It’s become a media extravaganza. And now the truth is coming out. Body camera footage shows a teen killed by police had what appeared to be a real gun pointed at them.
On July 5th, a 17-year old female was shot and killed by Fullerton, CA police. The teen’s vehicle had sped past Fullerton police Cpl. Scott Flynn.
He attempted a traffic stop on an Anaheim freeway, authorities say in a video that includes body camera footage of the encounter. The driver then allegedly slammed into the officer’s patrol vehicle on purpose and made an abrupt U-turn facing the wrong way, Fullerton police public information officer Lt. Jon Radus said.
After calling for backup, Cpl. Flynn can be heard telling dispatch that suspect vehicle the “car TC’d (traffic collision) me on purpose…I have a female driver who is uncooperative.”
Lt. Radu continues:
“The officer exited his vehicle to make contact with the driver of the SUV. He approached from the driver’s side of the vehicle at which time he was confronted by a female. The female was in a shooting stance, with both arms extended in front of her, pointing a gun directly at the officer. This resulted in an officer-involved shooting.”
After the officer fired the shots that hit the female, he radioed that shots were fired.
“I have a suspect down on the freeway. I need medics please, the officer said.”
The officer and a witness then began treating the woman, applying both a tourniquet and a chest seal, in an attempt to save her life.
Fullerton Police released this video within days of the shooting, even though the department policy allows up to 45 days.
“Please keep in mind this is an initial review, and our understanding of this incident could possibly change as additional evidence is collected, analyzed and reviewed,” Fullerton Police Chief Bob Dunn said of the footage.
The female was transported to the hospital where she was pronounced dead.
Approximately 90 minutes after the shooting, the teen’s father called Anaheim police to say she had taken the family’s rental car and may have wanted to harm herself. This call does not exactly coincide with what the family told a local CNN affiliate the following week, the day before the footage was released to the family.
The suspect’s sister, Nyla Williams, who serves in the military and was stationed in New Mexico at the time of the shooting, said her sister worked as a lifeguard because she loved helping people.
“My sister, Hannah, she was very kind, very supportive. She was silly, you name it. She could make you smile no matter what you were feeling that day,” she said.
Hannah, who had just finished her junior year of high school, was in “a particularly joyous mood” before the shooting. She had her family in town from Houston and had made them pancakes that morning.
Later, she was pulling pranks on her relatives, dropping Mentos candies in their sodas to make them explode. The family was planning a trip to Hollywood that evening to take in the tourist attractions.
“We still do not have clear answers about what happened,” her family said in a statement. “Hannah was a beloved daughter, sister, niece, granddaughter, friend. She had her whole life ahead of her.”
Also prior to the release, the family’s attorney Lee Merritt said about the replica gun:
“We believe that to be a red herring. More importantly, this is not a case where we have to guess at what happened.”
Merritt demanded that the body camera footage be released to the family, if not to the public. The gun did not have a bright orange tip, as required by federal law, to indicate that it was fake.
Fullerton police released it the next day. Afterwards, Merritt acknowledged that because she was in a shooting stance, the officer had to “make a split-second decision,” adding, “we cannot exonerate him at this point, but we certainly can’t condemn him.”
And while the attorney’s statements after the videos release are admirable at best, his comments prior to are reckless. To paint the officer’s version of the shooting as intentional misleading or distracting (red herring argument) is a great way to stir up even more strife, contention and anger directed at our law enforcement community.
While it remains unclear what the suspect’s state of mind was at the time of the shooting, the video appears to make it very clear that the officer had reason to believe that there was a possibility that the female intended to use what appeared to be a real gun.
These types of situations are about to be even harder to deal with in California. As we reported earlier this week, California Assembly Bill 392 (AB392) was sent to the governor’s desk for signature into law.
This bill was introduced to regulate police use of deadly force. The amended version is sitting on the governor’s desk awaiting a signature.
The original text of the bill read:
“This bill would redefine the circumstances under which a homicide by a peace officer is deemed justifiable to include when the killing is in self-defense or the defense of another, consistent with the existing legal standard for self-defense, or when the killing is necessary to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon whose immediate apprehension is necessary to prevent death or serious injury.
The bill would additionally bar the use of this defense if the peace officer acted in a criminally negligent manner that caused the death, including if the officer’s criminally negligent actions created the necessity for the use of deadly force.”
Here is the amended text:
“This bill would redefine the circumstances under which a homicide by a peace officer is deemed justifiable to include when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that deadly force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person, or to apprehend a fleeing person for a felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless the person is immediately apprehended.”
Let’s pause here for a moment. They removed the concept of self-defense from the bill.
While the overlying idea behind self-defense is still present, California legislators added the wording “based on the totality of the circumstances.” This is where I take issue.
It is way too easy for a grand jury, a judge or a trial jury to Monday morning quarterback the situation from the safety of the courtroom. It is easy to look at the totality of circumstances after the fact. Officers must make a split-second decision. They do not always have access to the totality of the circumstances. This legislation, as passed by the State Assembly and Senate, uses this vague terminology to the detriment of our police officers, their safety and their decision-making process.
The bill’s language leads one to believe that an officer must abandon an arrest rather than fire a weapon.
While the female in this shooting could have avoided being shot by not pointing what turned out to be a harmless pistol at an officer, cops across this country consistently are looking at a suspect who is not only pointing a gun at them, but is sending rounds their way. The state of California is not doing our officers any favors with the passing of this legislation.
In June, a vote in Connecticut by a bunch of lawmakers who clearly are totally out of touch with the reality of policing just put people who break the law ahead of law enforcement.
The Connecticut Senate unanimously passed “sweeping police accountability legislation”. Then, after nearly three hours of questions by Republicans, the House passed it as well – nearly entirely along party lines.
Two Democrats, Reps. John Hampton and Ronald Napoli, Jr., joined Republicans voting against the measure. It passed 86-60.
The bill, which now goes to the governor to sign, would require the release of body or dash camera video within 96 hours of an incident upon request.
Like many of the bills that Connecticut politicians sneak through, this one was added as an amendment to other legislation.
And it reshapes the way police release information on use-of-force incidents and fatalities by requiring certain details to be made public on request within a set period of time.
Under the bill, the Division of Criminal Justice, in the case of a fatality involving police, would be required to release a status report identifying the person who died and giving details of how they died within five days of the determination of cause of death.
Police will not be allowed to shoot at or into fleeing vehicles unless there is “an imminent threat of death to another person”.
They also wouldn’t be allowed to position themselves in front of a fleeing motor vehicle and must notify other agencies when they chase a car across city lines.
“I think this is a thoughtful approach, but I realize not everyone out there may be perfectly happy with this,” said Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield.
He said that Sen. Kevin Witkos, a Canton Republican and former police officer, was in favor of the bill – which Witkos said the bill enhances police transparency and accountability.
“This allows police to do their work in a timely manner and review incidents but make those incidents available to the public,” Witkos said.
The bill passed the Senate unanimously after a five-hour discussion on providing benefits for police and firefighters suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome was tabled.
According to the bill’s sponsors, it was sparked by recent police shootings in New Haven and Wethersfield that left one woman wounded and an 18-year-old dead.
Other bills died in committee earlier this year, which were aimed at “greater transparency” after a 20-year-old man was fatally wounded while trying to escape New Britain police in late 2017.
Connecticut media reporting shows the clear bias that law enforcement face. For example, the CT News Junkie reported the following:
“Wethersfield officer Layau Eulizier shot 18-year-old Anthony Jose Vega Cruz as the teen tried to avoid being pulled over for a license plate violation. Vega Cruz died a few days later.”
They conveniently leave out that Cruz tried to run over Eulizier, which lead to the shooting. They ignore the fact that cars have brakes, but Cruz decided to step on the accelerator. They later blame it on the officer, saying he ran into the path of the vehicle and opened fire.
Advocacy groups in Connecticut protested loudly, calling for the release of dash- or body-camera video.
It’s a practice that State Police and the state’s attorneys who investigate police shootings rarely allow until an investigation is complete. Why? Because there’s an investigation underway. Once again, the “feelings” of these advocacy groups are given credence by lawmakers who seek to ignore facts.
The bill passed by the House and Senate would require that police release any video within 48 hours of the officer who was involved reviewing it, or 96 hours if the officer hasn’t been able to review it.
The incidents would have to involve “potential” disciplinary action.
On top of that, the bill adds the use of chokeholds and pursuits to the list of incidents they must provide a detailed report on, along with any incident that is likely to cause serious injury.
Those reports would have to be made starting in 2020. On top of that, they’d be required to have a summary of the race and gender of those involved, how the force was used, and any injuries suffered.
The bill creates a task force as well. Lawmakers say it will be “to study police transparency and accountability and requires the Police Officer Standards and Training Council to study and review the use of firearms by officers engaged in pursuits”.
On top of that, the state police will have to adopt and update regulations regarding police pursuits every five years.
In the House , Republicans questioned Rep. Steve Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, on the bill for nearly three hours.
They pointed out that certain provisions could hamstring officers during life-threatening situations.
“We shouldn’t be dictating what they can and cannot do to keep our communities safe,” Rep. J. P. Sredzinski, R-Monroe, said.
Republicans also wanted to know who determines the cause of death, and questioned Stafstrom about how the report could be filed five days after an incident if the cause of death had not yet been determined.
He said that doesn’t matter – it’s all about getting information out quickly.
“When some of these incidents occur in the community, it’s often the legislators who are fielding the calls,” Stafstrom said.
Of course the ACLU of Connecticut was ecstatic, and celebrated the passage of yet another measure that puts criminals ahead of law enforcement.
Here are the words of David McGuire, executive director of the ACLU of Connecticut:
“Information is power, and this transparency bill is a necessary first step toward placing power over police squarely where it belongs: with the people,” McGuire said. “No one should die or be harmed at the hands of police, and police should not be able to hide the number of times they hurt, kill, or threaten people. Transparency about police uses of force will not bring back people killed by police violence, but it is a critical tool for exposing police violence and enabling Connecticut to take democratic control over police.”
He goes on in a statement to say police hide information.
“Too often, it has taken public pressure and legal action for police to release body or dashboard camera footage they do not like. By requiring police to release body and dashboard camera footage within 96 hours of police hurting someone, with privacy protections for bystanders and victims of police violence, this law takes a critical step toward making police body cameras tools to serve the public instead of police PR goals.”
The way Senator Winfield, a Democrat from Connecticut, originally proposed language went so far as to essentially override a Supreme Court ruling.
Here’s the original story we exposed on the topic:
The Supreme Court has ruled that use of force has to be viewed from the perspective of an officer on the scene and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
That means that if an officer believes that deadly use of force is justified based on the information that officer has at the time of their split-second decision, then they are legally authorized to do what has to be done to protect themselves and the public.
It specifically protects them against the public and media perception of what everyone else thinks SHOULD have been done.
Take, for example, a recent officer-involved shooting in Wethersfield, Connecticut.
A suspect tried to run over an officer, who then killed the driver.
Some media outlets and politicians publicly tried to crucify that officer, claiming he could have “shot out the tires” (spoiler alert: it doesn’t even work that way in the movies).
Under Section 53a-22 in Connecticut, if the officer believed his life was in jeopardy, then he was justified in that shooting.
Connecticut Senator Winfield wants to change the law so that if an officer believes that his/her life or that of others is in jeopardy, but other facts or information later emerge after the killing, that the officer could be charged with murder.
It’s a ludicrous proposal made as a knee-jerk reaction to recent officer-involved shootings in Connecticut where an investigation still hasn’t been completed.
And if passed, it will put the lives of countless officers and those they serve and protect at risk.
Here’s what you need to know.
Here’s The Current Connecticut Law – Section 53a-22
The controversy surrounds a 2005 Connecticut Code – Section 53a-22 – “Use of physical force in making arrest or preventing escape”.
The law currently authorizes law enforcement officers to use deadly physical force only when they reasonably believe it is necessary to:
- defend themselves or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or
- make an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom they reasonably believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and, where feasible, they have given warning of their intent to use deadly physical force.
The law specifies that a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which, if true, would constitute an offense.
To simplify it – if an officer believes that a life is in jeopardy and will be lost if they don’t use deadly force, then they are authorized to use that force.
Here’s The Supreme Court Ruling That Backs It
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent the escape of a suspect.
That’s unless the officer reasonably believes that the suspect committed or attempted to commit crimes involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and a warning of the intent to use deadly physical force was given, whenever feasible.
That stems from the ruling in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)).
But a second ruling four years later basically says if an officer has to make a split-second decision based on what they believe to be a threat, then they are protected.
That ruling came in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 396, 397 (1989)).
In that ruling, the Court has said:
the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of “precise definition” or “mechanical application.” “[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight….” Moreover, “allowance must be made for the fact that 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 question is whether the officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them.
Read: Monday morning quarterbacking can’t be used to convict and officer who believed that he or she had no choice but to use deadly force.
Here’s What Senator Winfield Wants
An investigation that’s completed within 15 days of an officer involved shooting. Records made public immediately at the completion of the 15 days. A number of other tweaks to current law.
But here’s the big one… the one that puts his proposal at odds with the United States Supreme Court ruling.
He wants to add into the law that an investigation will be completed “based upon a preponderance of the evidence”.
Why is that such a big deal?
Simply put, it means that politicians and investigators can Monday morning quarterback the officer’s decision. It means that even if that officer made a decision based on all of the information that he or she had at the time of that split-second decision, that they can later be convicted if more information arises that he or she didn’t have access to when pulling the trigger.
Read: unless an officer is a mind-reader or traveled in time, then they’re guilty for pulling the trigger – even if they believed they had no choice to stay alive or keep others alive.
It also proposes language that restricts police officers from discharging their firearms at a moving vehicle during a pursuit with intent to apprehend the occupant of the motor vehicle.
Here are the specifics of the proposed legislation (changes are underlined).
“AN ACT CONCERNING POLICE MISCONDUCT. ”
Strike everything after the enacting clause and substitute the following in lieu thereof:
“Section 1. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2017) No collective bargaining agreement entered into on or after July 1, 2017, shall contain any provision that limits the application of the provisions of section 51-277a of the general statutes, as amended by this act, to any peace officer, as defined in section 53a-3 of the general statutes.
Sec. 2. Section 51-277a of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective July 1, 2017):
(a) Whenever a peace officer, in the performance of such officer’s duties, uses physical force upon another person [and such person dies as a result thereof,] and such force results in a discharge of a firearm resulting in bodily injury, bone fracture, periorbital hematoma, wrist hematoma, concussion, laceration requiring sutures or any other force exceeding that which is reasonably necessary to accomplish a lawful purpose the Division of Criminal Justice shall cause an investigation to be [made] completed not later than fifteen business days after such use of physical force and shall have the responsibility of determining, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, whether the use of physical force by the peace officer was appropriate under section 53a-22. The division shall request (1) the [appropriate] employing law enforcement agency to provide all information in its possession relevant to such use of physical force, and (2) such assistance as is necessary from any appropriate law enforcement agency, other than the employing law enforcement agency, to determine the circumstances of the incident.
(b) In causing such an investigation to be made, the Chief State’s Attorney shall, (1) as provided in section 51-281, designate a prosecutorial official from a judicial district other than the judicial district in which the incident occurred to conduct the investigation, or (2) as provided in subsection (a) of section 51-285, appoint a special assistant state’s attorney or special deputy assistant state’s attorney to conduct the investigation. The Chief State’s Attorney [shall] may, upon the request of such prosecutorial official or special prosecutor, appoint a special inspector or special inspectors to assist in such investigation.
(c) Upon the conclusion of the investigation of the incident, the division shall file a report with the Chief State’s Attorney which shall contain the following: (1) The circumstances of the incident, (2) a determination of whether the use of physical force by the peace officer was appropriate under section 53a-22, and (3) any future action to be taken by the Division of Criminal Justice as a result of the incident. The Chief State’s Attorney shall provide a copy of the report to the chief executive officer of the municipality in which the incident occurred and to the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection or the chief of police of such municipality, as the case may be, and shall contemporaneously make such report available to the public.
(d) If the division determines that the use of physical force was not appropriate under section 53a-22, the peace officer shall be immediately suspended without pay by the appropriate law enforcement agency until the conclusion of any further proceedings involving such incident. If such peace officer is exonerated of all charges related to such incident, such peace officer shall be paid the full amount of all withheld pay.
(e) Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, on or after July 1, 2017, if any peace officer is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to any (1) inappropriate use of physical force in violation of section 53a-22, or (2) crime of violence involving the unlawful use or threatened use of physical force under any other provision of the general statutes related to such peace officer’s employment, the appropriate law enforcement agency shall immediately terminate such peace officer’s employment.”
What The Experts Are Saying
According to Elliot Spector, an attorney who specializes in law enforcement, this contradicts the primary holding in the U.S. Supreme Court Case of Tennessee v. Garner.
“The Court stated that a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others,” said Spector.
He also said that proposed language would prevent an officer from stopping a fleeing vehicle in other ways as well.
“If an officer positions his or her patrol vehicle in front of a fleeing vehicle while remaining in his or her patrol vehicle, then technically, their “body” is in front of the fleeing car,” he said. “This would be restricted under Winfield’s proposal.”
He says the proposal takes away the ability of an officer to protect innocent people.
“This provision justifies the “unreasonable” believe that people will drive toward officers without regard to the life of an officer rather than complying with the officer’s orders,” he said.
He poses whether it makes more sense to allow suspects who pose a risk to innocent citizens to escape.
“Does it make sense to take away this tactic because of the risk that the dangerous person may be harmed and then continue to endanger innocent persons?” he asked. “This flies in the face of Scott v. Harris where the (Supreme Court) articulated the officers greater responsibility to protect innocent people even if it means using deadly force against those who create the risk to others.”
Law Enforcement Today obtained a copy of an email sent from Spector the IACP Legal Officer’s list serve responding to the question about racial & ethnic disparity in police use of force.
“If these legislators want to make effective change they should bring more police into schools to teach our children about the risks of engaging in unlawful acts and high risk behaviors,” he said. “The question in these cases is not ‘why did the officers use deadly force’, but ‘why did these young men chose to put themselves at risk by their unlawful and dangerous behaviors’.”
Spector says questionable shootings are rare in Connecticut.
“I had about 110 veteran officers in classes the last 2 weeks. None had ever shot anyone, but approximately 70 could have legally shot but chose not to, including me. I’ve been doing this survey for 4 years and have had probably 5,000 officers who have been surveyed. I may get one officer in a class and once in a while 2 who have shot someone but usually 60-70 % of the class could have shot but didn’t. Cops in CT use great restraint,” he said.
Here’s what Spector said in his email:
The best source for an analysis of the racial/ethnic disparity may be in comparing the Washington Post Police Shooting reports from 1/1/2015 and updated almost daily with FBI UCRs.
The POST classified the types of incidents in 2015 leading to police shooting deaths. Of the 991 deaths:
730 involved violent crimes (shootouts, stabbings, hostage situations and assaults) 73.7%
783 persons armed with deadly weapons 79%
54 motor vehicles (driving at or dragging officers, ramming cruisers)
34 toy weapons
39 unknown weapons
93 unarmed (most believed to be armed, retrieving a weapon, attacking or fighting police)
Obviously there is an overlap in the above classifications as you may have a person committing a violent crime who is also armed with a deadly weapon. The conclusion is clear that almost all police shootings involve people committing violent crimes who are actually or perceived to be posing a risk of serious injury or death to officers or others. Descriptions and classifications by the POST in subsequent years is less complete.
Compare the POST analysis and statistics with the FBI UCRs.
From 2014 to 2017 Blacks/African Americans arrested for the following offenses included approximately:
52% of all murders and intentional manslaughters
55.3% of all robberies
37.3% of all violent crimes
32.9% of all aggravated assaults
The harsh reality is that we are not doing enough to help our nation’s children to make better life decisions so they do not commit crimes that lead to confrontations with police.
If Senator Winfield really cares about protecting the public, instead of proposing ludicrous legislation like this… he should instead spend some time doing some ride-alongs with police departments. He should then take a couple of days and go through role-playing exercises with departments that show the split-second decisions they have to make.
This legislation is bad for police officers… bad for everyday citizens… and good only for those who like knee-jerk reactions meant at removing safety, law and order from society.