|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A Contra Costa County jury determined in a coroner’s inquest Tuesday that a Newark man who was shot and killed by a Danville police officer in November died at the hands of another person, other than by accident.
That verdict was one of four specific options jurors had to choose from in the public hearing called to determine the manner of 33-year-old Laudemer Arboleda’s death — the others were accident, suicide or natural causes.
Arboleda was fatally shot by Danville police Officer Andrew Hall at the intersection of Front Street and Diablo Road at the end of a brief pursuit on the morning of Nov. 3.
Since that time, the Newark man’s mother, Jeannie Atienza, filed a wrongful-death suit against the town of Danville, Contra Costa County and Hall, who is a sheriff’s deputy assigned to Danville PD under the town’s police services contract with the county.
The lawsuit claims that not only did Danville police follow Arboleda without adequate justification, but that they fired upon him unnecessarily as he attempted to slowly drive away from officers.
Danville police on the other hand say that they were originally investigating Arboleda after receiving reports that a suspicious person — later identified as Arboleda — was in a neighborhood walking up to houses with bags in hand. Police allege Arboleda attempted to hit officers with his car while trying to flee the scene, including while driving at Hall who was on foot.
Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner David O. Livingston calls a coroner’s inquest for all police-involved deaths. The jury considered testimony of witnesses called by hearing officer Matthew Guichard and reached its verdict at the courthouse in Martinez on Tuesday.
According to the Contra Costa County Bar Association, a coroner’s inquest is held in cases that involve death related to law enforcement, such as an officer-involved shooting or death in a county jail.
I fully support Danville PD in this case. If a suspicious person approaches the homes in my neighborhood having a suspicious bag in his hand, I definitely want Danville PD approach and question him. If that person does not cooperate with the Police, and instead drives toward them with his car, I definitely want the Police to disable him. I am sick and tired of criminals coming to Danville from other areas and committing all types of crimes. I am sorry for the loss that this mother has to deal with, but she should blame her son for it, not Danville PD. Shame on her for trying to milk the Town of Danville for a hefty sum of money due to events caused by the acts of her son.
If you’re not doing anything wrong, why not stop and answer questions. I’m sad for this mother to have lost a child(grown man) but don’t come looking for a payday from The Town of Danville. He didn’t stop and wouldn’t cooperate with authorities and chose to drive his vehicle towards them with a town full of people near by.
If you don’t cooperate with the police, there are consequences. One of them being shot to death. Police shoot to stop a threat, and it could happen to anyone. This mother is looking for a payday, and John Burris will always be the ambulance chaser that he is.
You would think that society would learn from all the cases of not complying with the police, the end result a tragic and preventable death. In this case, this man had mental health issues – and the police and the mentally ill don’t mix.
“Once all investigations are completed, we look forward to sharing the full details with the public Livingston said.” Contra Costa County Sheriff David Livingston who is the supervisor of Danville PD made this statement November 19, 2018.
The clock is ticking Sheriff Livingston fulfill your promise release all the body cams and the report. The questions that remain are very troubling.
1) If officer was in danger why did all the bullets strike the passenger side of the windshield. It is not possible to kill the driver unless the policeman was standing to the side of the car.
2) This was the 3rd ineffective attempted stop of the driver that day.
3) The risk to the public escalated after the shooting of the driver. With the car crashing head on into traffic on opposite side of road. A driver slowly pull away from a traffic stop is not a risk to the public. “if a driver simply disobeys an officer’s order to stop, the crime will likely be charged as a misdemeanor.”
What part of cooperate with the police don’t people understand?
Hey Parent,
I guess speculation is your truth? No? Read the report first before assuming what you think you know. Furthermore, taking cheap shots at the police reduce your credibility to zero. However, before you bump your gums about anything else you think you know, understand this:
While police records are subject to state public records laws like the California Public Records Act, many types of police records are specifically exempt from disclosure. As a result, police departments vary widely in how they respond to reporters’ requests for arrest or crime reports. Danville PD is no different than any other police department.
The only thing “troubling” is your assumptions.
Any word on the IA investigation of the Danville PD shooter? Isn’t it almost time the Danville PD released their report? Really shame on you for attacking the dead man’s mother – filing lawsuits isn’t that the American way? Furthermore I seriously doubt Burris takes a case he thinks he cannot win. How much will the town of Danville have to pay out? We know its coming!
Failing to disclose the “full details” Contra Costa County Sheriff David Livingston is showing why the courts had to force the department to comply with the law and disclose officer misconduct files. The Contra Costa Sheriff’s office record of injuries during pursuits is greater than police departments with 3 times the number of officers.
Police Chief Shields of Danville informed the public it was a justified shooting the next day after the event. Why the silence and no release of the body cam on the justified shooting. Danville needs police officers not boys playing cops and robbers that run under the cone of silence when they kill someone. Follow the lead of professional police departments with policies to not shot into vehicles and to release body cam within 45 days of an officer involved incident.
@Parent
From the liberal Washington Post:
Police in Washington, New York City, Chicago and Las Vegas have begun allowing officers to fire at moving vehicles to stop ramming attacks. While concern about the tactic remains, authorities say that, in extreme instances, trying to shoot the driver might be the only way to save lives.
Bingo!
Notice the article listed “extreme instances” as the reason to use deadly force? But according to you, including all of your anti-cop rhetoric, police officers should not be able to defend themselves, or the lives of other people in these cases? Hmm, something is amiss here. After all, when you call Danville PD a bunch of “frat boys,” your argument – or whatever you want to call it – appears foolish and comical. Which of course begs the question: Have you ever had a negative encounter with law enforcement? My bet is you have. Axe to grind, maybe?
But wait! There’s more…
Las Vegas revised its policy, saying the change was due to terrorist incidents. A spokesman also mentioned a 2015 incident in which a woman believed to be high on drugs drove along a crowded sidewalk, striking 30 pedestrians and killing one. The city now permits officers to shoot at moving vehicles if it is “absolutely necessary to preserve human life.”
And finally…
On November 9, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion on Mullenix v. Luna, in which the Court held that an officer who killed a suspect while attempting to shoot at the engine block of the suspect’s speeding car was entitled to qualified immunity because the officer did not violate any clearly established law by his conduct.
“If an officer puts himself in a position where they have no alternative but to use deadly force, they will use deadly force,” The officer approached the car from the front and decided deadly force was needed. But why did he approach the car from the front. That is the big issue in the shooting I do not understand. Can not find any source that says this is a good way to deal with a driver that keeps driving away.
@Tim
Ah… Someone with common sense! Tim, I appreciate your comment because it’s not speculative. You have every right to question the officer’s actions. I can see the logic in that.
Unfortunately, people, like Parent – and others – want to condemn the actions of a police officer before they know the facts.
If Parent’s complaint was only about lack of transparency, fine. But she/he is only interested in assuming the officer’s guilt.
@ Parent: Uh, oh… News Flash! Wednesday, August 14, 2019.
Sonoma County Sheriff’s Deputy shoots through car window, shattering glass and wounding the assailant. Source – Channel 2
http://www.ktvu.com/news/ktvu-local-news/sonoma-co-sheriff-releases-graphic-video-of-suspect-being-shot-and-wounded-by-deputy
The deputy tries to open his patrol-vehicle door, but the suspect closes it shut. That’s when he fires six rounds from his firearm, shattering the driver-side window and injuring the suspect. The incident began at Santa Rosa Plaza shopping center, where employees said the 42-year-old suspect, Brad Baymon of Minnesota, tried to steal a pair of shoes and then tried to stab them with a pocket knife.
The 911 dispatch call is from a Macy’s employee who calmly describes the situation as it unfolds. He tells the dispatcher the suspect has a pocket knife and that there was an attempted stabbing.
“He literally tried to kill us ma’am. He literally tried to stab us in the neck,” the Macy’s assets protection manager said over the phone.
Hey Parent! The deputy fired several shots – THROUGH THE PASSENGER SIDE WINDOW SHATTERING GLASS – at the suspect who tried to take his patrol car after attempting to stab innocent victims.
By your asinine logic, I’m sure you feel the deputy was in the wrong?
3 weeks after the investigation are completed and not a word from Danville Police Chief Shields or Contra Costa Sheriff David Livingston. So much for
“Once all investigations are completed, we look forward to sharing the full details with the public”
The courts ruled that police can lie to suspects but Danville PD must be confusing the public with suspects. Release the body cam like other police departments do within 45 days of a shooting not 9 plus months.
I’m supportive of Danville PD, but I don’t blindly support any profession (or anybody). If you do, there are negative consequences. I have no idea how releasing the body cam works (or if there’s a timeframe) so I’ll leave it at that. I do know if you’re too critical of the police, it leads to lack of support towards law enforcement in general. We need to be supportive of the police, or the criminals win.
Hey everyone, listen to what this clown, Parent, said:
“The courts ruled that police can lie to suspects…”
Hey Parent, stop spreading lies. What “court” ruled where police can lie to suspects? You are one miserable clown. Tell ya what, why don’t you join Antifa and the other anarchists with all their BS and hate. You are a joke.
M.H.
Below are cases that the courts ruled on. Check the facts before you attack. Always easier to attack the person than the facts.
People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107; Hawkins v. Lynaugh (5th Cir. 1988) 844 F.2d 1132
People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 299
Maryland v. King (2013) 133 S.Ct. 1958; California v. Greenwood (1988) 486 U.S. 35
People v. Mays (2009) 173 Cal App. 4th 1145.
People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483; People v. Parrison (1992) 137 Cal.App.3d 529, 537
People v. Dominick (1986) 182 Cal. Ap. 3d 1174.
People v. Sims (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 405.
Frazier v. Cupp (1969) 394 U.S. 731.
United States v. Santos-Garcia (8th Cir.2002) 313 F.3d 1073, 1079
People v. Steger (1976) 16 Cal.3d 539, 550
People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557
@Parent
Nope. You took the entire meaning of those laws out of context – as usual.
Police can use deceptive tactics during any interrogation of a suspect. That law has been on the books for years – affirmed by the US Supreme Court.
In other words, police use deception only to obtain information from a suspect who may have taken part in an alleged crime. However – and this is the part you purposely left out – police cannot lie in court or withold evidence.
In other words, police use deception as a tool, not for the sole purpose of lying – as you tried to convey.
You’re attempt to muddy the waters by claiming Danville PD lies is pathetic. What does a law allowing police to use deception during an interrogation have anything to do with with this current case? Hmm?
All you did was attempt to spin one thing into another to make Danville PD look bad.
Sounds to me like Parent has had some negative interaction with police in the past.