WEATHER »

Details Released On Officer-Involved Shooting

Arrested Suspect Attempted to Flee in Stolen Patrol Car


Monday, October 7, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

The Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office has released more information on the officer-involved shooting Sunday night that left a trespassing suspect in critical condition after he was shot multiple times by a pursuing deputy.

According to Sheriff’s spokesperson Kelly Hoover, 9-1-1 dispatchers received a call at around 7:45 p.m. from a concerned neighbor who reported a possible trespasser in a home on the 3200 block of Beach Club Road near Carpinteria. Three deputies responded and found a white male in his twenties inside the house. He was interviewed, handcuffed, and arrested — deputies found a loaded handgun in his backpack — and then loaded into the back seat of a patrol car.

As the deputies waited for a tow-truck to come remove the suspect’s car, he was able to knock out the patrol car’s plexiglas partition and crawl into its front seat. He started to drive away, said Hoover, and the deputies gave chase on foot. “[D]uring the resulting confrontation, a Sheriff’s Deputy fired several shots, some of which struck the suspect,” Hoover said in a prepared statement. He was transported to the hospital and remains in critical condition.

“Due to his medical condition, the suspect, who has an extensive criminal history, has not been able to be interviewed by Sheriff’s Detectives,” Hoover continued in the statement. “The Sheriff’s Forensics Bureau has confirmed his identity through fingerprints. Once his family has been notified of the incident, the suspect’s name will be released.”

After an investigation by the Sheriff’s Office, the case will be turned over to the District Attorney’s Office for further review. The deputy involved in the shooting has been placed on administrative leave, which is routine in such cases, said Hoover.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

shoot the damn tires. aren't police supposed to be trained in marksmanship?

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
October 7, 2013 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The suspect has a criminal history, he had a loaded gun in his backpack, he was trespassing, and he broke into a home. Good shot officers, and I'm glad none of you were hurt. Why some people would want the suspect walking around in society is beyond me. But hey, let's give him a few more chances to get his life in order.

zuma7 (anonymous profile)
October 7, 2013 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yeah Zuma, shoot em all and let's get it over with, right? perhaps you could form a posse and search out any other Suspects with criminal histories and prevent them unilaterally from criminal thuggery with your shock and awe.

GluteousMaximus (anonymous profile)
October 7, 2013 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

He was able to do all this whle handcuffed?...he's a modern-day Houdini.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 7, 2013 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Shoot first, ask questions later, or kill 'em all and let God sort them out.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
October 7, 2013 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another bad guy gets shot. Woe is me.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
October 7, 2013 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John Locke, you are not thinking. That vehicle was equipped with a shotgun and probably one or more assault rifles in the trunk. Shooting the tires out of a car does not stop it. The only way to stop the vehicle in this case was to disable the driver. And Bill Clausen, when I was in college (lo those many years ago) a friend of mine, while handcuffed, kick the rear window out of a police car while it was speeding down 101, crawled out onto the trunk and tried to slide off smoothly onto the freeway. He was pretty banged up when he got to the hospital but miraculously had no broken bones. Amazingly he only served 30 days in jail. So, yeah, someone handcuffed can actually accomplish a lot of stupidity.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
October 7, 2013 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not too easy to drive anything with your hands in handcuffs behind you! Unfortunately, I believe this might become an issue.

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
October 7, 2013 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where does it say his hands were handcuffed behind his back?

Botany (anonymous profile)
October 7, 2013 at 11:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John Locke, Are you fuxking kidding me? Regardless of whether this shooting was justified, your comment is moronic at best. Aren't adults (assuming you are one) supposed to be trained in basic logic?

MoKajavva (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2013 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No I'm not kidding, are you? Moronic how?

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2013 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I doubt it will become an issue, whatsinsb. Some people who are handcuffed with their hands behind their back are flexible enough to be able to move around and get their hands in front. It happened to me once or twice in my career.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JohnLocke is very likely correct and unlike some other posters who apparently want to save some money for our government by firing all of the judges and lawyers and just let the police execute all of the criminals in the street like in Stalin lead Soviet Union, most people, fortunately, believe in basic civil liberties and a trial by your peers. The job of police is to detain. They should only shoot if their life or someone else's life is in danger..... and none of this "well, IF he took the police car, he MIGHT have run somebody over.." when he could have just as easily driven a few blocks and got out and run away.

I'm not defending this guy, but I'm not prosecuting him yet either. Maybe he didn't know he was trespassing, or maybe he was about to commit armed robbery, who knows, I'm not on the jury so I will likely never know and won't claim to.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2013 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany - The article does not state the suspect was handcuffed with his hands behind his back. My point, (had) the suspects hands been handcuffed behind him, he would not have been able to drive (unless) he was able to move around as indicated by Locke. Not likely this occurred, but possible.

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2013 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Police use guns for one purpose - to kill. They are supposed to be used ONLY when lethal force is justified. Despite what you see in the movies and on TV, they are not used to shoot out tires of a moving car, they are not used to shoot someone in the leg or shoot a weapon out of their hand, they do not fire a warning shot over someone's head.

All of these suggestions that police should use their guns in non-lethal ways are moronic. The risk to bystanders when a bullet goes through a tire (or misses completely) and hits someone sitting innocently in their home or yard is extremely high. That is why guns are fired very infrequently, and when they are the target is center mass to increase the likelihood of hitting the target and to maximize the knockdown force.

An escaped prisoner driving a police car (possibly at police officers?) would certainly justify lethal force. I don't know if this was the case but regardless, you cops either shoot to kill or they don't shoot at all.

MoKajavva (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2013 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Unfortunately another case of excessive force. Yes he had a gun IN HIS BACKPACK. Yes there probably were police WEAPONS IN THE SQUAD CAR. Yes he MIGHT have committed a subsequent crime. But NONE of this warranted the officer using his weapon on a fleeing suspect. Neither the officer nor the public were in immediate danger of bodily harm. The officers were at risk of SEVERE EMBARRASSMENT back at the station. "You let him get away? With your vehicle? While he was handcuffed?" Oh crap, we gotta shoot at him.

rick (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2013 at 1:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

At the end of the day we have increasing officer-involved shootings, and a blind obedience to the "Back The Badge" mentality. Obviously there are going to be times when officers have to shoot people, but it sure seems to be happening a lot lately, and of course there's that pesky fact that the incident with Bendy White's stepson has been swept under the rug.

All we know in this case is that a guy who was wearing handcuffs was shot. Of course, maybe one shouldn't leave the keys in the ignition when a suspect is alone in the squad car--just a thought, but hey, who needs the courts when we can just shoot people and let God sort 'em out.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2013 at 4:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

California law says that a private citizen is only allowed to use lethal force if in fear that lethal force is about to be used on him/her. Why doesn't this apply to the cops?

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2013 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Best to wait until all facts are disclosed before judging the actions taken in this incident.

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2013 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For the record, The Supreme Court agrees with JohnLocke

Tennessee v. Garner - 471 U.S 1 (1985)

"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster."

So the guy would have had to threaten or try to run over somebody with the car for deadly force to be applied. Simply escaping in a cop car does not imply the use of deadly force.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2013 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: