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

[PaperDoll]

So, I have a question should any care to answer Sanchez has been on the police force for years from what I gather, so why would he be inclined to fire his weapon at a Costco while shopping with his family? Being a police officer I'm sure he may have had other opportunities to fire his weapons, so why did he do it in this incident?

 

[Cryptic]

So, I have a question should any care to answer Sanchez has been on the police force for years from what I gather, so why would he be inclined to fire his weapon at a Costco while shopping with his family? Being a police officer I'm sure he may have had other opportunities to fire his weapons, so why did he do it in this incident?

I dont know the answer to your question.

That aide, is your argument:
- Sanchez could have used a weapon in the past, but did not.
- He has used a weapon on only one occasion
- Therefore, the use of the weapon must be fully justified....?

A lot of police officers involved in shootings have used their weapon on only one occasion. The fact that the use in question was their first use does not automatically mean it was justified.

 

[PaperDoll]

I dont know the answer to your question.

That aide, is your argument:
- Sanchez could have used a weapon in the past, but did not.
- He has used a weapon on only one occasion
- Therefore, the use of the weapon must be fully justified....?

A lot of police officers involved in shootings have used their weapon on only one occasion. The fact that the use in question was their first use does not automatically mean it was justified.

Not saying it was justified just wondering why he felt the need to fire off 10 rounds. Something triggered it. Can't say he went looking for trouble to fire his gun that day, and he wasn't on duty at the time. Just wondering if any of us, under the circumstances he was under, what we would have done especially when we have our family with us. If Sanchez was not a police officer would we be more "understanding" of his actions?

 

[mickey2942]

So, I have a question should any care to answer Sanchez has been on the police force for years from what I gather, so why would he be inclined to fire his weapon at a Costco while shopping with his family? Being a police officer I'm sure he may have had other opportunities to fire his weapons, so why did he do it in this incident?

I sure wish that we could see a toxicology report, if one was done.

 

[Reasonable & Just]

Not saying it was justified just wondering why he felt the need to fire off 10 rounds. Something triggered it. Can't say he went looking for trouble to fire his gun that day, and he wasn't on duty at the time. Just wondering if any of us, under the circumstances he was under, what we would have done especially when we have our family with us. If Sanchez was not a police officer would we be more "understanding" of his actions?

I can't say I would be more understanding at all. It would be outrageous, but in a different way. As for the why, I really wish we knew about what happened with Mr. French that started all of this. It's tempting to think, "oh, people with mental or neurological illnesses are just totally mysterious and unpredictable" , but skilled conversations can give you a glimmer of the truth of what's going on in their heads. Or, as Ms. Facetious pointed out, it could well have been a seizure. Or maybe Mr. Sanchez had some interaction with Mr. French and Mr. French struck out inappropriately. I wish we knew. We never will.

As for Mr. Sanchez, why? Maybe he was trained to be extremely aggressive rather than to assess and de-escalate a situation. Maybe he can't handle the intense pressure of his job and sees mortal enemies everywhere. Maybe he uses steroids and was under the influence. I wish we knew. This, we could learn if those in charge wanted us to.

 

[Reasonable & Just]

Also, if a large number of us can really see ourselves firing wildly into a crowded Costco, shooting 2 unarmed folks not attacking us (one of them in the back), then we have a real, big, stinking problem in our society.

 

[jjenny]

Also, if a large number of us can really see ourselves firing wildly into a crowded Costco, shooting 2 unarmed folks not attacking us (one of them in back), then we have a real, big, stinking problem in our society.

I hope people don't think they would get away with it. Unless they are cops.
By the way cop here was 20 feet away from the victims. It's beyond my understanding why anyone would think the shooting is justifiable. But yet apparently those on grand jury and the DA do.

"The off-duty Los Angeles police officer who fatally shot an emotionally disabled man and wounded his parents at a Corona Costco was about 20 feet from the victims when he opened fire, police said."
Costco shooting: LAPD officer was 20 feet away when he opened fire, police say

 

[jjenny]

I can't say I would be more understanding at all. It would be outrageous, but in a different way. As for the why, I really wish we knew about what happened with Mr. French that started all of this. It's tempting to think, "oh, people with mental or neurological illnesses are just totally mysterious and unpredictable" , but skilled conversations can give you a glimmer of the truth of what's going on in their heads. Or, as Ms. Facetious pointed out, it could well have been a seizure. Or maybe Mr. Sanchez had some interaction with Mr. French and Mr. French struck out inappropriately. I wish we knew. We never will.

As for Mr. Sanchez, why? Maybe he was trained to be extremely aggressive rather than to assess and de-escalate a situation. Maybe he can't handle the intense pressure of his job and sees mortal enemies everywhere. Maybe he uses steroids and was under the influence. I wish we knew. This, we could learn if those in charge wanted us to.

I am not sure it really matters why Mr. French did what he did. Was the shooting justifiable or not, regardless of the reason? I don't think so. Mr. French was not armed, his parents were not armed, and they were estimated to be 20 feet away from the shooting cop. For the shooting to be justifiable, cop would have to be in danger at the time he was shooting, and how exactly was he in danger?

 

[jjenny]

By the way DA admits this was viewed as an officer involved shooting. Certainly makes it easier for family to sue LAPD and the city. Suing the cop himself ain't going to get much money, because you can't get blood from a stone (I am assuming the cop himself isn't rich). Unlike suing LAPD and the city. But hey, this is treated as an officer involved shooting, despite cop not being on duty. So that presumably makes it possible to sue LAPD and the city.

"This is viewed as an officer-involved shooting," he said. "Police officers have to respond (to an attack) as if they're on duty."

Family Condemns Decision Not to Prosecute Cop in Shooting

 

[Cryptic]

Not saying it was justified just wondering why he felt the need to fire off 10 rounds. Something triggered it. Can't say he went looking for trouble to fire his gun that day, and he wasn't on duty at the time. Just wondering if any of us, under the circumstances he was under, what we would have done especially when we have our family with us. If Sanchez was not a police officer would we be more "understanding" of his actions?

I am sorry, I misinterpreted the green emoji.

As for Sanchez's 1o round, three person (only one of which was arguably threatning) volley, I have a feeling that "over kill" was a large component.

I think you have an interesting point regarding Sanchez's status as a police officer and a possible higher standard. Though Sanchez was not on "the clock", police officers are never totally off duty and retain arrest authority while off duty. Sanchez , was also carrying his service weapon and well, chose to be a police officer. Thus, I would consider him a police officer and apply a higher standard.

In regards to what would I have done, I doubt I would have shot at all, much less at three people. That aside, I would probably break it down as:

- Private citizen, average build and athleticism: Arguably justifiable to fire at the assailant as he had a child. The more physically capable he was, the more he would need to show a true need for deadly force.

Firing at all three individuals, including an upper middle aged female with her back turned would be extremely hard to justify to me.

 

[SoCalDavidS]

Also, if a large number of us can really see ourselves firing wildly into a crowded Costco, shooting 2 unarmed folks not attacking us (one of them in the back), then we have a real, big, stinking problem in our society.

Effectively though, this decision has determined that one has the right to. The GJ has legitimized the actions of this killer. Lest anyone thinks that they'll be let go and allowed to return to their job if they do this themselves, as JJenny stated, be aware that it won't work out that way unless their regular job is as a policeman.

 

[SoCalDavidS]

By the way DA admits this was viewed as an officer involved shooting.
"This is viewed as an officer-involved shooting," he said. "Police officers have to respond (to an attack) as if they're on duty."

Family Condemns Decision Not to Prosecute Cop in Shooting

That should tell you ALL you need to know about how vigorously they pursued this with the GJ. The DA considers this "officer involved" even though anybody with half a brain knows that he was not on-duty or in uniform when the incident occurred. The fact his occupation was even discussed is a gross injustice, but that's what happens when everyone investigating and prosecuting, want the accused to be let go in the end.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

```

Effectively though, this decision has determined that one has the right to. The GJ has legitimized the actions of this killer. Lest anyone thinks that they'll be let go and allowed to return to their job if they do this themselves, as JJenny stated, be aware that it won't work out that way unless their regular job is as a policeman.

People in California have the right to defend themselves. If there is a threat of great bodily harm or death, there is no duty to retreat.

In this case the officer was shoved violently to the ground while holding his young child. He suffered a concussion. I think a reasonable person would believe the threat wasn’t over. I don’t have all the facts, but I think the grand jury got it right.

CALCRIM No. 505. Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another :: California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2017) :: Justia

When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable,
consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to
the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar
situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s
beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually
existed.
[The defendant’s belief that (he/she/ [or] someone else) was threatened
may be reasonable even if (he/she) relied on information that was not
true. However, the defendant must actually and reasonably have
believed that the information was true.]

 

[jjenny]

That should tell you ALL you need to know about how vigorously they pursued this with the GJ. The DA considers this "officer involved" even though anybody with half a brain knows that he was not on-duty or in uniform when the incident occurred. The fact his occupation was even discussed is a gross injustice, but that's what happens when everyone investigating and prosecuting, want the accused to be let go in the end.

Exactly. I long posted that from the start this was treated as an officer involved shooting (cop was not arrested, etc) and apparently that continued all the way to the grand jury. Grand jury would indict a ham sandwich, but presumably only if DA wants it to. I don't think this DA had any desire to get an indictment here.

 

[NervousNellie]

Not saying it was justified just wondering why he felt the need to fire off 10 rounds. Something triggered it. Can't say he went looking for trouble to fire his gun that day, and he wasn't on duty at the time. Just wondering if any of us, under the circumstances he was under, what we would have done especially when we have our family with us. If Sanchez was not a police officer would we be more "understanding" of his actions?

RBBM
Nope. I wold not.

 

[MsFacetious]

Not saying it was justified just wondering why he felt the need to fire off 10 rounds. Something triggered it. Can't say he went looking for trouble to fire his gun that day, and he wasn't on duty at the time. Just wondering if any of us, under the circumstances he was under, what we would have done especially when we have our family with us. If Sanchez was not a police officer would we be more "understanding" of his actions?

I thought about this overnight before responding because I couldn't figure out how to word my answer. I would not be more understanding, no. I would still want the person charged and I would still be devastated if they were not.

However, with a civilian my reaction would be more of a "what a complete idiot who should not be allowed to own a gun or maybe go out in public" type of response. I tend to assume most humans are idiots so their actions don't tend to surprise me I guess?

With a cop, my reaction is more of a: This is ridiculous and inexcusable. He had the training to know how to handle this situation. Backing away, taking cover, de-escalating, identifying your target, ensuring the target is actually a danger, ensuring you don't hit innocent people. He could have ended up being shot himself! What if a uniformed officer thought HE was a mass shooter and shot him? I mean it was completely reckless and inexcusable.

I hope people don't think they would get away with it. Unless they are cops.
By the way cop here was 20 feet away from the victims. It's beyond my understanding why anyone would think the shooting is justifiable. But yet apparently those on grand jury and the DA do.

"The off-duty Los Angeles police officer who fatally shot an emotionally disabled man and wounded his parents at a Corona Costco was about 20 feet from the victims when he opened fire, police said."
Costco shooting: LAPD officer was 20 feet away when he opened fire, police say

No wonder he missed 4 times.

20 feet.
How is that imminent danger?

20 feet.
HOW could he even know who knocked him down at all?

Are there real things we can do to fight this grand jury decision?
Is there any legal remedy to get them to take it to another grand jury, or decide to charge anyway?

This is one of those things that feels so obviously wrong. I just do not understand how a grand jury reached that decision unless they were missing facts. Were the parents able to testify at the grand jury?

 

[jjenny]

As far as I can tell the DA could have charged the cop without grand jury. He didn't charge him. I don't think he wanted the grand jury to indict either, because grand juries usually do what DA wants them to do. DA admitted this was treated as an officer related shooting. Parents testified before the grand jury, but apparently, most of the questions they were asked were about their mentally ill son behavior, and if he were ever aggressive prior to this incident.

 

[mickey2942]

I thought about this overnight before responding because I couldn't figure out how to word my answer. I would not be more understanding, no. I would still want the person charged and I would still be devastated if they were not.

However, with a civilian my reaction would be more of a "what a complete idiot who should not be allowed to own a gun or maybe go out in public" type of response. I tend to assume most humans are idiots so their actions don't tend to surprise me I guess?

With a cop, my reaction is more of a: This is ridiculous and inexcusable. He had the training to know how to handle this situation. Backing away, taking cover, de-escalating, identifying your target, ensuring the target is actually a danger, ensuring you don't hit innocent people. He could have ended up being shot himself! What if a uniformed officer thought HE was a mass shooter and shot him? I mean it was completely reckless and inexcusable.




No wonder he missed 4 times.

20 feet.
How is that imminent danger?

20 feet.
HOW could he even know who knocked him down at all?

Are there real things we can do to fight this grand jury decision?
Is there any legal remedy to get them to take it to another grand jury, or decide to charge anyway?

This is one of those things that feels so obviously wrong. I just do not understand how a grand jury reached that decision unless they were missing facts. Were the parents able to testify at the grand jury?

The DA gets to decide what to present to the Grand Jury. So, it really is a very manipulative system, the DA can present a completely damming case, or one that is relatively simple. Depending on what he wants the outcome to be.

I did a pretty good analysis of this situation before. Because Sanchez is claiming "self defense", the DA doesn't see this as a very winnable case. Nor does the public seem to interested in this case.

I would like to see NAMI, or some organizations take this situation as an example of how people who are mentally ill/disabled are treated by police, and even society. But, it is obvious, that the DA doesn't want to defend a mentally ill giant, it doesn't show well for re-election.

 

[jjenny]

Amber Guyger was convicted of murder, and this DA didn't even think he had enough evidence to prove the case for even some sort of attempted negligent or reckless crime against the parents? We know parents were never threatening this cop in any way, yet both were shot and have very serious consequences from this shooting. Even the mentally ill man was 20 feet away, and apparently moving away, so how was that life-threatening at the time of the shooting that this cop had no other alternative than using deadly force? Something stinks here to high heaven.

 

[SoCalDavidS]

Justice In Texas. No Justice In California.

To quote from Hamilton...."The World Turned Upside Down."