Soyuz Posted July 17, 2023 Share Posted July 17, 2023 (edited) The Los Santos County District Attorney's Office conducts thorough reviews of the evidence presented to them by internal law enforcement investigative agencies in officer-involved shootings and in-custody deaths where there is a likelihood that the force used by the police officer was unlawful. If, after referral, an officer's use of force is determined to have been legally justified, a detailed memorandum is prepared and posted below for public view. Please see the "Police Fatal Use-of-Force Investigation Flowchart" or our official website for more information. July 2023 July 1, 2023: Fatal Deputy-Involved Shooting of Unnamed Juvenile Subject July 23, 2023: Fatal Deputy-Involved Shooting of Unnamed Adult Subject December 2024 December 25, 2024: Fatal Off-Duty Officer-Involved Shooting of Unnamed Adult Subject February 2025 March 2025 April 2025 May 2025 Edited January 11 by Soyuz 1 Link to comment
Soyuz Posted July 17, 2023 Author Share Posted July 17, 2023 (edited) (( The caselaw in this report comes mostly from California which, at the time of writing, I wasn't aware was a big no-no. Please ignore the caselaw used. )) • July 1, 2023: Fatal Deputy-Involved Shooting of Unnamed Juvenile Subject Spoiler Fatal Deputy-Involved Shooting of Unnamed Juvenile Subject Los Santos County Sheriff's Department Deputy Sheriff Cristina Abellan, #614 J.S.I.D. File #23OIS001 HARPER MEYER District Attorney Justice System Integrity Division July 10, 2023 Page 1 MEMORANDUM The Justice System Integrity Division of the Los Santos County District Attorney's Office has completed its review of the July 1, 2023, fatal shooting of an unnamed juvenile subject by Los Santos County Sheriff's Department (LSSD) Deputy Cristina Abellan. It is this office's conclusion that the People cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Deputy Cristina Abellan did not act lawfully in self-defense and defense of others at the time she fired her service weapon. The District Attorney's Office was notified of the incident at approximately 1:30 p.m. on July 9, 2023. The District Attorney's Office was sent a completed casefile regarding the circumstances surrounding the shooting by the Internal Affairs Bureau of the LSSD. The following analysis is based on investigative reports, witness statements, and digital in-car video system (DICVS) footage submitted to this office by LSSD Internal Affairs investigators. The voluntary statement of Deputy Sheriff Cristina Abellan was considered in this analysis. Page 2 FACTUAL ANALYSIS Summary of the Facts On July 1, 2023, at 2:25 a.m., an incident occurred involving Deputy Cristina Abellan, Sergeant Andrew Delarosa, and an unnamed juvenile subject, resulting in the death of the unnamed juvenile subject due to Deputy Cristina Abellan discharging her service weapon. The incident began when Deputy Cristina Abellan, Sergeant Andrew Delarosa, and other deputies were on scene of a call for assistance on Covenant Avenue and Brouge Avenue in regards to a crowd forming around deputies. On-scene deputies began issuing orders to the crowd to disperse, however, the individuals comprising the crowd were uncooperative and behaved in a combative manner, approaching deputies closely and refusing to leave. Sergeant Andrew Delarosa, along with Deputy Cristina Abellan and other deputies, began to restrain a juvenile subject in an attempt to place him under arrest for obstruction of justice, citing that this subject ignored deputies' lawful orders to disperse, and resisted Deputy Cristina Abellan's attempts to conduct a cursory outer-body pat down for weapons. Sergeant Andrew Delarosa tackled the subject and proceeded to take the subject to the floor with him alone. The juvenile subject actively resisted arrest and Sergeant Andrew Delarosa began to apply physical force in order to secure the subject's hands behind his back. Sergeant Andrew Delarosa used a special grip on the subject in order to subdue him, which is when the subject began reaching for his firearm. Deputy Cristina Abellan issued multiple commands to the subject to drop his weapon, specifically stating, "Let it go", "Let that gun go now", and "I'm going to shoot you". When the subject failed to comply and drew his firearm, Deputy Cristina Abellan discharged her service weapon, firing seven (7) shots into the side of the subject's head, resulting in his death. Page 3 WITNESS STATEMENTS Deputy Cristina Abellan Deputy Cristina Abellan stated that she fired her service weapon once to the side of the subject's head as that was the only available place to fire. She claimed that the subject was drawing and exhibiting a firearm that he had taken from a downed individual on a separate deputy involved shooting. She claimed that the subject resisted a terry frisk by walking away and then actively resisting. She stated that Sergeant Andrew Delarosa tackled the subject. She claimed that the subject, when on the ground, reached for his weapon and was not listening to commands. She claimed that she believed the control hold being employed by Sergeant Delarosa was not effective at this point. She claimed that the subject was drawing the firearm with his finger on the trigger and she feared he might shoot Sergeant Andrew Delarosa. She stated that "[she] fired to stop the threat as [the subject] did not want to listen to command and was actively trying to draw [his firearm]" from less than three (3) feet away. Sergeant Andrew Delarosa Sergeant Andrew Delarosa stated that he was wrestling the subject down and had him in a "tiger lock". He mentioned that the subject started reaching for a firearm while this movement was being performed, but did not "particularly" aim it at any of [the deputies]. Sergeant Andrew Delarosa believed that the maneuver he was performing was inhibiting the subject's ability to aim his firearm by means of reducing the subject's consciousness. He also stated that Deputy Cristina Abellan fired directly into the side of the subject's head while he had his head close to the subject. Deputy Raelyn Baker Deputy Raelyn Baker stated that she was positioned roughly fifteen feet away from the subject when she witnessed Deputy Cristina Abellan fire three to four shots directly to the subject's head. She mentioned that Deputy Cristina Abellan was standing to the left of the subject, within arm's length, was aiming for the head, and fired slowly with two-to-three second intervals between each shot. Deputy Benjamin Palmer Deputy Benjamin Palmer stated that he was right behind the subject when Deputy Cristina Abellan fired her service weapon. He stated he did not have his hands on the subject, estimating that if he had reached out with his arm straight, he would have barely touched the subject. He estimated that Deputy Cristina Abellan fired around four to five shots in the side of the subject's head, which he described as "execution style". He mentioned that all the shots were fired at once, very quickly. Deputy Joseph Rivera Deputy Joseph Rivera stated that he witnessed Deputy Cristina Abellan fire multiple times. He estimated that Deputy Cristina Abellan fired either three or four rounds. He mentioned that Deputy Cristina Abellan was to the left of the subject, with her firearm basically at his head, and that the shots were fired with two-to-three intervals between each shot. DIGITAL IN-CAR VIDEO SYSTEM (DICVS) FOOTAGE The Los Santos County Sheriff's Department maintains dashboard cameras on all of its patrol vehicles, recording video at all times, recording audio when manually activated or when the vehicle's emergency lights are switched on, and recording audio from up to twenty (20) feet away from the patrol vehicle. The DICVS additionally displays the following information on the screen of recordings: the date and time; GPS coordinates; lights and siren status; speed and acceleration; and brake activation. One patrol vehicle, positioned on the intersection of Covenant Avenue and Brouge Avenue, on the southern-most corner of the intersection, angled east, at approximately 0208 hours, captured a scuffle that ensued between the deputies and the unnamed juvenile subject. The deputy-involved shooting is barely visible as it is situated slightly to the right of the police cruiser's field of vision. The police cruiser's audio is able to record a female deputy shouting "Let it go", "Let that gun go now", and "I'm going to shoot you". This female deputy is believed to be Deputy Cristina Abellan as all other female deputies present on scene were within view of the police cruiser's DICVS and were making statements inconsistent with the cited utterances above. The DICVS footage additionally captures 7 rounds being fired. (( https://streamable.com/hal8wo & https://streamable.com/gm5yut )) Times are formatted in HH:MM:SS:MS Round #1 is fired at approximately 02:09:15:00 Round #2 is fired at approximately 02:09:15:28 (28 ms difference) Round #3 is fired at approximately 02:09:16:43 (75 ms difference) Round #4 is fired at approximately 02:09:17:17 (34 ms difference) Round #5 is fired at approximately 02:09:18:38 (121 ms difference) Round #6 is fired at approximately 02:09:20:24 (146 ms difference) Round #7 is fired at approximately 02:09:22:46 (182 ms difference) Page 4 LEGAL ANALYSIS The Law The law in San Andreas allows for the use of deadly force in self-defense or in the defense of others if the person asserting the right of self-defense or the defense of others actually and reasonably believed that he or others were in imminent danger of great bodily injury of death (People v. Flannel [1979], People v. Randle [2005], People v. Humphrey [1996]). In protecting himself or another, an individual may use all the force which he believes reasonably necessary and which would appear to a reasonable person, in the same or similar circumstances, to be necessary and to prevent the injury which appears to be imminent. A law enforcement officer may use deadly force upon another person only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person. "Totality of the circumstances" means all the facts known to or perceived by the officer at the time, including the conduct of the officer and the subject leading up to the use of deadly force. In determining whether or not deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in the light of the particular circumstances of each case and shall use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible to an objectively reasonable officer. A law enforcement officer "may use all the force that appears to him to be necessary to overcome all resistance, even to the taking of life; [an officer is justified in taking a life if] the resistance [is] such as appears to the officer likely to inflict great bodily injury upon himself or those acting with him." (People v. Mehserle [2012]). A killing of a suspect by a law enforcement officer is lawful if it was: (1) committed while performing a legal duty; (2) the killing was necessary to accomplish that duty; and (3) the officer had probable cause to believe that (a) the decedent posed a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or others, or (b) that the decedent had committed a forcible and atrocious crime. An officer has "probable cause" in this context when he knows facts that would "persuade someone of reasonable caution that the other person is going to cause serious physical harm to another." When acting in this capacity, the officer may use only so much force as a reasonable person would find necessary under the circumstances (People v. Mehserle [2012]) and he may only resort to deadly force when the resistance of the person being taken into custody "appears to the officer likely to inflict great bodily injury on himself or those acting with him" (People v. Bond [1910]). The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a killing was not justified. In evaluating whether a law enforcement officer's use of deadly force was reasonable in a specific situation, it is helpful to draw guidance from the objective standard of reasonableness adopted in civil actions alleging Fourth Amendment violations. "The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight... The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that law enforcement officers are often forced to make split-second judgements—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." (Graham v. Connor [1989]). Actual danger is not necessary to justify the use of force in self-defense. If one is confronted by the appearance of danger which one believes, and a reasonable person in the same position would believe, would result in death or great bodily injury, one may act upon these circumstances. The right to self-defense is the same whether the danger is real or apparent. (People v. Toledo [1948]). Before a court may rely on circumstantial evidence to find a defendant guilty, they must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty. If two or more reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, a court must accept the one that points to innocence. Analysis [1] The unnamed juvenile subject was in possession of a firearm, a fact that was known to Deputy Cristina Abellan and other deputies at the scene, significantly escalating the potential threat level of the situation. [2] The unnamed juvenile subject was actively resisting arrest, further escalating the threat level. Though he was being restrained, his continued resistance and possession of a firearm could reasonably lead an officer to believe that he posed an immediate threat. [3] Deputy Cristina Abellan fired her service weapon only after the subject failed to comply with multiple commands to drop his firearm. [4] The fact that Deputy Cristina Abellan fired multiple shots does not, in and of itself, indicate excessive or unreasonable force under the Garner and Graham standards. Law enforcement officers are trained to fire multiple rounds to stop a threat, and the number of shots fired is often less important than the reason for firing in the first place. [5] The fact that other officers at the scene did not fire their weapons does not necessarily mean that Deputy Cristina Abellan's decision to fire was unreasonable. Each officer must make their own decision based on their perception of the threat, and it is possible for reasonable officers to disagree in high-stress situations. [6] The fact that the subject did not aim his weapon at anyone does not negate the potential threat he posed. A firearm is a deadly weapon, and a subject reaching for and handling a firearm can reasonably be perceived as an immediate threat, even if he does not aim the weapon at anyone. [7] The fact that Sergeant Andrew Delarosa did not perceive the same threat as Deputy Cristina Abellan does not necessarily mean that her perception was unreasonable. Different officers can perceive the same situation differently, and the standard is what a reasonable officer in Deputy Cristina Abellan's position would have perceived, not what any other officer on the scene perceived. CONCLUSION The evidence shows that Deputy Cristina Abellan, while performing her legal duty of arresting a suspect who was actively resisting, was confronted with a situation in which she had probable cause to believe, and a reasonable person in the same position would have probable cause to believe, would result in death or great bodily injury to Sergeant Andrew Delarosa or any other deputy on scene. This belief was based on the subject's active resistance to arrest, his possession and active retrieval of a firearm, and his refusal to comply with commands to drop his weapon. The situation was tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving, and Deputy Cristina Abellan was forced to make a split-second judgement about the amount of force that was necessary. There is no video evidence or statements to contradict Deputy Cristina Abellan's statements that the unnamed juvenile subject had his finger on the trigger of his firearm. Deputy Cristina Abellan stated that she believed the subject's finger was on the trigger as he retrieved the firearm from his person. The burden would be on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this belief was not only unreasonable, but also not honest. Considering the totality of the circumstances known to Deputy Cristina Abellan at the time and the fact that tactics short of deadly force failed to stop the subject from drawing a firearm, we cannot determine that it was unreasonable for Deputy Cristina Abellan to believe that deadly force was necessary. This conclusion is not altered by the hindsight knowledge that the subject may or may not have eventually been incapacitated by Sergeant Andrew Delarosa's neck-restraint technique. There exists insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Deputy Cristina Abellan did not reasonably believe that the unnamed juvenile subject posed a threat of serious bodily harm or death and found it necessary to respond with deadly force. It is this office's conclusion that the People cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Deputy Cristina Abellan did not act lawfully in self-defense and defense of others at the time she fired her service weapon. INVESTIGATOR: Deputy Chief Harold Steinbach Justice System Integrity Division SUPERVISOR: Chief Johnny Harmon Justice System Integrity Division DISTRICT ATTORNEY: District Attorney Harper Meyer Page 5 Edited January 11 by Soyuz 12 1 Link to comment
Soyuz Posted August 18, 2023 Author Share Posted August 18, 2023 (edited) • July 23, 2023: Fatal Deputy-Involved Shooting of Unnamed Adult Subject Hide contents Fatal Deputy-Involved Shooting of Unnamed Adult Subject Los Santos County Sheriff's Department Deputy Sheriff Jessica Wallace, #88337 Sergeant Alan Woodfill, #53169 Detective Wyatt Kolchin, #42355 Deputy Sheriff Diana Cabello, #128453 J.S.I.D. File #23OIS002 HARPER MEYER District Attorney Justice System Integrity Division August 13, 2023 Page 1 MEMORANDUM The Justice System Integrity Division of the Los Santos County District Attorney's Office has completed its review of the July 23, 2023, fatal shooting of an unnamed adult subject by Los Santos County Sheriff's Department (LSSD) Deputy Sheriff Jessica Wallace, Sergeant Alan Woodfill, Detective Wyatt Kolchin, and Deputy Sheriff Diana Cabello. It is this office's conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the decisions by these deputies to use deadly force was not objectively reasonably. The District Attorney's Office was notified of the incident at approximately 7:44 p.m., on August 10, 2023. The District Attorney's Office was sent a completed casefile regarding the circumstances surrounding the shooting by the Homicide Bureau of the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department. The following analysis is based on investigative reports, witness statements, and digital in-car video system (DICVS) footage submitted to this office by LSSD Internal Affairs Bureau and LSSD Homicide Bureau investigators. The voluntary statements of all involved officers were considered in this analysis. Page 2 FACTUAL ANALYSIS Summary of the Facts On July 23, 2023, at approximately 10:00 p.m., a traffic enforcement stop was initiated in the city of Sandy Shores by Sergeant Alan Woodfill ("Woodfill") of the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department. The vehicle in question was a black-in-color Willard vehicle parked at the Sandy Shores gas station. Woodfill's radio car was outfitted with an Automated License Plate Reader ("ALPR") at the time, which is a high-speed, computer-controlled technology that uses optical character recognition on images to read vehicle registration plates to create vehicle location data. The ALPR system is used by police to check if a vehicle is registered or license and if the registered owner has any flags or warrants. This system notified Woodfill that the black-in-color Willard was not insured and the registered owner, , was not licensed to drive. Woodfill called for several backup units to arrive, the amount of which is unreported, with Deputy Jessica Wallace ("Wallace") and Deputy Diana Cabello ("Cabello") being among the units to arrive. When Woodfill made contact with the driver ("Suspect"), the latter claimed that he was not in possession of any documentation and provided "Killian MacGorman" as his name. A routine computer check returned no valid results for this name. Suspect was wearing a mask concealing his face and gloves. Woodfill issued an order for Suspect to step out of his vehicle, however, Suspect began accelerating and a police pursuit was initiated. This pursuit lasted for approximately twenty (20) minutes. Near the end of the pursuit, Deputy Jessica Wallace ("Wallace") deployed stop sticks, which are tire-deflation devices commonly used by law enforcement to end high-speed pursuits, on Seaview Road, north of East Joshua Road. Suspect drove over these stop sticks and lost control of his vehicle, which led to him crashing into a tree. Suspect disembarked from his vehicle and began running away on foot, with accounts indicating that he ran towards where Wallace was staging with a less lethal beanbag shotgun following the stop sticks deployment. Numerous orders to stop were given, followed by Wallace discharging her beanbag shotgun. Beanbag rounds consist of a small fabric "pillow" filled with lead shots weighing at about 40 grams used for the less lethal apprehension of suspects. Lieutenant Kennedy Laine ("Laine"), Deputy Jessica Wallace ("Wallace"), Detective Wyatt Kolchin ("Kolchin"), Deputy Diana Cabello ("Cabello") were present at the scene. Suspect appeared to be immobilized briefly before starting to move again. Woodfill proceeded to tackle Suspect to the ground following the first beanbag deployment by Wallace. At that moment, it was noticed by deputies that Suspect was in possession of a long bladed machete weapon. Suspect then raised the machete in the air in a threatening manner towards Woodfill and made a jabbing action towards him with the machete. Woodfill, however, due to his hinged possession during the execution of the tackle, was not hit by the jab. Wallace immediately fired a second less lethal beanbag round from her Remington 870 shotgun. This deployment by Wallace rendered Suspect immobile for several seconds. At this moment, Woodfill was within approximately three (3) feet of Suspect, Kolchin within approximately eight (8) feet, Laine within approximately fourteen (14) feet, and Cabello being further away. Kolchin ordered Suspect to drop his weapon, stating, "Drop it!". Suspect did not drop his weapon. Wallace proceeded to fire a second less lethal beanbag round at Suspect center-mass and shouted "Drop it, now!", by which point Woodfill moved away from Suspect, creating a distance of approximately fourteen (14) feet. Suspect remained incapacitated but refused to comply with further orders to drop his weapon by both Cabello, "Drop it, fucking drop the knife!", and Wallace, "Drop it, you're going to get hit again!". The three less lethal beanbag deployments were ineffective, as Suspect then raised his machete in the air and started swinging it around. This prompted Wallace to fire a fourth less lethal beanbag round, at which point Cabello, and Woodfill fired multiple rounds from their service weapons at Suspect, resulting in Suspect's death. Kolchin simultaneously fired two rounds that had not made contact with Suspect. Location of Occurrence The shooting occurred on Seaview Road, north of East Joshua Road, on an intersection with an unnamed dirt road. The nearest intersection to the location of the shooting was Grapeseed Avenue. Suspect was standing in the middle of the intersection slightly off of Seaview Road, facing northeast. Kolchin and Wallace were located in front of Suspect, Woodfill was located to the left of Suspect, and Cabello with Laine were located to the right of Suspect. Page 3 WITNESS STATEMENTS Lieutenant Kennedy Laine At the time of the incident, Laine was a 17-year veteran of the LSSD. On July 23, 2023, at approximately 10:30 p.m., while working uniformed patrol as the Operations Lieutenant of Paleto Bay Sheriff's Station, Laine was notified over radio that Paleto units were in pursuit of a vehicle that had taken off from a traffic stop. Laine responded to the location, which was the Lumber Mill in Paleto Bay, by the Great Ocean Highway. Laine was informed by Woodfill over the radio that the vehicle was wanted for evading at that time. While responding, Laine's patrol vehicle turned a bend and Suspect's vehicle made contact with Laine's patrol vehicle at low speeds. Laine reported that most of the energy had been absorbed by the push bar and reported that Suspect seemed to be dazed for several seconds before fleeing once again. Following the successful deployment of stop sticks fifteen (15) minutes later by Wallace on Seaview Road, north of East Joshua, Laine stated that Suspect's vehicle traveled off the road and slammed into a utility pole. Suspect then bailed out of the vehicle and led deputies on a foot chase. Laine reports Suspect running north towards Wallace, before Wallace fired a beanbag shotgun after issuing multiple commands to stop. Laine reports that Suspect stopped in place briefly but then appeared to start moving again. Laine reports that Woodfill ran up to Suspect and tackled him to the ground. While the two were on the ground, Laine reports that the other deputies noticed that Suspect withdrew a bladed weapon and called out "knife" to alert others. This report is inconsistent with the facts of the incident, which indicate that deputies transmitted "hammer" and "machete" over the radio, however, this inconsistency is minor. Laine reports Woodfill distanced himself from Suspect and Wallace repeatedly ordered Suspect to drop his weapon. When these orders failed, and Suspect began swinging his weapon in the air, Laine reports Wallace fired several more rounds from her beanbag shotgun, which is inconsistent with the facts, that show only one round was fired after Suspect began swinging the machete. Laine reports that either while Wallace was firing her beanbag or shortly after, several other deputies fired lethal rounds. Laine reports that Suspect was hit several times and dropped his weapon, after which he was secured. Deputy Jessica Wallace At the time of the incident, Wallace was a 13-year veteran of the LSSD. On July 23, 2023, at approximately 10:00 p.m., while working uniformed patrol as a Traffic Investigator for Paleto Bay Sheriff's Station, Wallace responded to a backup request transmitted by Woodfill on a traffic stop. Wallace was present when Suspect, operating the vehicle being pulled over, suddenly turned on their vehicle and drove off from the traffic stop. Wallace broke off from the pursuit line and deployed stop sticks on Seaview Road. A felony stop was initiated and Wallace armed herself with a "stunbag shotgun", reporting that there was "plenty of lethal cover". Suspect disembarked from his vehicle and began fleeing on foot from Seaview Road towards East Joshua Road. Upon reaching East Joshua Road, Suspect turned around and fled back towards Seaview Road. An unnamed deputy tackled Suspect, at which point it was noticed that Suspect was carrying a machete in his right hand. In contradiction to Laine's statement, Wallace reports firing the beanbag shotgun only twice. Wallace reports that after the tackle, she began issuing verbal commands for Suspect to drop his machete and proceeded to fire the first volley. This is unsubstantiated by Laine's statement, which shows that Wallace fired the beanbag shotgun first without issuing any orders, and the second time without issuing any orders. Wallace reports deploying her shotgun the second time once Suspect began swinging his machete in the air, which was when other deputies used lethal force. Laine's statements report Wallace firing her beanbag shotgun a total of four (4) times. Wallace's statements are inconsistent with Laine's statements, the statements of other deputies, and the Digital In-Car Video System evidence. We therefore consider Laine's statements as credible in absence of other information that contradicts the fact that Wallace had fired four less lethal volleys. Sergeant Alan Woodfill At the time of the incident, Woodfill was a 15-year veteran of the LSSD. On July 23, 2023, at approximately 10:00 p.m., while working uniformed patrol as a Detective Division Sergeant for the Paleto Bay Sheriff's Station, Woodfill was driving near the Sandy Shores gas station when his ALPR scanned the license plate of a black-in-color Willard vehicle. Woodfill ascertained through the information presented to him by the ALPR system that the registered owner of the vehicle, , did not have a valid driver's license, and that the vehicle itself was uninsured. A check of the registered owner's record conducted by Woodfill showed a prior conviction for burglary. Woodfill noticed that the driver of the vehicle, Suspect, was wearing a mask and gloves. Suspect stated to Woodfill that he had no documents and that his name was Killian MacGorman. Woodfill reported being unable to find such a name in his computer system and ordered Suspect to step out of the vehicle. This order was refused. Suspect began to evade police. Woodfill reports that the pursuit lasted approximately twenty (20) minutes in the northern part of Los Santos County. The vehicle was "spiked" [sic] and crashed into a tree. Suspect disembarked from his vehicle and fled on foot. While deputies chased Suspect, Woodfill attempted to block Suspect with Woodfill's patrol vehicle. Woodfill proceeded to disembark and tackle Suspect, which is when he noticed the machete in his hand. Woodfill stepped back and withdrew his firearm, aiming it at Suspect. Woodfill reports that he witnessed Suspect swinging the machete. He reports that he "heard one or two gunshots, so [he] shot at the suspect too for three times until he is neutralized". Deputy Diana Cabello At the time of the incident, Cabello was a 18-year veteran of the LSSD. On July 23, 2023, at approximately 10:00 p.m., while working uniformed patrol for Paleto Bay Sheriff's Station, Cabello responded to a request for backup transmitted by Woodfill on his traffic stop. Cabello states that she had made contact with the driver, Suspect, in conjunction with Woodfill. Suspect proceeded to flee from the traffic stop. Suspect proceeded to flee by vehicle through the state parks of the County, traveling off-road, before entering Grapeseed and losing control of his vehicle following a stop sticks deployment. Cabello reports Suspect crashed into a power line. Suspect proceeded to flee on foot following the formation of a felony stop maneuver in one direction before returning to his vehicle. Cabello reports Suspect sustained a less lethal beanbag round, which knocked him to the ground. Suspect had a machete in hand. Cabello reports that multiple verbal orders were given by deputies on scene, which failed, as Suspect continued to brandish the machete and swung it in the air while standing up. Cabello reports that she, along with other deputies, opened fire with their service weapons. Cabello reports having discharged seven (7) rounds total to neutralize the suspect. Deputy William Thompson At the time of the incident, Thompson was a deputy with the LSSD with four (4) years on the job. On July 23, 2023, at approximately 10:00 p.m., while working uniformed motorcycle patrol for Paleto Bay Sheriff's Station, Thompson responded to the pursuit line. Thompson was situated that he was at the end of the pursuit line when Suspect entered Grapeseed from the Senora Freeway. Thompson broke off from the pursuit line in order to "intercept" Suspect and "approach [...] from the eastern side". Thompson reports that as he approached the pursuit line, he heard over the radio that Suspect was armed with a machete. Thompson reports hearing several gunshots before arriving on scene, upon which he witnessed Suspect shot, laying on the ground, with a machete directly besides him. Detective Wyatt Kolchin At the time of the incident, Kolchin was a 8-year veteran of the LSSD and a Field Investigator with the Detective Division Paleto Bay Station. On July 23, 2023, at approximately 10:40 p.m., while on-duty, uniformed, and operating an unmarked Department "take-home" vehicle, Kolchin was at to attend to person matters. Upon exiting his home, Kolchin heard over the primary frequency that deputies were in a vehicle pursuit. Kolchin reported that the pursuit had driven through . Due to the close proximity and his overt attire, Kolchin decided to assist. Kolchin observed the black sedan-like vehicle operated by Suspect being driven over "spike strips" along Senora Road, leading towards Seaview. Kolchin reports Suspect bailed from his vehicle with numerous deputies, including Woodfill, giving chase. Kolchin reported that the foot chase crossed over farming fields east of Seaview Road. Kolchin activated his emergency lights and attempted to assist by driving through a dirt road with the intentions of intercepting Suspect. Kolchin witnessed Woodfill "dive for the suspect, "[wrap] his arm around [Suspect's] waist[, and] take him to the floor". Kolchin reports that he witnessed Suspect withdraw a 12-inch machete that was by his leg, potentially in a sheathe, and that Suspect attempted to swing at [Woodfill]. Kolchin states that "the manner in which [Suspect] had turned this machete was not intended to be threatening[,] but rather with intent to cause serious bodily harm to Sergeant Woodfill." Kolchin relies on past experience to attest to the harm a machete can cause, and reports that the deep lacerations caused by the long blade can result in death or permanent injury, and that he had previously been involved in a serious crime where a machete was used as a lethal weapon. Kolchin described Suspect as being a white male with short-cut black hair, wearing a pair of black sunglasses, a black bandana covering his nose, mouth, chin, and portion of neck, and a cream-colored hoodie over his torso with two drawstrings around the neck. Kolchin further described Suspect as wearing Nitrile gloves on both hands, light blue in color, and black pants and black shoes. After witnessing the Suspect's attempt to cause harm to Woodfill, Kolchin shouted to other deputies that Suspect was armed with a knife and reports giving verbal commands to drop it, substantiated by DICVS footage, demonstrating Kolchin yelling "Drop it!". Following the deployment of the beanbag rounds by Wallace, Kolchin reports that Suspect proceeded to sprint towards Kolchin at speed, which is unsubstantiated by other narratives and evidence. Kolchin advises not being able to move backwards safely due to uneven ground. Kolchin, in reported fear that his life was in imminent danger, and fear of being subject to serious bodily harm or death, discharged his service weapon twice, followed by the other deputies opening fire. Page 4 WEAPONS EVIDENCE Cabello was armed with a Sig Sauer P226. After the incident, the firearm was collected and sent for forensic examination. At examination, the submitted cartridge casings were microscopically examined, and the examination results confirmed a match between Cabello's firearm and bullet fragments extracted from Suspect. Woodfill was armed with a Baretta 92F/FS. After the incident, the firearm was collected and sent for forensic examination. At examination, the submitted cartridge casings were microscopically examined, and the examination results confirmed a match between Woodfill's firearm and bullet fragments extracted from Suspect. Kolchin was armed with an S&W Model 645. After the incident, the firearm was collected and sent for forensic examination. At examination, the submitted cartridge casings were microscopically examined, and the examination results did not confirm a match between Kolchin's firearm and bullet fragments extracted from Suspect. Suspect's machete was not recovered. DIGITAL IN-CAR VIDEO SYSTEM (DICVS) FOOTAGE Digital In-Car Video System footage was obtained from one of the patrol vehicles positioned around the scene. Prior to the footage, a lengthy vehicle pursuit involving the Suspect and deputies took place and ended on Seaview Road, where a foot pursuit was initiated. The following activity was captured on video: (( https://streamable.com/9yjaaj )) 22:42:53 - Woodfill tackles Suspect to the ground. 22:42:54 - Suspect unsuccessfully swings his machete at Woodfill. 22:42:56 - Wallace fires second unsuccessful beanbag volley, striking Suspect in the back. 22:43:04 - Kolchin issues orders for Suspect to drop the machete. 22:43:04 - Deputies announce Suspect is in brandishing a bladed weapon. 22:43:07 - Wallace fires third unsuccessful beanbag volley, striking Suspect center mass. 22:43:09 - Wallace issues verbal order for Suspect to drop the machete. 22:43:12 - Woodfill moves away from the suspect, approximately 14 feet, and unholsters and aims his firearm. 22:43:27 - Wallace issues second verbal order for Suspect to drop the machete. 22:43:28 - Cabello issues third verbal order for Suspect to drop the machete. 22:43:31 - Wallace advises Suspect that he will be hit by a beanbag round if he does not comply. 22:43:38 - Suspect proceeds to swing his machete around in the air from a stationary up-right position. 22:43:39 - Wallace immediately fires a fourth beanbag volley; suspect loses balance. 22:43:40 - Kolchin discharges his weapon twice from approximately 8 feet away. His shots miss. 22:43:41 - Cabello and Woodfill simultaneously begin discharging their firearms as Suspect falls. 22:43:41 - Woodfill discharges his firearm four times and strikes Suspect three times. 22:43:41 - Cabello discharges her firearm seven times and strikes Suspect six times. 22:43:43 - Cabello and Woodfill continue firing while Suspect is on the ground. AUTOPSY On August 5, 2023, Assistant Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner Paul Thorne, performed a post mortem examination of Suspect's body. Thorne observed 10 gunshot wounds and ascribed the cause of death to traumatic brain injury due to internal hemorrhaging and gunshot wound of the head. The following is the entry and direction of each wound: Gunshot wound of head (Gunshot Wound "A"), short range, entering frontal scalp, exciting occipital bucca; Gunshot wound of chest (Gunshot Wound "B"), short range, entering below the clavicle, exiting inferior mediastinal cavity; Gunshot wound of chest (Gunshot Wound "C"), short range, entering inferior thoracic aperture, exiting superior mediastinal cavity; Gunshot wound of abdomen (Gunshot Wound "D"), short range, entering anterolateral, exciting posterior; Gunshot wound of abdomen (Gunshot Wound "E"), short range, entering anterolateral, exciting posterior; Gunshot wound of stomach (Gunshot Wound "F"), short range, entering anterior, exiting superior; Gunshot wound of trunk (Gunshot Wound "G"), short range, entering superomedial dorsum, exiting medial chest; Gunshot wound of trunk (Gunshot Wound "H"), short range, entering anteromedial dorsum, exiting posterior; Gunshot wound of lower extremities (Gunshot Wound "I"), short range, entering left ankle, exiting anterior; Gunshot wound of lower extremities (Gunshot Wound "K"), short range, entering right semitendinosus, exiting inferior. Thorne opines that "[Suspect] suffered multiple gunshot wounds, which point toward multiple small weapon calibers. While the cause of death may be TBI, the nine other post-mortem inflicted wounds made sure that the viscera are unable to function". Page 5 LEGAL ANALYSIS Use of Force to Effect an Arrest Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime may use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance. A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance (Penal Code §1102). Arrestees do not have a right to hinder or resist being arrested. If a person knows, or should know, that he is being arrested by a peace officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force to resist such arrest. It is a crime to delay, avoid, obstruct, or prevent or attempt to prevent a peace officer from effecting the apprehension of himself or another person, or in the discharge, or attempt to discharge, of their duties (Penal Code §116). Self Defense San Andreas law permits any person to use deadly force in self-defense or in the defense of others if that person fears an imminent and present threat of injury or death, and if that person actually and reasonably believes that the immediate use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate such a threat. In protecting himself or another, a person is only entitled to use the level of force which would appear to a reasonable person, in the same or similar circumstances, to be necessary (Penal Code §§1301-1302). Once an officer reasonably believes deadly force is necessary, the officer does not have an obligation to stop firing the weapon until the threat has ended. "If lethal force is justified, officers are taught to keep shooting until the threat is over." Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014). If a person believes that deadly force is necessary for self-defense or in defense of another, but that belief is unreasonable, the killing is partially justified and the killer may not be convicted of murder; however, he may be convicted of manslaughter. A conviction for manslaughter requires that the defendant intentionally causes the death of a person under the unreasonable belief that deadly force is necessary (Penal Code §204). When assessing the reasonableness of the use of deadly force, a trier of fact must consider both the perspective of the officer on the scene and what would be perceived by a reasonable officer in the same or similar circumstances. This evaluation requires a careful consideration of the totality of circumstances, including but not limited to the immediacy of the threat, the severity of the crime, the suspect's resistance, any alternative measures, weapons used, number of involved parties, officer training and experience, an officer's verbal announcements, and the physical proximity to the suspect. The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than the 20/20 vision of hindsight...The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. Graham v. Connor (1989) 490 U.S. 386, 396-397. One of factors in determining reasonableness is 'whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others'. Thus, 'an officer may reasonably use deadly force when he or she confronts an armed suspect in close proximity whose actions indicate an intent to attack' Reynolds v. County of San Diego, 858 F. Supp. 1064 (S.D. Cal. 1994), Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 1994). The Supreme Court in Graham held, "Determining whether the force used to affect a particular seizure is 'reasonable' under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of 'the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests' against the countervailing governmental interests at stake." The Graham court also held that "the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application" instead "its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight" Graham v. Connor, supra 490 U.S. 386, 396. In Mattos v. Agarano, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote, "Ultimately the most important Graham factor is whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others". Mattos, 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). A. Deputy Jessica Wallace Wallace had deployed stop sticks on Seaview Road after breaking off from the pursuit line. After the suspect's vehicle was stopped on Seaview Road, Wallace participated in the felony stop against the vehicle, deployed a beanbag shotgun as a non-lethal force against the suspect, and was present during the ensuing foot pursuit and tackling of the suspect. According to Laine's report, Wallace fired the first unsuccessful beanbag volley at Suspect once after Suspect began fleeing and after issuing multiple commands to stop. Wallace then fired the second unsuccessful beanbag volley after Suspect was tackled by Sergeant Alan Woodfill ("Woodfill"), and it was noticed by Wallace that Suspect was brandishing a dangerous weapon, which she had initially believed to be a hammer. Wallace fired a third unsuccessful volley at Suspect, now cognizant of the suspect's possession of a machete, while the suspect was in close proximity to other deputies and was standing upright following the second volley. Wallace fired the fourth and final volley when Suspect began threateningly manipulating the machete. When using the standard for evaluating reasonableness of an officer's use of force in Graham v. Connor, we consider the following factors: the severity of the crime, which was the suspect's involvement in a vehicle pursuit and brandishing of a machete; the immediate threat, which was the wielding of the machete, the refusal to drop the machete, and aggressive behavior towards the officers, as described in multiple accounts; the lack of effect from means already utilized, which was the observation that the beanbag shotgun employed three times was ineffective in subduing the suspect; the previous attempt to strike a deputy with a deadly melee weapon; and the resisting arrest, which was the suspect's flight from his disabled vehicle and resistance of physical apprehension, to the inclusion of refusing to drop his weapon when prompted to by multiple officers multiple times. The standard also requires the use of force to be proportional to the perceived threat, and Wallace's decision to deploy a non-lethal form of force was consistent with a reasonable officer's response under the circumstances. The choice of non-lethal force in a situation where lethal force could potentially have been justified reflects a measured and proportionate response to the threat, especially when considering Wallace's observation of there being sufficient lethal presence by officers on scene already. Wallace did not fire her service weapon. There is thus no evidence to suggest beyond a reasonable doubt that Wallace did not act outside of her duty to utilize force to overcome a suspect's resistance when she had used non-lethal force against the suspect. No action will be taken by our office against Wallace. B. Sergeant Alan Woodfill, Deputy Diana Cabello, Detective Wyatt Kolchin In this case, Woodfill initiated a traffic stop on a person who he believed to be unlicensed to drive, whose vehicle was not validly insured. Woodfill observed that the person was wearing gloves and a mask covering most of his face. Upon ordering Suspect to exit his vehicle, Suspect performed his first instance of resisting arrest, where he refused the order and instead fled from the traffic stop by vehicle. The pursuit led to Seaview Road. On Seaview Road, Suspect's vehicle was disabled by Wallace's stop sticks. A foot pursuit ensued where deputies were reported to have given orders to the Suspect to stop. Suspect made no attempts to comply. Wallace fired her first less lethal beanbag volley at Suspect in order to safely subdue him. Following this volley, Woodfill tackled Suspect to the ground. After the tackle, two witnesses agree, and video evidence corroborates, that Suspect brandished a machete and attempted to strike Woodfill. This strike had missed its target due to Woodfill's positioning. All witnesses agree that Suspect was in possession of a machete, and all on-scene witnesses agree that numerous orders were given to drop the machete, which were not adhered to. The statements and video evidence indicate that Suspect was not complaint. Most witnesses agree that numerous volleys of less lethal beanbag rounds were fired by Wallace. Although the exact number is disputed, we posit that four (4) were fired based on one credible undisputed statement by Lieutenant Kennedy Laine. The statements and video evidence indicate that three (3) less lethal volleys, prior to the officer-involved shooting incident, had little to no effect on Suspect. Given the amount of activity occurring in a short lapse of time, the stress of an event of this nature, and the fact that all witnesses agree that Suspect began swinging his machete in an aggressive manner following multiple unsuccessful beanbag deployments, there is insufficient evidence to establish that Woodfill, Kolchin, and Cabello did not make the observations that they describe, apart from Kolchin's uncorroborated observation that the "Suspect proceeded to sprint towards Kolchin at speed". This statement, in absence of any indication that it was intentionally false, remains an outlier, and while it is taken into account, it is not given undue weight when set upon the broader context and preponderance of corroborated evidence from other officers and video footage. Given the totality of circumstances and the congruence of most of the witness statements and evidence, it does not significantly undermine the determination of the justifiability of the officers' actions. There is no dispute that Woodfill, Kolchin, Cabello, Laine, and Wallace were within 20 feet of Suspect when the machete was brandished and the shots were fired. Based on contemporary police training and experience, it is commonly believed that a suspect can quickly traverse a threshold distance of 21-feet in the time it takes for him to be neutralized by lethal force. This places Suspect within the threshold distance where he could successfully stab Woodfill, Kolchin, Cabello, Laine, or Wallace, and avoid lethal apprehension, and when compounded with the fact that Suspect resisted numerous times, attempted to swing the machete at Woodfill, was subject to three (3) less lethal beanbag deployments prior to the shooting, all of which were unsuccessful, and raised his machete menacingly in the air following the third unsuccessful less lethal beanbag deployment, supports the conclusion that Woodfill, Kolchin, and Cabello actually and honestly believed they or others were in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury at the time they fired their weapons. This honest and actual belief precludes a prosecution for murder. The question remains whether Woodfill, Kolchin, and Cabello had a objectively reasonable belief in the need for self-defense and/or the defense of others under the circumstances. Would it appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge? An argument can be made, based upon the evidence, that Suspect was on the ground immediately prior to the officer-involved shooting, that he had not presently charged at the officers, and that therefore the shooting was premature. However, several factors weigh against this argument. Suspect refused to comply with the verbal commands of officers to surrender and to drop his machete. He was brandishing his machete in a threatening manner in the presence of officers, causing them fear. He had already swung at Woodfill and made it known to officers that he was violently predisposed. He proved resistant to three less lethal means to disarm and detain him. He was wearing clothing that concealed his face and identity. There were officers in close proximity to Suspect who were at risk if Suspect charged in their direction, and their position surrounding the suspect would have left the officers in a position to attempt to stop an armed moving subject against the backdrop of several other officers in crossfire. Officers could have reasonably inferred that the fourth volley of less lethal beanbag rounds would have been ineffective in subduing Suspect, as three unsuccessful volleys were fired previously. The fact that alterative means of subduing Suspect were not available, or in this case, not effective, when Suspect became a threat to officers, weighs in favor of reasonableness (Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 1994)). After the beanbag deployments and numerous verbal commands, Suspect became visibly agitated and began swinging the machete around. This action, alone, occurring in response to four officers with their guns drawn, one officer with a beanbag shotgun drawn, in his direction, giving him commands to drop the machete, after three unsuccessful beanbag deployments and an attempt to harm Woodfill, would cause a reasonable person in a similar situation to believe that Suspect had no intention to surrender and was preparing to strike at one of the officers, and that any subsequent beanbag rounds would have been ineffective in subduing Suspect. Although Suspect had not yet stood up prior to the lethal volleys fired by Woodfill and Cabello, a reasonable person with similar knowledge as to the amount of time it takes for a person with a sharp-edged weapon to charge at an individual from a distance of 20 feet, could reasonably believe in the necessity to use deadly force to prevent a potentially deadly assault in this situation. As such, a reasonable trier of fact may find that, having attempted unsuccessfully numerous times other non-lethal options available to them at the moment, Kolchin's, Cabello's, and Woodfill's decisions to use deadly force were reasonable to prevent Suspect from assaulting them or other deputies with a deadly weapon. Therefore, under the totality of the circumstances, the People cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kolchin's, Cabello's, and Woodfill's beliefs in the need for self-defense were not objectively reasonable at the time of the shooting, thus precluding a prosecution for manslaughter. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, we find that Sergeant Alan Woodfill, Deputy Diana Cabello, and Detective Wyatt Kolchin had honest beliefs in the need for self-defense and defense of others when they used deadly force against Suspect. We further find there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their decisions to use deadly force was not objectively reasonably. We are closing our file and are taking no further action in the matter. INVESTIGATOR: Deputy Chief Harold Steinbach Justice System Integrity Division SUPERVISOR: Chief Johnny Harmon Justice System Integrity Division DISTRICT ATTORNEY: /s/ Harper Meyer District Attorney Harper Meyer Los Santos County District Attorney's Office Page 6 Edited January 11 by Soyuz Link to comment
Soyuz Posted January 11 Author Share Posted January 11 (edited) • December 25, 2024: Fatal Off-Duty Officer-Involved Shooting of Unnamed Adult Subject Spoiler Fatal Off-Duty Officer-Involved Shooting of Unnamed Adult Subject Los Santos Police Department Police Officer Ali Miller, #109046 J.S.I.D. File #25OIS001 ELIZABETH LACROIX District Attorney Justice System Integrity Division January 11, 2025 Page 1 MEMORANDUM The Justice System Integrity Division of the Los Santos County District Attorney's Office has completed its review of the December 25, 2024, fatal shooting of an unnamed adult subject by off-duty Los Santos Police Department (LSPD) Police Officer Ali Miller. We conclude that Officer Miller acted in lawful self-defense of another at the time he fired his service weapon, reasonably believing, based on the totality of the circumstances, that deadly force was necessary to defend another against an imminent threat. The District Attorney's Office was notified of the incident at approximately 2:46 a.m. on January 4, 2025. The District Attorney's Office was sent a completed casefile regarding the circumstances surrounding the shooting by the Internal Affairs Bureau of the LSPD. The following analysis is based on investigative reports, use of force reports, CCTV, witness statements, an autopsy report, and digital in-car video system (DICVS) footage submitted to this office by LSPD Internal Affairs Division. The voluntary statements of all involved officers were considered in this analysis. Officer Miller's compelled statement was not considered as part of this analysis. Page 2 FACTUAL ANALYSIS Summary of the Facts On December 25, 2024, immediately prior to the incident, Police Officer Ali Miller was off-duty and armed in Ground & Pound cafe on Vespucci Boulevard and Sinner Street in Mission Row. At approximately 12:01 a.m., Officer Miller left the coffee shop with a few friends. Five people total surrounded Officer Miller. At approximately 12:02 a.m., it can be seen how four individuals began to fight outside the cafe proximate to Officer Miller, slightly west of him and the group he is with. One group of two individuals were fighting at the far end of the footage, far west of the coffee shop's entrance. Within this group, one individual was armed with a hammer ("Subject With Hammer" or "SWH"), and the other individual ("Subject With Gun" or "SWG" or "Unidentified Decedent"), at the time the fight began, displayed no weapon. SWH struck SWG three times with his hammer, after which SWG unholstered his firearm and fired. SWG fired a total of six rounds towards SWH and successfully incapacitated him. Between shots #5 and #6, Miller unholsters his firearm and fires 6 rounds into SWG, fatally wounding him. Location of Occurrence The shooting occurred outside the Ground & Pound cafe. Ali Miller was standing with directly outside the cafe, facing a southerly direction, with approximately 4 other people standing alongside him. The SWH and the SWG were to the west of the Ground & Pound cafe, immediately abutting an alleyway street nearly parallel to Fantastic Place across the street. The shooting occurred within said stretch of block, from the intersection of Vespucci Boulevard and Sinner Street to Vespucci Boulevard and the alleyway parallel to Fantastic Place. Page 3 WITNESS STATEMENTS At the time of the incident, was a civilian witness to the occurrence. reported that Ali Miller, off-duty, was inside the Ground & Pound cafe prior to the shooting. She reports that when she and Miller left the cafe, they heard gunfire, and "the shooter was targeting someone else", more specifically that he was "aiming for someone else [with a gun] and firing". Notably, stated that "it happened very fast" and that she "[couldn't] recall seeing a gun in the hand of the person the shooter was shooting at or not". Police Officer Scott Shepherd At the time of the incident, Police Officer Scott Shepherd was a ____-year veteran of the LSPD. On December 25, 2025, at approximately 00:05 a.m., Shepherd responded to the shooting as a traffic unit. He was tasked with a certain Sergeant Linh with taking a statement from Ali Miller. Shepherd's notation of Miller's statements, as interpreted by a certain Sergeant Linh, created an inference of the following: "that Miller witnessed a fight between those two guys. One guy attacked the shooter with a hammer. Shooter pulled out his firearm, shot at the attacker. Miller pulled his gun and eliminated the shooter." Shepherd's conversation with Miller was recorded, and Miller explained to Shepherd that he and his group left the cafe, encountered a fight between the two subject individuals, and then one drew a firearm and began shooting. Miller says he then unholstered his firearm and fired two or three rounds into the shooter. Upon inquiry by Shepherd as to whether Miller ever see a firearm or weapon on the "other party", Miller answered "Hammer". Miller proceeded to explain that the duo was fighting armed with a hammer and the other with his fists before drawing a firearm. Page 4 WEAPONS EVIDENCE Miller was armed with a Glock handgun, which was collected but not sent for forensic testing. SWH was armed with a hammer, which was collected but not sent for forensic testing. VIDEO FOOTAGE EVIDENCE Multiple sources of video footage were obtained from the scene of the incident, including CCTV footage, LSPD Mission Row station footage, and Digital In-Car Video System. The following activity was captured on video: 00:01:45 - Ali Miller and several others exit Ground & Pound. 00:02:06 - Two individuals attack two men approx. 20ft west of Miller. 00:02:14 - A fight ensues approximately 50 feet west of Miller. SWH uses a hammer, while SWG uses his fists. SWH strikes SWG three times. 00:02:16 - SWG unholsters a firearm and fires four rounds at SWH. 00:02:17 - Miller unholsters his firearm. SWG fires two rounds at SWH, incapacitating him. 00:02:18 - Miller fires six rounds at SWG while approaching him. 00:02:21 - Miller holsters his firearm. DEATH INVESTIGATION REPORT On December 25, 2024, at 01:25 a.m., Senior Forensic Attendant Roger McFarlane with PHMC Health performed a death investigation with respect to the Unidentified Decedent. The written report was authored by McFarlane. McFarlane identified the individual as John Doe, who was pronounced dead on December 25, 2024, at 12:02 a.m. Upon examination of the decedent, puncturing gunshot wounds matching 9x19mm rounds with stippling were observed at the right shoulder, pelvic region, and the left thigh; further investigation noted contusions and deformation to the sternum, with most likely a blunt object being used to inflict blunt force trauma to the chest region; however, the severing of the femoral artery upon the wound to the thigh most likely caused exsanguination, leading to the decease. Based on the information gathered from the scene investigation and the decedent's medical history (if available), the probable cause of death was determined to be multiple gunshot wounds incl. to the femoral artery, leading to exsanguination - 9x19mm rounds. The manner of death was classified as Homicide. Page 5 LEGAL ANALYSIS Use of Force to Effect an Arrest San Andreas law permits any person to use deadly force in self-defense or in the defense of others if that person fears an imminent and present threat of injury or death, and if that person actually and reasonably believes that the immediate use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate such a threat. In protecting himself or another, a person is only entitled to use the level of force which would appear to a reasonable person, in the same or similar circumstances, to be necessary (Penal Code §§1301-1302). Once an officer reasonably believes deadly force is necessary, the officer does not have an obligation to stop firing the weapon until the threat has ended. "If lethal force is justified, officers are taught to keep shooting until the threat is over." Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014). If a person believes that deadly force is necessary for self-defense or in defense of another, but that belief is unreasonable, the killing is partially justified and the killer may not be convicted of murder; however, he may be convicted of manslaughter. A conviction for manslaughter requires that the defendant intentionally causes the death of a person under the unreasonable belief that deadly force is necessary (Penal Code §204). When assessing the reasonableness of the use of deadly force, a trier of fact must consider both the perspective of the officer on the scene and what would be perceived by a reasonable officer in the same or similar circumstances. This evaluation requires a careful consideration of the totality of circumstances, including but not limited to the immediacy of the threat, the severity of the crime, the suspect's resistance, any alternative measures, weapons used, number of involved parties, officer training and experience, an officer's verbal announcements, and the physical proximity to the suspect. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386, 396-397 (1989). The Supreme Court in Graham held, "Determining whether the force used to affect a particular seizure is 'reasonable' under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of 'the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests' against the countervailing governmental interests at stake." The Graham court also held that "the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application" instead "its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight" Graham, 490 at 396. There is sufficient evidence to show Miller reasonably believed, based on the totality of the circumstances, that deadly force was necessary to defend himself and others against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. This conclusion stems primarily from Miller's response to an active shooter in a crowded area, where immediate action was critical to neutralizing the threat and protecting bystanders. Under the applicable law, the reasonableness of Miller's actions must be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in his position at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, now knowing that the other person involved was wielding a hammer. Miller's decision to engage the shooter aligns with the standard expectations of someone facing the chaotic and rapidly evolving circumstances of an active shooter situation, which included the immediacy of loud gunfire, the risk posed to bystanders, and the perceived threat of serious injury or death. These factors collectively justify his decision under the law. Furthermore, no duty existed for Miller to have conducted a comprehensive assessment of the disputing individuals' prior actions during the critical moments of the incident. The evidence suggests that Miller did not—and could not reasonably be expected to—know the full context of the deceased shooter's prior actions. Even if Miller later inferred that the deceased was acting in self-defense, such information was not available to him at the time he decided to use deadly force. The inconsistencies in Miller's statements to Officer Shepherd about whether he saw the hammer before or after incapacitating the individual are noted. However, these inconsistencies do not rise to the level of disproving the reasonableness of his belief. Miller's inference about the hammer, made after the fact and under the stress of the incident, does not establish malice or intent to act unlawfully. Furthermore, Sergeant Linh's interpretation of Miller's statements does not provide definitive evidence to undermine his credibility or the reasonableness of his actions. Absent clear evidence that Miller knowingly acted without justification or that he unreasonably perceived a threat, the prosecution faces significant challenges in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions were unlawful. Here, the chaotic environment, the presence of an active shooter, and the immediate threat to bystanders strongly support the conclusion that Miller's actions were justified under the law and that Miller had an honest and actual belief that deadly force was necessary. This honest and actual belief precludes a prosecution for murder. The introduction of a firearm raises the danger level of an incident significantly. Despite whatever intentions an armed individual may have, as the instant case shows, there are no winners when a firearm is used, and there are no guarantees that one can walk away unscathed. CONCLUSION Per the foregoing reasons, we have concluded there is insufficient evidence to find Officer Ali Miller acted unlawfully. INVESTIGATOR: Special Prosecutor Justice System Integrity Division SUPERVISOR: Chief Johnny Harmon Justice System Integrity Division DISTRICT ATTORNEY: District Attorney Elizabeth Lacroix Los Santos County District Attorney's Office Page 6 Edited January 13 by Soyuz 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now