadly weapons so I do see a case for them being treated somewhat differently. And I also see a case for there to be some level of panic given how many cops are randomly shot by civilians. It is a scary and dangerous job. But there are still rules and if he was just angry or used his gun while panicked and not thinking, he should be looking at voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, depending on which one.

I want to know what witnesses said and whether their statements were buried, too.