Sonoma County D.A.: No criminal charges for sheriff's deputy in Andy Lopez shooting

[happyslug]

7. Could it be she delayed the decision for it was the only one she could make?

Last edited Wed Jul 9, 2014, 12:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Remember this is an Police Officer who fired his weapon. As a police officer he has NO duty to retreat and the law assumes if he fires his weapon he had just cause to do so. The DA not only has to prove he fired his weapon, but that it was uncalled for. Any questions of fact must be made in favor of the Police Officer. You may believe he had no just cause to do the shooting, but the law requires the DA to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that he had no reason to do the shooting.

In cases with civilians, most states require the Shooter to show they had just cause to do the shooting. i.e. the burden of proof in on the civilian shooter NOT the DA to show justification. This includes even the new Stand your grounds laws require SOME evidence of justification for the shooting, (you can not just pull a gun and shoot someone, you have to be able to say you had some reason to do so). Police do not even have to show that level of evidence, all they have to say is they reacted as they were trained in such situations and unless you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Officer did NOT follow what he was trained to do , he walks. If you can show the Officer did not do as he was trained, you then have to prove the Actions was unreasonable, remember all questions of fact is in favor of the Officer in any Criminal Trial, thus if the action comes under any definition of being reasonable, he walks.

Worse, Police Officers can claim the right not to incriminate themselves and thus NOT say what happened and the DA then has to go by the evidence she does have and any question of fact must be made in favor of the Officer. This rule also applies to Civilian Cases, but in cases of Civilians while the burden of proof in on the DA to show no right to self defense, but any doubts as to that issue is left to the jury to decide.

In simple terms, it is very hard to convict a Police Officer of misuse of his firearm in any criminal procedure. You have to have video of him slowly pulling his gun, slowing taking aim and shooting the victim as he stood they doing nothing (and a couple of eye witnesses to back up that video). Anything less is NOT enough.

Thus, the DA did what was required of her, dismiss this case. That does NOT relieve the officer of liability, he can still be sued for then the burden of proof is no longer beyond a reasonable doubt but preponderance of the evidence and given all criminal charges have been dropped he can be force to testify to what happened. Thus the best solution is to "Sue the Bastard".

Now, I have read the report, and it appears the first shot fired missed, the second shot fired just grazed the victim. The killing shots were the remaining five rounds and they appear to hit the victim as he fell to the ground. Thus was he a threat to the police officers? Probably not, but in a CRIMINAL case I do not see how the bullets hit the victim can show he was incapable of returning fire and thus what the police officer did was justified as self defense.

On the other hand, in a CIVIL SUIT, that the Victim was falling to the ground when he was hit by the killing rounds implies he was complying with the police order and thus he was acting accordingly to what he had been told to do and thus those shots were unreasonable excess firing. In a Civil Suit that would be enough for a jury to rule in favor of the victim's family on the grounds the eight shots fired were excessive given the situation taken as a whole. That the Police could have be equipped with revolvers that require more effort to fire and restricted to six rounds can also be brought up on the grounds this victim was killed by the policy of that police department to equip its police with Automatics rather then Revolvers.

I am sorry, but the DA did a decent report, leaves a lot for an Attorney to use to get a Judgement against the Police Department for not training their officers properly and for not equipping them properly.