Sheriff's office releases video of Danville police fatal shooting | Town Square | DanvilleSanRamon.com |

Town Square

Post a New Topic

Sheriff's office releases video of Danville police fatal shooting

Original post made on Dec 9, 2019

The video shows Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Deputy Andrew Hall shooting 33-year-old Newark resident Laudemer Arboleda to death at close range while Arboleda was attempting to evade police in his car near downtown Danville in 2018.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, December 9, 2019, 12:10 PM

Comments (88)

80 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 9, 2019 at 2:48 pm

I watched the videos. The deceased driver was trying to evade a police blockade by driving around the blockade, if successful, the deceased likely would have driven onto the nearby freeway onramp and would have evaded capture.

Adrenaline levels almost certainly would have been high, both in the police and in the deceased. You react how you were trained in a stressful event.

The deceased did not attempt to run over a police officer. The bad guy simply was trying to avoid being stopped by the blockade of parked police cars. Shooting into the deceased driver's car at close range was not mandatory to prevent injury or death to an officer. The bad guy trying to evade the blockade was simply shot multiple times at close range. He was executed for attempting to evade police.

Police training needs to be modified to prevent summary executions when not mandatory to save the life of someone being threatened. (I am not a bleeding heart liberal, far from it.)

Recently in San Francisco, an apparently intoxicated vagrant walking down a sidewalk alone, waving a knife, was shot many times by about 7 police. Each police officer was physically much bigger than the individual they shot multiple times and killed. Too bad police training didn't allow for distracting that vagrant while another officer applies "baton" to the side of the knee while another pepper sprays. Result would be one very injured vagrant, but at least not a dead one executed by many gunshots.

This is screaming for improvement in Police training.


63 people like this
Posted by sjd
a resident of another community
on Dec 9, 2019 at 4:11 pm

Echoing resident...

Not defending the decision to run. But one can clearly see the driver was NOT attempting to murder a police officer as a goal.

The Sherrif’s statement is nonsense and he should retract it, because community trust is vital.


64 people like this
Posted by Mark
a resident of Danville
on Dec 9, 2019 at 4:50 pm

The cop should face murder charges. Very disappointing to think about chief Shields statements after the event. Have lost faith in the Danville police. They did not ever intend this video to go public. An group focused on police accountability had to pursue it. I am sickened after watching the video of a police officer positioning him self to kill the driver with no risk to himself. The disregard of his follow officers in the line of fire shows a cop out of control.


10 people like this
Posted by Jennifer
a resident of Danville
on Dec 9, 2019 at 5:34 pm

The police had every right to shoot him. What part of cooperate with the police or you will be shot don't these suspects understand? The suspect has nobody to blame but himself. He signed his own death warrant. Every story is the same. Someone refusing to cooperate with the police, and then he's shot dead. And rightfully so. This has NOTHING to do with race. We'd all get shot in the same situation.

The police shoot to STOP A THREAT. A vehicle coming at you weighing several tons IS A THREAT. Do you really expect the officer to just let him go? Give me a break.


12 people like this
Posted by Greg T
a resident of Diablo
on Dec 9, 2019 at 6:21 pm

Boy, that race-baiting lawyer John Burris is really something! He can find racism under a rock. I'm surprised he hasn't sued the clouds for raining on 'people of color' - even though it rains on everyone.


69 people like this
Posted by Carl
a resident of Danville
on Dec 9, 2019 at 6:28 pm

The officer gave no commands and approached from the side of the car. The cop is guilty and the DA knows it. A bored cop gets a chance to pull his gun and runs to insure he is standing next to the car not in front of the car. Not obeying a police officer is a misdemeanor not a capital offense.
Danville pd are in serious need of training and proper supervision. This cop needs to pulled from streets of Danville and placed on a desk until he is fired.

The video fails to show that the car speeds up and impacts a car on the opposite side head on. So much for "STOP A THREAT" the cop created a threat that was far greater than a confused man driving 2 mph from the 3rd screwed up attempt at boxing him in.


57 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 9, 2019 at 7:55 pm

Jen---let me get it strait, you just stated-----cooperate with police or be shot multiple times.????


56 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Walnut Creek
on Dec 9, 2019 at 8:14 pm

I watched the video.

That was clear and cut murder in the first degree!!!

How anyone can think anything else is beyond me.

The police should have setup a better blockade and or shot his tires out. There are many things the officers could have done to prevent this ending in murder. Now they have a moving car with a victim hurdling out off control.


6 people like this
Posted by Steve
a resident of Diablo
on Dec 9, 2019 at 10:58 pm

So why did he feel he could drive away because he didn't want to stop. A certain segment of society will never respect law enforcement. Why are people defending him, and criticizing law enforcement? It make no sense.


Like this comment
Posted by Nick
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 9, 2019 at 11:20 pm

I have no idea how cops are trained to handle situations like this. One thing I do know - the cops will always win. They're armed, and anyone who thinks they can out do the cops is stupid. They will use deadly force every time.


60 people like this
Posted by Mark
a resident of Danville
on Dec 10, 2019 at 6:54 am

The title of the article is misleading the sheriff office did not release the video. "The video was obtained by the news coalition California Reporting Project last week in response to a public records act request" No way Contra Costa Sheriff would release such a damming video. Contra Costa Sheriff office ranks at the bottom for transparency and accountability among California police departments. They have one of the highest rates of injuries and deaths during pursuits.

When does a police department get to add text and slant the public's perception of a piece of evidence. They managed to omit the other 2 times they attempted to stop the driver and the car smashing into another car after the driver was killed. A public records request should not be for an edited version of the event it should be from 1st police contact until the car has stopped moving. Shame on Contra Costa Sheriff attempting to lower the impact of a police officer killing a man. My concern is what other editing did the Sheriff's department do to the audio/video.


5 people like this
Posted by Parent and Voter
a resident of Danville
on Dec 10, 2019 at 8:36 am

Parent and Voter is a registered user.

It is NOT "clear" about what happened other than a car being used as a potential weapon.


8 people like this
Posted by Jennifer
a resident of Danville
on Dec 10, 2019 at 8:46 am

The car was being used as a potential weapon. And the police shoot to stop a threat. A potential weapon (a vehicle) IS a threat, and why others can't understand this is beyond comprehension.


24 people like this
Posted by Taxpayer
a resident of Danville
on Dec 10, 2019 at 8:55 am

How was the car being used as a weapon?
At no point did the driver attempt to run anyone over or into anything.
If driving a car is a threat then everyone is guilty.


5 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 10, 2019 at 9:10 am

@ Parent and Voter... Bingo! I have been waiting for someone to point out exactly why the officer used deadly force in this incident.

A vehicle is considered a deadly weapon in cases where the driver intended to hit another driver or pedestrian. Some driving under the influence cases are also charged as assault with a deadly weapon. The driver of that car not only failed to stop, he drove in the direction of the officer.

Now, can you imagine if Danville PD had allowed this driver to continue on with his erratic behavior, only to hit a pedestrian or another vehicle?

Yet, folk like Resident of San Ramon attempt to explain away the driver’s behavior with this opening monologue: “The deceased did not attempt to run over a police officer. The bad guy simply was trying to avoid being stopped by the blockade of parked police cars.” Say what?

Resident, go back and look at the video. The driver is driving towards the officer. More importantly, the officer had his firearm drawn - which by all accounts would have signaled to a normal person to stop immediately.


56 people like this
Posted by Cody
a resident of Danville
on Dec 10, 2019 at 10:18 am

Malcolm,
"Now, can you imagine if Danville PD had allowed this driver to continue on with his erratic behavior, only to hit a pedestrian or another vehicle? " The cop killed the driver and the car then increased speed and struck a vehicle on the opposite side of the road. Killing the driver did not decrease the threat to the public. Cars do not stop just because you kill the driver. The car could have easily wiped out a troop of girl scouts on the sidewalk. The cop's actions are not defensible and he will be found guilty.


14 people like this
Posted by Nick
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 10, 2019 at 11:51 am

The vehicle was driving towards the officer. He considered it a threat. And it was. So he shot him. If you can't understand this, you're ignorant.

Taxpayer - We all drive vehicles, but we don't drive them towards POLICE OFFICERS. There is a BIG difference.


11 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 10, 2019 at 1:08 pm

Hi Cody.

1. Let me try to put this in perspective for you. The suspect was being chased by Danville PD and refused to stop.

2. The suspect attempted to evade police by driving around emergency vehicles with flashing red light and failed to stop.

3. The suspect drove his vehicle towards to officer in his effort to avoid arrest and failed to stop.

4. The officer drew his department issued firearm and pointed it at the suspect; however, the suspect again failed to stop.

5. The officer then fired his department issued firearm directly into the car - STEPPING BACKWARDS AS HE SHOOTS TO AVOID THE CARS PATH.

These are the facts Cody. What is not factual is your moot point about the girl scouts - thank goodness! The "what ifs" do not apply here.

Lastly, just out of curiosity, what court is going to find the officer involved guilty? Are you talking civil or criminal? As far as I know, the Contra Costa County District Attorneys Office has not filed a complaint against the officer.


39 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Walnut Creek
on Dec 10, 2019 at 1:45 pm

BINGO CODY!


35 people like this
Posted by Alamo
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 10, 2019 at 1:52 pm

Malcolm wanna be X or whomever you are, i have noticed you like to talk as if you have facts when they are just really your opinion. You can skew or justify what happened however you want, at the end of the day it was unnecessary force and the officers and department could have done a much better job.



5 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 10, 2019 at 3:04 pm

Hi Alamo,

Did you not just give your opinion regarding the officer's use of deadly force? You sound a tad hypocritical; especially considering you offer nothing to counter what is in the video.

You should educate yourself and read the Danville Police Department's Policy and Procedures - namely Use of Force Policy. Emotions often run high after a police involved shooting.


3 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 10, 2019 at 3:15 pm

From Resident of Walnut Creek:

"Too bad police training didn't allow for distracting that vagrant while another officer applies "baton" to the side of the knee while another pepper sprays."

Hey Resident, would you allow yourself to get that close to someone with a knife? A knife can be used as a deadly weapon; as can a car, baseball bat, rock, etc. Did you not hear about what happened recently in London? No cop would ever let a suspect near him waving a knife around. Deadly force amounts to deadly force.


12 people like this
Posted by American
a resident of Danville
on Dec 10, 2019 at 3:38 pm

I just can not comprehend the logic of anyone who is suggesting the problem in this situation was the actions of the police officer. Drive around the Bay Area and see how often you see the name of a police officer listed on a memorial who died while trying to protect complete strangers from danger. Police officers are hero's who kiss their spouses and children good bye every single day and leave for work, not knowing if they will ever return to see their loved ones. At least, police officers use to be treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. Now, ambulance chasing lawyers, and liberal media seek to label them racist killers, second guessing their every action.

Police officers have to make life and death decisions in a split second, and no matter what they choose someone will second guess their decision, and seek to make them the problem. The police respond to problems, they do not cause them. They have to deal with the worst of the worst of society, never knowing if the so called routine traffic stop will result in the driver pulling a gun on them. Do any of you actually think this police officer wanted to have to shoot and kill this guy? Of course not, the same way military members hate war, the police hate having to use force, including potential fatal force, to stop a criminal suspect. But that is their job, to protect strangers from criminal threats.

Please, stop being a Monday morning quarterback, and always second guessing their actions. Until you walk in their shoes, and know all the facts, do not crucify the police for having the courage to do a job most of us could never do. Why do you think there is such a shortage of police officers? If society continues on this path of blaming the police for the actions of a criminal who refused to follow a lawful order, than we will continue to have a shortage of police officers, which will lead to more chaos and unrest.


25 people like this
Posted by sjd
a resident of another community
on Dec 10, 2019 at 6:16 pm

I don't have to be an ambulance chasing lawyer to watch a video and see that the cop basically ran into the path that the car was attempting to go already. Equating that with "trying to run down and murder a police officer" is ridiculous. The driver had clearly already turned his wheels fully to the right as the officer was rounding his patrol car and in fact turns them straight instead of ramming the officer into his own patrol car. Watch the video again.

Expecting the sheriff to speak the facts about the situation and not casually throw around attempted murder means I want the good cops to get the respect they deserve and the bad cops to leave. I want to restore that trust that has been lost.

The US is very unique in the world with regards to officer involved shootings and use of force against vehicles - and it shows in the number of them we have

I don't think anything was in this officer's head - I think he split-second reacted in a way that the department should explicitly ban. That is not an assault on his character but rather on his training. Shooting a driver doesn't make the car stop and frequently puts others in more danger. We did the same thing with high-speed police pursuits and we should do it here.

By the way, here's an informative review of the legal history:
Web Link


8 people like this
Posted by Steve
a resident of Diablo
on Dec 10, 2019 at 7:49 pm

A CRIMINAL WHO REFUSED TO FOLLOW A LAWFUL ORDER. We've all seen the consequences of not following the order of the police. For those who are criticizing the police. Do you really expect the police to let you keep on driving if you don't stop? They're cops with guns, not crossing guards. This could happen to anyone who doesn't follow police orders. I have no empathy for this idiot that was shot. He made his bed. He's lying in it.


32 people like this
Posted by sjd
a resident of another community
on Dec 10, 2019 at 7:59 pm

“Do you really expect the police to let you keep on driving if you don't stop?”

I have the audacity to expect the police to act in the informed interest of public safety, like they do when choosing to discontinue high speed police chases in the same interest.

So yes, I expect them to let you keep driving and follow you with a helicopter or more police cars. I expect them to exhaust every reasonable opportunity to not be the judge of a situation, and apprehend you in a way that is safe to you and to the general public, so long as you are not an imminent threat to others. This was a call in about someone ringing doorbells and there are indications of mental health problems. The police probably didn’t know that part at the time, but that’s why police should act defensively.

I also expect their leadership to not misrepresent the facts about a case to the general public.


34 people like this
Posted by Ed
a resident of Danville
on Dec 10, 2019 at 8:23 pm

I Watched the video no doubt in my mind the cop will be charged with manslaughter. DA is probably busy getting ready for trial.

This incident is very much like "Newark Officer Jovanny Crespo" Who jumped out of his patrol car an ran on foot to kill the driver of a car that was fleeing. Crespo is facing manslaughter charges currently.


26 people like this
Posted by alamo
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 10, 2019 at 8:26 pm

what if a citizen who legal owned a fire arm with a CCW had pulled his weapon and shot a driver 10 times who was supposedly attempting to hit them with their vehicle in self defence afraid for their lives. Would that person be free of any crime. Of course not here in california, so why would should the officer be treated any different?


5 people like this
Posted by Nick
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 10, 2019 at 8:38 pm

Why should an officer be treated any differently? Because they're police officers who enforce the law. And this guy was breaking the law. That's why.

Whether or not he was trying to kill the officer is irrelevant. The police officer saw him as a threat. Cooperate with the police, or pay the price.

No jury would convict even if he did go to trial.


6 people like this
Posted by Parent and Voter
a resident of Danville
on Dec 10, 2019 at 8:54 pm

Parent and Voter is a registered user.

I knew that being a police officer was a difficult job but did not know how much hate can be directed at them. We have several people acting as judge and jury based om a video clip of a small portion of the event.
I happened to be walking downtown when this was happening. I did not see the shooting but knew that the "victim" had been involved in a police chase where he could have hurt or killed others with his reckless driving. If he had cooperated then he would be alive, even if not free.


27 people like this
Posted by sjd
a resident of another community
on Dec 10, 2019 at 9:12 pm

Asking for the highest standard of conduct is not "hate." I understand the officer may have perceived a threat, regardless of whether he was the one who ran into the path of the car or the driver drove at him.

"We have several people acting as judge and jury based om a video clip"
The cop acted as final judge too. And you can find the comments on the videos from last year that took the sheriff at his word and judged the driver.

But again 1) shooting a driver attempting to escape results in higher risk than simply avoiding in almost every case. The officer was shooting in the direction of another patrol car through the escaping car, the driver did not meaningfully change direction as a result of the officer firing his weapon, and the driver, after being shot, drove into traffic when he was incapacitated.

2) by any reasonable viewing of this video, the sheriff misrepresented the intent of the driver.


1 person likes this
Posted by Malcolm Hex
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 10, 2019 at 11:54 pm

Hey sjd, maybe you should write Danville Police Department’s use of force policy. Naw, on second thought, don’t do that. You have no idea what is considered a “perceived threat.”

But alas, here’s a real gem from sjd, he said: “I don't think anything was in this officer's head - I think he split-second reacted in a way that the department should explicitly ban.” The officer acted in what way?

I guess involuntary muscle stimulation took control over the officer’s thoughts - which forced the officer to react outside of his training? Sjd should consider what is considered a deadly weapon. Here are a few:

An unloaded gun (if used to club or hit someone).
A bottle (if used to attack someone).
A pencil (if used to stab someone).
A BB gun.
A dog that will attack humans on command.
A pocket knife.
A hammer.
A car (used in an attempt to run someone down).

So, sjd, would you use deadly force if someone came at you with the threats I listed above? Hmm?


2 people like this
Posted by Bebop Delux
a resident of another community
on Dec 11, 2019 at 12:26 am

Brother Malcolm is on fire! But I have to say, the brother gets right to the point.

Moreover, folks need to understand the difference between a perceived threat and a real threat.

The Supreme Court said a police officer's own perception of a threat must only be reasonable, not correct. When in doubt, the rulings have suggested, given the dangerous nature of their jobs, police officers have the authority to judge whether a threat is present.

Well, there you have it. Of course, that's not to say that a police officer is free from being charged with unlawful conduct. The court simply stated that a police officer's actions must only be reasonable, not correct.

The video shows the driver of the car heading in the direction of the police officer after failing to stop. Remember, if the officer's actions are not correct, they are reasonable.


41 people like this
Posted by Ed
a resident of Danville
on Dec 11, 2019 at 6:23 am

If the cop did nothing wrong why does the DA still have the case open. The charge will be manslaughter. A cop can not get out of his car and position himself to shoot the driver as the car passes at 2 mph. How many things the cop did wrong.
1) Did not box the car in correctly
2) Left the safety of his car.
3) No verbal commands before shooting.
4) No threat of a gun spotted in car.
5) Did not insure his line of fire was clear of other officers.
6) Did not take into account the safety of other motorist or pedestrians in the area. Which resulted in the car crashing into a car after driver killed.
7) No other officers felt the need to fire weapons or leave their vehicles. He was the lone cowboy who decided it was a good idea to confront the car on foot.

The DA will be pressing charges in the next couple months. The was not a policemen in a dark alley with a suspect reaching into his waistband. This is a bright sunny day in Danville with a confused man fleeing at 2 mph.


38 people like this
Posted by sjd
a resident of another community
on Dec 11, 2019 at 6:26 am

Malcolm,
I think the officer reacted according to his training, if that wasn't clear.

A car is different than all of those objects, because shooting the driver doesn't stop the threat.

Bebop,
I understand what a perceived threat is. I suggest you read the link I posted.


34 people like this
Posted by Alamo
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 11, 2019 at 7:34 am

Unfortunately sjd we have people like Malcolm and Bebop who use no common sense and react out of bias and emotion rather than good judgement. Thankfully this is just a forum for people to express their opinion and not from elected public servants who make decisions about the communities they serve.


39 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Danville
on Dec 11, 2019 at 7:40 am

Once Malcolm Hex joins the discussion all reasonable dialog grinds to a halt.


4 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 11, 2019 at 9:31 am

LOL!!! The all knowing Ed is proclaiming what will happen to the officer. Ed, your logic is so flawed. Let’s say we break it down, eh?

You said the charge against the officer will be manslaughter. Really? And you know this how? Are you the DA, or do you have some inside information? You little all knowing you! LOL!

But then Ed, the expert on felony car stops, said the officer did not properly box the suspect’s car in. Exigent circumstances do not always give police officers time to do what you think they should have done, Ed. No wonder your Monday morning quarterback jersey has a zero on it.

Ah, then Ed said the officer should not have left the safety of his car? Why, Ed? Police officers exit their cars on a regular basis to assist in felony car stops, write tickets, exchange information. Yeah, it’s what they do. According to you Ed, police should never exit their cars, eh? Ed then said the officer gave no verbal commands before shooting. First, the lights and sirens did not sway the suspect to stop the vehicle. What makes you think the suspect would stop given verbal commands? Plus, the suspect was inside his car. More importantly, the suspect continued in the direction of the officer, even though the officer had drawn his weapon.

Here is another goody: Ed said, “No threat of gun in the suspects car.” Hey Ed, the threat posed to the officer was a car, not a gun. And then Ed, the faux SWAT commander, said the officer did not insure his line of fire was clear of other officers. What? LOL! The officer shot directly into the car at close range. There were no police or civilians between the officer and the suspect.

And last, but certainly not least, Ed said the DA will be pressing charges in the next couple of months. Ed “The know it all” apparently has the inside scoop. Stay tuned America.



Like this comment
Posted by Malcolm Hex
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 11, 2019 at 9:41 am

@ SJD...

As I stated before, you have to see what is in the Danville Police Department Use of Force Policy. Police departments differ on standards when it come to shooting at a moving vehicle.


1 person likes this
Posted by Malcolm Hex
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 11, 2019 at 9:43 am

Yeah Mike, like you just added something useful.


30 people like this
Posted by Another Mike
a resident of Danville
on Dec 13, 2019 at 10:54 am

Mike, sjd, Alamo, Resident, Mark (and others) - just wanted to chime in to let you know that your thoughtful, reasonable voices are heard and very much appreciated. I'm glad such perspectives can still be found in and around Danville. Sort of restores my faith in humanity. Thank you.


4 people like this
Posted by Jennifer
a resident of Danville
on Dec 13, 2019 at 11:33 am

Most of the comments on PleasantonWeekly.com are in favor of the police. You would think the Danville community would be more supportive of our police officers. Too many liberals.


17 people like this
Posted by sjd
a resident of another community
on Dec 13, 2019 at 3:14 pm

Stop conflating "disagreement with use of force policies" and "sheriffs should be honest" with not "support[ing] our police officers."

It's a false choice.


1 person likes this
Posted by Malcolm Hex
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 13, 2019 at 3:55 pm

And you, sjd, subscribe to false narratives. I can't help but wonder about your thought process when you say things like:

"I don't have to be an ambulance chasing lawyer to watch a video and see that the cop basically ran into the path that the car was attempting to go already."

So, if the police officer ran in front of the vehicle, why did the driver not stop? And since the driver did not stop, the officer used lethal force.

The incident is unfortunate - that we would all agree. But the officer used force necessary to stop what he considered a threat.

Again, the Supreme Court said a police officers actions do not have to be right, but they have to be reasonable. The officer's actions where reasonable.


1 person likes this
Posted by Malcolm Hex
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 13, 2019 at 4:28 pm

Were reasonable.


25 people like this
Posted by Bruce
a resident of Danville
on Dec 13, 2019 at 8:05 pm

In the middle of a car pursuit how reasonable is it to get out your car and decide to pursue on foot. Of course after getting out of his car he had to kill the driver or he would look the fool that he was as the car passed by at 2 mph. Which would have happened because he was standing to the side of the car the officer was not in the path of the car. Two steps back and he was out of any danger what so ever. But the cop also became aware that he was the one that screwed up. If he stayed in the car a simple press of the gas and the driver would have been boxed in.

Will be great to listen to the cop in court explain his actions they make no sense.


26 people like this
Posted by Bruce
a resident of Danville
on Dec 13, 2019 at 8:18 pm

I realized I missed Ed's reference to this video which shows a true high speed pursuit and a gun spotted. The cop is facing charges because he decided it was a good idea to jump out of the patrol car and shot the bad guys. Compare the two videos and even with high speed and gun. The cop still did the wrong thing by just running up to car a blasting away.
Web Link
"Police video shows the traffic stop and pursuit that lead to Newark Officer Jovanny Crespo fatally shooting the driver and injuring the passenger Jan. 28, 2019. Crespo was indicted for charges including aggravated manslaughter"


4 people like this
Posted by 2BConsidered
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 14, 2019 at 8:22 am

2BConsidered is a registered user.

Malcolm Hex, I see you trying to help shed light here and you are making a valiant effort to educate, not in theory, but in reality.

I do not know any parties involved, nor anyone on this board. Just consider this...before judging either party here.

Can we at least agree that the 'action' the public sees in movies, TV shows, and video games is NOT reality? Nor are the sound bites edited together for our 10 or 11 o'clock news whatever the channel or political bent.

The truth is real violence can happen in milliseconds and life can change with the snap of a finger, or the push on a gas peddle, a swipe of a blade, or the pull of a trigger? For those that care to learn what it is really like when working within the realm of criminal violence, or just spontaneous violence in general, become a police officer, or join the service, and/or avail yourself to literature from places like Force Science Institute where doctors and law enforcement actually study real life scenarios, not theory or uneducated decisions after seeing limited evidence. You see, even in violent pugilistic events like the UFC or boxing or martial arts where blood is shed, there are rules...But in real world there are not.

Real violence is simply not pretty, whether it is seeing part of a police shooting, successful taser deployment where someone falls on the concrete or has a fatal injury, or an unsuccessful taser deployment where a cop gets brutally murdered, seeing someone jumping off the bridge in front of you, someone shooting themselves or shooting at others, seeing a train hitting a pedestrian or a vehicle filled with family and seeing the results, witnessing a drunk driver killing an entire family, a teen speeding through an intersection resulting in a collision where the mother is crushed in front of her young children in the other car... Real violence is not back-lit perfectly, not in slow motion viewed in multiple angles that took hours/days to produce, or any not documented in 70mm cameras with telephoto lens from multiple filters, and real action is not filmed 30 or 40 takes "just to get it right". In the moments where violence and visceral action is occurring right in front of you after a someone makes a decision to act in an unlawful way causing a threat to officers or the public, there are no 2nd, 3rd, or 30th 'takes' like in the movies, or TV, or pushing the button to start a 'new game' on whatever action. CGI cannot make it look better. It is what it is. This video is one piece of information that will be considered by the professionals like the investigators and District Attorney's office.

Body Warn Cameras and Car cameras can be helpful (after the fact) to offer a two-dimensional perspective limited to the four corners of a 4:3 frame capturing perhaps some of the events and offer a timeline of events...However, each camera angle shows a limited two-dimensional Point of View. Whereas, a trained officer has ONE TAKE, to see/hear something in front/beside of them sometime partial obscured by foliage/a car/a pocket/a sweater/ a backpack, then somehow perceive what that means based on training and experience, then IN THAT ONE MOMENT, they need to make a split second decision.

What I just described takes precious portions of time, yet no police action to stop the threat had been taken yet. Interestingly, an officer's decision does not mean their firearm has unholstered or has been fired yet, it means they made a decision. (notably, at that moment the person in front of the officer has already made their decision and currently acting out their threatening actions against an officer or member of the public - so they are one step ahead of the officer) Perceiving the threat, an officer's brain now needs tell heir body to obtain their firearm, to find sight picture, check the backdrop, check the threat is still imminent, and pull their trigger, then access again if there is still a threat to them or others, and pull again the threat is still there... The above ALL needs to happen in milliseconds. And Action/Reaction time is human. Guess what, cops are human; they have better training, but they are human. This is real, not the movies, TV, or not video game.

What people often do not know or understand is the officer's perception is also evidence. Known radio traffic, past actions the subject did, issues of the location, the time of day, lighting, conditions, pedestrians, person history if known...What that office knew, or perceived in those precious milliseconds is evidence folks. This is the law and is reasonable to any human being out there being of service to their community.

The great thing about the availability of police video and public's cellphone footage is there is more perspectives out there. This can be very helpful in an investigation and will be used as added to other evidence to complete the real picture of what happened in any event. However, the new age challenge is the armchair-Monday-morning-quarterbacking has become more wide spread. The public does not have ALL the facts to make legal decisions, nor the training and experience to see what is was in that one moment. These clips are not the whole story. Just consider that one moment in the officer's life, and in the driver's life, where pushing 'pause' was not an option, because that moment was reality.


6 people like this
Posted by O'Malley
a resident of Danville
on Dec 14, 2019 at 8:43 am

Another unpleasant reality is it is healthy and good for law and order for criminals to have a fear of the police. Every criminology class notes one of the main goals of law enforcement is deterrence, to deter criminal activity. As a society, we are removing deterrence from the job of law enforcement by second guessing every action police take, and limiting their ability to do their job.

In fact, with liberals attacking the police and choosing to support criminals over the police, we are creating a society that no longer fears the police. Pour water over them and laugh, watch them abandon car chases, allow gang members to swear and mock them to their face, the criminals no longer fear the police, and thus deterrence of crime is disappearing.

When a criminal refuses multiple lawful orders to stop his car, and risks the lives of others, and an officer has to use deadly force to stop the threat, society takes note. There are serious consequences, as this criminal learned the hard way. Maybe next time a criminal hears a lawful order to stop, he stops, and the threat of violence stops.

As unpleasant the truth may be, criminals knowing there are still police officers who are not afraid to enforce the law and use force to do so, may be beneficial to society overall, as the fear of serious consequences from dismissing lawful orders to stop can and will deter future criminal activity.


4 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 15, 2019 at 1:59 am

@ 2B Considered, man, you said a mouthful, brother! Good points.

I think you have to first separate the corn from the husk to get a good read on what people think. Some people who - for one reason or another - are anti-law enforcement. Then you have people who are not necessarily anti-cop, but decide a cop is guilty before knowing all of the facts in an officer involved shooting. Worse, comparing one incident of an officer involved shooting with another often times creates a groupthink mentality. A perfect case in point is the Newark Jew Jersey case.

Posters, Bruce and Ed, attempted to compare the Danville incident with the Newark incident. These two incidents are not even close. Then, there are people like Resident of Walnut Creek who claim the Danville officer committed murder in the first degree! A shame that Resident is so ignorant of what constitutes murder.

Separating ignorance from stupidity has its moments I guess.







3 people like this
Posted by Jennifer
a resident of Danville
on Dec 15, 2019 at 6:58 am

Liberals ARE attacking police and supporting criminals. They do it all the time. What part of USE OF FORCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE POLICE don't you understand? WHAT PART OF COOPERATE WITH THE POLICE AND YOU WON'T GET SHOT? If you chose not to cooperate, there are consequences. And this man paid with his life because he disrespected the officer. Bottom line, end of story.


39 people like this
Posted by Mark
a resident of Danville
on Dec 15, 2019 at 8:17 am

Police are not a gang. A citizen can disrespect an officer an not be executed. Respect is in debate because video and transparency is showing corruption within the police. The attitude of supervision in this case was to deny any wrong doing yet the video and the DA disagree. When the police chief and the sheriff say it was justified before the investigation is completed we know the investigation is slanted.


1 person likes this
Posted by Bebop Delux
a resident of another community
on Dec 15, 2019 at 10:12 am

What a line. Mark said, “A citizen can disrespect an officer an not be executed.” So, the driver disrespected the cop and was subsequently executed? What jury pool were you thrown out of, Mark? Your statement attempts to make the incident between the police officer and driver personal. As if the police officer “executed” the driver simply because the driver showed disrespect? Wow, what a twist. But why stop here?

Mark says, “Respect is in debate because video and transparency is showing corruption within the police.” Huh? Uh, don’t you mean lack of transparency is showing corruption within the police department? More importantly, Mark said, “The attitude of supervision in this case was to deny any wrong doing yet the video and the DA disagree.” The district attorney disagrees? He or she does? Who, what, why, when, how, and where does the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office disagree regarding the video.

Well guess what preacher, the fact is the shooting remains under investigation by the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office. Stop lying.



3 people like this
Posted by Jennifer
a resident of Danville
on Dec 15, 2019 at 11:51 am

Just admit you're a biased liberal, anti-police and pro criminal. Cooperating with the police isn't a debate. You do it, and if you don't, there are consequences. In this case, it was death. Oh, well.


6 people like this
Posted by 2BConsidered
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 16, 2019 at 5:43 am

2BConsidered is a registered user.

AND IN OTHER NEWS....

"Texas Sergeant Struck, Killed by fleeing Suspect Vehicle"...


25 people like this
Posted by Alamo
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 16, 2019 at 7:32 am

So sad to see Danville has lost it's humanity.


5 people like this
Posted by Jennifer
a resident of Danville
on Dec 16, 2019 at 8:42 am

So sad to see Danville has so many liberals that are pro-criminal, anti-police. Or they're just too ignorant to understand that if you don't cooperate with the police, and respect law enforcement - there are consequences. Are you really that stupid to think the police will just let you keep on driving if you don't stop? What a pathetic mentality.


21 people like this
Posted by Alamo
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 16, 2019 at 9:22 am

Dear Jennifer,

We are not liberals, criminals, etc, we are human just like everyone else.
We are not less than or more than, we have children, we have parents, we have families. We want to live in a safe community just as everyone else. This type of behavior or actions from anyone does not promote any of the above. Especially from someone who is hired by our community to keep us safe. There are lots of mental health problems in today's world. Safeway is great for inclusion of our children and neighbors that suffer from such disorders. As mentally sound people we are responsible to everyone in our communities in making this a safe place for all.


4 people like this
Posted by Wait a Minute
a resident of Walnut Creek
on Dec 16, 2019 at 10:03 am

I get a kick out of some of this posts. For instance, Resident from Walnut Creek said: “The deceased driver was trying to evade a police blockade by driving around the blockade...” I didn’t know a dead man could drive.

“The deceased did not attempt to run over a police officer.” Good gobbledygook, I would hope not. I would not want to get hit by a fleeing ghost!

“The bad guy simply was trying to avoid being stopped by the blockade of parked police cars.” So, the guy was bad until he got shot? I thought Resident said the police officer committed a “summary execution.” Just so people know, A summary execution is an execution in which a person is accused of a crime and immediately killed without benefit of a full and fair trial. No one accused the driver of committing a crime at the point were he was shot.

Here is gem from Mark of Danville: “I am sickened after watching the video of a police officer positioning him self to kill the driver with no risk to himself.” So, the officer should not have put himself at risk to shoot the driver? LOL!!! Police officers put their lives at risk everyday, that’s how they do their job.

Oh, and this masterpiece from Carl: “A bored cop gets a chance to pull his gun and runs to insure he is standing next to the car not in front of the car.” That police officer was bored?

Here is one of the best. This little diddy from Taxpayer: “If driving a car is a threat then everyone is guilty.” LOL!!!!! Everyone, get out of your cars! LOL!!!

And yet, Alamo says things like: “Unfortunately sjd we have people like Malcolm and Bebop who use no common sense and react out of bias and emotion rather than good judgement.” Hey Alamo, maybe you should rewrite your post. For that matter, so should Bruce. He said, “But the cop also became aware that he was the one that screwed up.” Really? The cop told you that?

It appears that the looney tunes are ever present in the San Ramon Valley. LOL!!!







50 people like this
Posted by CountTheVotes
a resident of Danville
on Dec 16, 2019 at 10:44 am

I have faith in the people of Danville to see that it is not right for the cop to kill a confused man. The votes on each of the above comments show this. If you want to keep yelling that it was a justified shooting feel free but the majority of people viewing this video do not agree with you.


6 people like this
Posted by OliviaLynn
a resident of Blackhawk
on Dec 16, 2019 at 10:54 am

None of this would have ever happened if the man simply complied with the police to begin with like a normal person. If a cop asks you to stop, then stop. If you run then you risk harm.


Like this comment
Posted by Wait a Minute
a resident of Walnut Creek
on Dec 16, 2019 at 1:03 pm

@ CountTheVotes

The incident is under investigation. The District Attorney's Office will decide whether or not to charge the officer with a crime.

In the meantime, it does not matter what you or I think. Moreover, votes don't count here anymore than your opinion. So please, stop the nonsense about who doesn't agree with me - I don't care. But thank you though for adding to the fodder.

I mean, this piece by you is priceless: "I have faith in the people of Danville to see that it is not right for the cop to kill a confused man." A jury - if it comes to that, made up of citizens from all over Contra Costa County will decide the outcome should there be a trial.

Now, retreat to your safe space and take a nap.


5 people like this
Posted by Jennifer
a resident of Danville
on Dec 16, 2019 at 2:57 pm

I did "count the votes." And every news site (except this one) the majority of readers were DEFENDING THE POLICE.

Once again, the police shoot to stop a threat. And a vehicle weighing several tons IS A THREAT. If you don't understand this, you're stupid. If you don't want to be shot, cooperate with the police. Respect law enforcement. The deceased said screw you to the police, and he got what was coming to him. Ever heard of "he had I coming?"

And, yes - it is liberals who are anti-police. Get out of denial.


6 people like this
Posted by Jennifer
a resident of Danville
on Dec 16, 2019 at 3:03 pm

ABC7 News reported the story "that he tried to run over an officer and the officer fired shots as he drove towards him." That's exactly what happened, if you open your eyes and watch the video.


3 people like this
Posted by Oral Roberts
a resident of another community
on Dec 16, 2019 at 8:48 pm

Good shot DPD!


1 person likes this
Posted by Malcolm Hex
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 17, 2019 at 11:50 pm

Newly released video by SFPD shows officer-involved shooting in Mission earlier this month...

After SFPD officer was attacked in his car by suspect with bottle, the officer got out of his car and confronted the idiot. The idiot continued to assault the officer with the bottle. The officer attempted strike idiot with his baton, but the idiot would not back off from the confrontation. The officer and his partner confronted the suspect and shot him. The idiot is now laid up in ICU.

Now, if I’m not mistaken, I believe a poster here - Bruce- believes police officers should not exit there patrol vehicles. Well Bruce, got a lil’ news for ya, police exit their vehicles on a daily basis to confront threats all the time. It’s part of their job. In the case of the SFPD incident, the cops should not have confronted the out of control idiot?

Oh slap me, but I, I, I wonder if Danville PD should have simply avoided the driver altogether by allowing him to continue on his way? But hark! Once the driver was stopped, would not Danville PD have to get out of their cars to effect the arrest? I tell ya, some of these Alamo and Danville folk need to move to San Francisco.


25 people like this
Posted by Alamo
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 18, 2019 at 9:14 am

If you want to play those games Malcom,

What about the Connecticut police officer who opened fire on an unarmed couple 's car 2 months ago. He is being charged with one count first-degree assault and 2 counts first-degree reckless endangerment.
He seriously wounded the woman.

I would hope to see the same outcome here especially since it resulted in a death.


18 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Walnut Creek
on Dec 18, 2019 at 9:21 am

We all need to be held accountable for our actions in society.

Especially the ones we have hired to serve us such as the police. They need to set the standard of how we behave and conduct ourselves. If we do not hold them accountable it is not good for moral in the community nor does it make our homes any more safe.


6 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 18, 2019 at 10:11 am

First of all, Alamo anti-cop, you are comparing apples to oranges. Grasping at straws, are we? These two cases are not even close. Your mentality towards law enforcement is so typical coming from the left. Antifa backer, perhaps?

When you say things like: “As mentally sound people we are responsible to everyone in our communities in making this a safe place for all,” your personality drips elitism. Yet, people like you are the first to scream help when you need assistance from law. In any case, you have made it quite clear that you not only despise our crime fighters, you certainly do not understand the hazards of their jobs.

I swear, I smell a touch of elitism in the air - which is a good indication of anti-cop mentality. After all, when you say things like: “As mentally sound people we are responsible to everyone in our communities in making this a safe place for all.” So, you’re the sound one but law enforcement is not? Boom! Dead giveaway.

I hope you never have to make a call to law enforcement in a life-threatening situation - I sincerely do. Because given the nonsense you have posted here amounts to a person that is unwilling or afraid to defend oneself in a life-threatening situation.


24 people like this
Posted by Alamo
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 18, 2019 at 11:25 am

You played into that perfectly Malcolm :)

That was the whole point.
Comparing apples to oranges, grasping at straws.

Just like the suspect with a bottle attacking a police officer.

Thank you Malcolm


3 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 18, 2019 at 2:40 pm

LOL! You obviously cannot make sense of something that makes sense. Grasping at straws appears to be your angle, not mine.

You're hate towards law enforcement is palpable.


5 people like this
Posted by Bebop Delux
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2019 at 10:01 am

I just read Alamo's last post. What an idiot. I have to wonder sometimes if stooges like Alamo simply thrive to hate on law enforcement.


2 people like this
Posted by Dickita P
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 21, 2019 at 2:31 pm

Just asking my fellow Danville residents in this forum:

How do you normally prepare your favorite soldier-cop's boots before you lick them? Season them with some tarragon? Or is that too much flavor for your suburban tongues?


7 people like this
Posted by Nick
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 21, 2019 at 7:40 pm

The cop had every right to shoot him. For those who disagree, you're anti-cop.


25 people like this
Posted by Roy
a resident of Danville
on Dec 21, 2019 at 9:52 pm

Nick,
I agree the police should be able to kill anyone that gets lost and confused in Danville. How dare a person not realize that it is illegal to wander around a Danville neighborhood. Luckily the brave officer was able to exit his car and position himself for an easy kill shot as the car passed by at the high speed of 2 mph. Nick I know that your are in the minority but do not let the majority of decent Danville people change your commitment to this brave officer who protected
you from the vile outsiders.


5 people like this
Posted by Malcom Hex
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 22, 2019 at 12:34 am

From Nick: “I agree the police should be able to kill anyone that gets lost and confused in Danville.” Unfortunately Nick’s sarcasm places his maturity in the juvenile ranks.


7 people like this
Posted by Jennifer
a resident of Danville
on Dec 22, 2019 at 6:54 am

"I agree the police should be able to kill anyone that gets lost and confused in Danville." That's Roy's sarcasm, not Nick. He wasn't lost and confused. He was disobeying a police officer. You can get lost and confused and still cooperate with the police. Don't be stupid.


4 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 22, 2019 at 9:45 am

Thank you Jennifer, my bad, apology to Nick! I sense that Roy's role model is Adam Schiff.


16 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 22, 2019 at 1:46 pm

Jen, pls follow your last command: "Don't be stupid".


3 people like this
Posted by Jennifer
a resident of Danville
on Dec 22, 2019 at 4:59 pm

According to the statement by Danville police chief, the officer felt his life was in danger. Who are YOU to judge whether someone else's life is in danger? YOU"RE the one being stupid. If your life is in danger, do you want others judging your actions? If you do, you're even more stupid.

Once again, the police shoot to stop a threat, and it's what the officer did. If he has a choice between going home safely, or the other guy, the other guy loses.

If you don't understand this, you're clueless as to what law enforcement does.


3 people like this
Posted by Steve
a resident of Diablo
on Dec 23, 2019 at 4:53 pm

This cop didn't do anything wrong. He felt his life was in danger, and he shot the guy. Anyone who wouldn't do the same is LYING. Get real.


9 people like this
Posted by Alamo
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 24, 2019 at 7:43 am

So if i feel my life is in danger and have legal possession of a fire arm, i am allowed to kill on site? No questions asked?


3 people like this
Posted by Jennifer
a resident of Danville
on Dec 24, 2019 at 8:48 am

If you're a police officer, yes. They shoot to stop a threat. They're trained to do it. Not sure what the self defense laws are for the rest of us.


9 people like this
Posted by Alamo
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 24, 2019 at 9:15 am

A citizen would go to prison regardless of the circumstances in California. In this case the individual was unarmed and the cop put in self in harms way and shot the individual 10 times. not once, not twice, but 10 times like a crime of passion or execution. this was not self defence no matter how you view it.


9 people like this
Posted by alamo
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 24, 2019 at 9:21 am

COP stands for "citizens on patrol"
so why should they be treated or allowed to behave any different from the other citizens of the community they serve. We cannot have police officers killing people in his town any time they feel it is necessary. They must be held accountable to those in the community to which they serve.


2 people like this
Posted by Nick
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 24, 2019 at 9:58 am

The cop didn't put himself in harms way. That's asinine. He was doing his job. They needed to stop him, and they stopped him alright. Had he OBEYED law enforcement and COOPERATED with the police, he'd be alive. He has nobody to blame but himself. He signed his own death warrant.


8 people like this
Posted by Roy
a resident of Danville
on Dec 24, 2019 at 12:40 pm

Danvill PD are bored out of their skulls so yes they get to kill anyone that does not follow every command. The law that says that disobeying a police officer's command is a misdemeanor does not apply in Danville it is a capital offense within the city limits. It is the option of the cop if he wishes to just kill the offender on the spot for not listening.


Like this comment
Posted by Malcolm Hex
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 24, 2019 at 10:10 pm

Roy's post: "It is the option of the cop if he wishes to just kill the offender on the spot for not listening."

Yeah... "...is the option of the cop if he wishes to just kill the offender..."

Hey, have another round at Elliot's why don't you. Alcohol, or mental illness, had to play a factor in what you just said.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields


All your news. All in one place. Every day.

A favorite restaurant closes its doors
By Tim Hunt | 4 comments | 2,416 views

Premarital and Couples: Here Be Dragons!
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,026 views