Comments by whatsinsb
Posted on March 15 at 7:59 a.m.
In reviewing the video it appears Tudor is on foot (00:01:40) and he is in the headlights of a car that appears to be on a curve. Tudor is running back to the police car (00:11:00). Was Tudor outside his car, above the parking lot of the restaurant and watching the area from this location? It appears Tudor drove past the Hendry's Beach entrance at (00:31:00) and turns onto Los Positas Road at (1:00:00). If this is accurate, when and where did Tudor determine there was no front license plate on DeNunzio's truck?
Where were both vehicles when the police red lights were activated?
There is no law requiring a driver to remain in their vehicle once stopped by police, common sense should tell us it is best to remain in the car.
Also, once a driver has stepped out of their vehicle the officer should use common sense and keep the driver from going back inside their vehicle (unless required due to circumstances). Once a suspect is outside their vehicle the officer can observe if they appear to have any weapons. I would think the officer would not want the suspect to get back inside their vehicle as the officer would not know if the (possibly aggitated/aggravated) suspect would then have access to any weapon(s) concealed within the vehicle. Whether or not Tudor used correct procedure regarding this point is arguable. I believe Tudor was wrong!
It appears Tudor approached DeNunzio (00:05:17), touched his left arm and pushed him against DeNunzio's vehicle. I suspect Tudor advised DeNunzio to get back into his car; when DeNunzio did not comply the pushing occurred and Tudor kicked DeNunzio's leg out (00:05:22) and took him to the asphalt. Likely a "contempt of cop" violation that prompted this action by Tudor. Look at the time frame. In my opinion Tudor was too aggressive for such a short interaction with DeNunzio.
Posted on March 13 at 8:32 p.m.
The victim can tell the cops all they want to know but do they know what to do with what they learn?
Posted on March 8 at 7:13 a.m.
Remember, as Assistant Police Chief Mannix has stated, it will take police 10-minutes to respond to the scene of a major incident, until then, as he further stated, "you are on your own." Police can't do much about preventing what sounds like a spontaneous attack in this Ied case. But, once they are notified of an incident such as this I would hope our police department has the personnel to respond in less than ten minutes.
Chief Sanchez, why don't you tell the citizens of our community why it will take ten mintues to respond to a "shootout" situation (if Mannix' statement is accurate) and why this delayed response is accepted by you and your staff?
Posted on March 1 at 8:48 p.m.
edukder
I would like to accept your comment requesting we remember " - police are only minutes away."
But, the reported 10 minute response time to a "shoot-out scenario" was made by an Assistant Police Chief, Mannix, not a rookie patrol officer. Mannix should know (within reason) the average response time of patrol units to specific types of calls within this city. I suspect there is a crime analyst or other person at the PD that might have patrol car response time data. Mannix emphasizes this lengthy response time by stating “During that time, quite frankly, you’re on your own.”
Not quite what I'd want to hear if I happened to live in a high crime area. This comment alone might give people in these areas incentive to go out and secure a weapon in order to defend themselves during a major incident having been told it will take 10 minutes for police to arrive.
I believe citizens of our city deserve to know if Mannix' statement is accurate. If it is, why does it take a Police Officer ten minutes to respond to a major incident? Do you believe 10 minutes is too long for police to arrive at the scene of a major incident? If we agree a 10 minute response is not acceptable, what can be done to resolve this problem?
Posted on March 1 at 10:10 a.m.
My concern, aside from the weapons issue, is the following comment by Assistant Police Chief Mannix: "The police, he went on, will take about 10 minutes to show up and take charge. “During that time, quite frankly, you’re on your own,”
If this is an accurate statement by Mannix I believe the citizens of this city should be advised (why) it takes police 10 minutes to respond to a major incident. The longer it takes police to locate a suspect in an incident could lead to further damage or injury(ies) caused by a suspect, but, this clock starts running after police arrive at a scene. Too many variables to say how long it should take to locate a suspect(s) once police are at an incident location and not an issue for the most part that police can control.
But, if you are being threatened by a suspect brandishing or firing a gun (or using another type of deadly weapon), I believe it's important to learn from the PD why it will take 10 minutes for police to arrive! Within reason, police can control response time and 10 minutes is too long to respond to an emergency.
Posted on February 28 at 6:21 a.m.
AZ2SB. The "b.s." you smell is an assistant police chief (Mannix) reporting officers "will take about 10 minutes to show up and take charge" when a reported shoot-out occurs. This is an extremely SLOW response time for any law enforcement agency to a major incident! Even if officers were in the station and dispatched they should arrive in less than 10 minutes (using red lights & siren) to any scene in the city. Of course, if they are using their recent brainchild, the 3-wheeler, it will take longer. Was Mannix misquoted relative to response time? If not misquoted does Mannix really know what he's talking about?
Posted on February 25 at 7:46 p.m.
Murillo is likely spending a lot of time with the PD's Sanchez & Mannix trying to figure out whether or not to install lights and a siren on their new (three wheeled) "motorized interceptors!" Could this comment be "tongue in cheek" or a statement of fact? Bicycle cops and a sub-station won't help change the crime problem in any given area as much as experienced police staff officers that know how and where to deploy their personnel.
Posted on February 20 at 10:34 p.m.
This is what we get when we have a police command staff with minimal police experience. Don't confuse years on the job with experience. One of the staff geniuses that came up with this idea might have 1 year of actual street experience multiplied 20 times and then Murphy's Law takes over. A lot of time on the job but not much in all around experience. Must have taken many hours of staff meetings to come up with this brilliant idea.
Posted on February 20 at 10:24 p.m.
Learn English, teach in English and keep GATE entrance requirements high. I don't care where you came from or the color of your skin. If you don't meet the high requirements, can't or won't learn English, then return to wherever you came from!
Previous Month
Posted on March 15 at 9:49 a.m.
Quite a distance for a police officer to follow a suspected impaired/drunk driver (Hendry's Beach to Loreto Plaza).
Is it known if DeNunzio turned into Loreto Plaza due to the police lights being activated or did Tudor activate his red lights in Loreto Plaza? Only an issue as the DA, in closing arguments, reportedly stated "Denunzio didn’t pull over immediately after Tudor turned on his flashing lights." An act to consider if he were driving like an ordinary person.
I am an ordinary person and like many of you have experienced driving in front of a police car on the roadway. As I've looked back at the police (or other vehicles) in my rear or side view mirror I sometimes found myself momentarily wavering in my lane. Depending on the driver in front of a police car they may become more nervous the longer the police car stays behind them. Looking into the rear/side view mirrors, more attention being paid to the police behind them than the drive ahead of them, could cause some deviation in driving, slight wavering in the traffic lane, over the line, etc. Police stop these people and they are simply nervous, not impaired.
If Tudor believed the driver he followed was impaired there should have been more substantial evidence seen in the video in a shorter period of time. More than just momentary movement within the driving lane or a turn signal issue. This lack of significant evidence is likely the reason Tudor followed DeNunzio for such a distance, he probably knew he didn't have enough of a (negative) driving pattern to substantiate DUI but just enough to warrant a stop.
At the stop, Tudor's inexperience, lack of discipline, lack of proper training and lack of professionalism escalate this stop into the circus it has become. From what I see on the video Tudor initiated the physical and combative contact. As I've said before probably due to DeNunzio's "contempt of cop" violation when he did not comply with Tudor's order to get back into his vehicle. Did I miss something DeNunzio did that justified Tudor's actions?
On Mistrial Declared in Tony Denunzio DUI Case