Marine fatally shot in his car by police in front of his two young daughters

hi all, seems i've missed quite a bit so i'm off to catchup.
yes, i'm aware there is an update that indicates the shooting was ruled "justified", still, that doesn't make it right.

from what i've read so far, OC press release and Union statement, this story still has way too many holes to make any kind of sense. good questions have been posed and i'd like to add this ... why have the PD made a statement for a child rather disclose HER statement?
parents act oddly all the time, last i checked that's not indicative of imminent danger.

so the guy drove over the fence, big deal ... we're talking about MINOR property damage vs a life.
speeding ??? totally subjective as the officer was parked and no speedometer reading has been provided.

that Yukon, could have plowed the fence at less than 20mph ... which is a relative speed for a parking lot.
IF the fence being locked was an unusual event, it's possible he was "acting oddly" because he just realized what happened when he ran it over.
He could have disappeared into the darkness to relieve a bodily function.
He could have been looking for assistance to remove the fence.
heck, he could have wandered off to vomit, who knows? ppl react differently to such stresses.

also, so what if he drove off?
perhaps he wanted to drive off of the fence and then address the police demands.
perhaps that was part of the conversation between the two and the officer decided his demands were more important in that moment?

once upon a time, word on the street was ... you can do the crime but you CAN'T outrun a radio.
so, nowadays, we have hi tech, video, satellite, i'd bet that Yukon has GPS, streetview and backup on scene.
yet, there really existed the need to "shoot to kill"?
think about this ppl.

even considering "high speed pursuits", really, what's the point other than a testosterone moment reflective of the Dukes of Hazzard? there really exists NO need, we have the technology, WHY aren't they using it ???
oh, that's right, running red lights is soooooo much more revenue.

regardless of the ruling, regardless of the laws enabling such behaviors, we the people have the power to stop this nonsense.
i do not believe the actions of this man warrants his death.
i do not believe the actions of the officerS involved were appropriate given the lack of discipline exemplified in the timeline ... 5 minutes out of sight and those girls were STILL in the vehicle? bad, bad, bad.

shooting into the vehicle while the children present, also wrong.
allowing the driver back into the vehicle once "threat" determined ... what's that about ??
remember they exchanged words outside of the vehicle.
back up and additional vehicles on scene yet the Yukon was not "blocked" ?
tooooooo much here just doesn't add up.

@ XCathdra -- thanks for responding, i'd like to continue our conversation from previously but probably not til tomorrow. hope you're still around. thanks for the input, it is important to address the issues rationally so if you don't mind, i'll skip through the adhominem attacks along the way, k?

For me the bottom line is you don't go around shooting people dead because you think something might happen. You figure out a way to contain the situation, find out if there is a medical emergency which is possible, and if that possibility exist it needs to be considered. Shoot out the tires if you are that concerned he will drive off. Now his two young daughters will live with the nightmare of watching their father murdered and probably will feel somewhat responsible just cause kids are like that. His wife at home with yet a third child, a toddler, is 9 months pregnant and now has the reality of raising 4 children on her own plus delivering a baby in one of the most sorrowful times of her life. The family has been destroyed, children irreparably damaged, all of them. At what point is it civilized to kill people because you 'think' something might happen?

I grieve for the family. There is no excuse for this, no rationalization what so ever. Police are supposed to be trained to contain a situation not murder a father in front of his children for acting erratically. This is insanity at it's finest.

~is still a rose

Originally posted by Honor93
hi all, seems i've missed quite a bit so i'm off to catchup.
yes, i'm aware there is an update that indicates the shooting was ruled "justified", still, that doesn't make it right.

No rulings from the Orange County district attorney yet. Just some opinion from his Union pals.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Primary I really don't care what you say all I've ever seen you do was defending completely ridiculous things that happened without having any grounds as everything about it was wrong in first place...

By apparently completly laking of common sense all you do is quote all damn laws and regulations thats ever been written in any police books since the 11th century, hell I'm sure you probably even know the barcode number on the price sticker behind the cover too...

I'm simply pointing out the fact that you have an apparent complete lack of self respect toward the person that took the time to make research and take time to write this thread in hope to share his knowledge. I'm not making claims I'm pointing out facts as long as people will keep replying you'll keep coming its not a claim its a mathematical fact... out of the last 17 post you made 9 of them... You alone count for 50% of the posts in there...

Sometimes its not about having the last word but just being the wiser...

I'm just saying bro, I know you probably dreamed of being a cop your whole life, and you probably worked damn hard toward getting there and hell you might even be one of the good ones... However I'm sorry to have to tear down the walls of your fantasies man but put down the duty goggles and take a step back and look around... You'll see that sh!t doesn't jive in your professional circle lately...

reply to post by duality90


California Penal Law

Starting with section 833

835a. Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that
the person to be arrested has committed a public offense 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.

Justifiable Homicide requirements - CA Penal Code 197

195. Homicide is excusable in the following cases:
1. When committed by accident and misfortune, or in doing any
other lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution,
and without any unlawful intent.
2. When committed by accident and misfortune, in the heat of
passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden
combat, when no undue advantage is taken, nor any dangerous weapon
used, and when the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and
those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--
1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,
2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to
the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other
legal duty; or,
3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been
rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting
persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or
resisting such arrest.

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

reply to post by _R4t_


Apparently you failed to actually read the thread then since the OP posted there was not enough information to make a conclusion and he would reserve judgment until more info came out.

How can you argue something is wrong when you dont know the law or what it says?

Again, knock of the personal attacks. Its not needed and does nothing to add to the thread.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by retiredTxn
None of this is "fact", yet. Just speculation.

All the listed items have already been verified, making them facts.

Not so much verified, just the deputies account, and the unions letter.

Originally posted by retiredTxn
I understand what the one deputy was dealing with, but if we are to believe the unions version, additional officers were present, and attempted to comfort the children in the back seat.
Yet, they left the children alone in the vehicle rather than removing them from the equation. I feel the union is hurting the case by trying to justify the deputies actions, when they should have just said they support his actions, and await release of further information. In essence, they have muddied the waters, and better hope and pray the dashcam footage agrees with their story.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The deputy followed the man until he hard the girls yelling from the car, at which point he returned to them. Additional units arrived and established a perimeter. Im not sure what your back ground is so my apologies if you know this. When a large perimeter is established, you will not alway have direct line of site to other officers on the perimeter. Just because other officers are present doesn't mean they are seeing what the others are.

The release from the Union was to correct the info media was reporting on, which was not accurate. The narrative they released established the basic time line of events. Its not, from my understanding, the official narrative from the deputy's report. So we are still missing a lot of the information.

As the article states, the union doesn't generally ever do the releases. In this case they did, and the reason cited was all the conflicting information being reported.

edit on 14-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Source

Additional sheriff’s personnel arrived and comforted the children in the back seat. Loggins’ children told deputies their father had been acting oddly. A few minutes later, Loggins unexpectedly and quickly returned to his Yukon. Deputies repeatedly ordered him to stop. Loggins did not stop, ignoring the deputies who now had their weapons drawn, and got into the driver’s side of the car, despite multiple warnings.

This the part I referenced. There were additional deputies present at the SUV prior to Loggins' return to the vehicle.
Also from the same source.

Loggins, now in a darkened part of the adjacent field, could be heard yelling irrational statements. The deputy radioed for immediate assistance, informing dispatchers of a hit-and-run accident and child endangerment situation.

So, additional deputies were present AND aware of of a child endangerment situation, yet they failed to secure the children. Something stinks, and as I said earlier, the union left a lot of holes in their story, rather than just clearing up all the conflicting information being reported. I believe the deputy may have had a reason for attempting to stop Loggins, but the union appears to have made it worse for him. IMHO.

Yes, I do understand the use of force continuum and perimeters. Part of the job, as we say. Thank you again for your posts.

reply to post by retiredTxn


My apologies, I misread that portion.

As far as your last question -
I will let the media / courts / pa answer the question.

Based on the number of snide comments / U2U's I get in threads like these, including this one, im just going to bow out of the conversation.

REgards..

no weapon
no drugs
no direct assault to officer
=
murder charges for cop.
---------------------------------
if not, I care nothing for the police anymore. The community can start taking care of itself.

b

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by _R4t_

 

Apparently you failed to actually read the thread then since the OP posted there was not enough information to make a conclusion and he would reserve judgment until more info came out.

How can you argue something is wrong when you dont know the law or what it says?

Again, knock of the personal attacks. Its not needed and does nothing to add to the thread.

As previously said its not about the content of the posts ITS THE NUMBER... Are you paid for this or something? Anyways I'm not replying back it worked in the last thread...

Sometimes folks forget about what is most important. A life was lost. And a very special life at that. This is just a video I thought some may want to watch. It is about who Manny really was. I couldn't find any way to embed this. So just go to the link and watch the video.

Manny, an officer and a gentileman

And perhaps a bit more about him...

Fellow Marines described him as a mentor, despite the fact Loggins was not much older than they were. "He basically was a father figure for me," said Aaron Banks, 27, who also served with Loggins in 2005. "He was my mentor."

Friends: Dead Marine always answered ‘Yes, sir’

And check out this particular comment below this article.

I was stationed with and served with this man for nearly 5 years. His depiction is exactly as described, he was a very religious man, soft spoken, but adorned by all that knew him. He cared deeply for his family and believed in a very nuturing and spiritual surrounding. He was always willing to help out anyone that asked. When i didn't have money to provide christmas for my child, Loggins came through. When I needed advise and help with my career, marriage, and spiritual walk, he always had an open ear. We accept the risk of loss in combat, but never would expect to loss one of my greatest friends due to a trigger happy police officer, they have many less lethal weapons at their disposal, so why pull the trigger. Racism at its finest. You robbed a wife of her husband, children of thier father, parents of a son, and many Marines of a great mentor.

RIP Sgt. Manuel Loggins Jr. of the Marines. Killed by the police, unarmed and in front of his children.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by MysticPearl

 

I find it in bad taste that you would preemptively call out another member in that fashion.

I also find it rather pathetic that you automatically believe a crappy YouTube video. There isn't much information out. Now taken at face value shooting a man in the back while he is trying to enter his vehicle and is unarmed is horrible, but not knowing the specifics it is not possible to fairly judge the cops actions. Perhaps he yelled 'I'm going to get my gun' or threatened the children. This story is all over the place and I think it would behoove you to wait for some more information before automatically condemning someone because you have problems with authority.

I don't give a duck if the guy said he is getting a gun...... that does NOT give you the right to shoot or kill him. I am getting so pissed off that I am going to have to send a ducking messenge myself if this # keeps happening.....and you cop defending sheeple will be reading and writing a blog on me. The BETTER release some video justifying this.... COPS ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW AND WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. If not by the system, then by those who will insure they know their ducking place.

Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by Honor93
hi all, seems i've missed quite a bit so i'm off to catchup.
yes, i'm aware there is an update that indicates the shooting was ruled "justified", still, that doesn't make it right.

No rulings from the Orange County district attorney yet. Just some opinion from his Union pals.

ah sooo, thank you, it was a news report about the union press release.

still not buying it and find it awfully suspicious for a third party to have access to "confidential" information supposedly involving an "on-going" investigation.
is this new policy?

if the union has access, why don't we?
we pay them for their services ... salary and dues ... so, where's our access?

reply to post by sirjunlegun

ahhhhh, you told ... i was gonna answer that question if no others would.

i used to have a cousin who prepared dem dar Ham Sandwiches and that was a loooooong time ago, but, much to my amazement, things haven't changed much ... read more here

The cases—in which 16 officers have been charged so far—are shocking for their brutality and their strong whiff of institutionalised racism. They also expose deep corruption in the department. In both cases, police appear to have decided on a cover-up even before the blood on the pavement was dry. And the conspiracy was by no means limited to the officers who took part in the mayhem.

In the Danziger case, for instance, a detective allegedly drove another investigator to his house to procure what he called a “ham sandwich”: a gun to plant at the scene. According to the prosecution, two witnesses who supported the police account, “James Youngman” and “Lakeisha Smith”, the second a stereotypical black name, were invented from whole cloth. When a police supervisor was unsatisfied with his detective’s first attempt at a whitewash, he rewrote it to make it smoother.

now, i'm not saying this is practiced everywhere, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

ya know, if the case mentioned above isn't disgusting enough, please re-read the underlined portion.
it is not just the beat cops. it is nothing new. it is despicable, dishonest, dishonorable and yet it is exactly what we're paying for while our children, our parents and our pets are systematically eliminated.

I don't know what I would do in that situation. I don't know what I would do if faced by a cop I know wants to hurt me. I guess I would have at it. If I will go to jail, die, or worse, I guess I would fight back to my last breath. I don't condone violence, but they will not take me peacefully. I guess I would die. It seems like the price you pay for letting law outweigh its usefulness.

I might one day find out. We all might. Will you be sitting in a jail cell having cops insult you and laugh at you? Will you be beaten bloody? Will you lay down and die?

A Taser is not used in a deadly force encounter. The info released stated the man made comments to the deputy, at which point the deputy decided he was not going to allow the guy to leave. Until we know what was said and have all the facts, thats the best answer I can give you.

Like guns, a Taser can fail. If either of the probes doesn't make a good enough connection (they can arc up to 2 1/2 inches through thick clothing), then the effect we all have seen, the person locking up, does not occur. In that case the deputy would need to close the gap and make personal contact with the tip of the taser to complete the circuit with the barb that made good contact.

If either one of the wires is broken, the taser effect does not occur. The guy could have then driven off, possibly injuring / killing the deputy had he closed the gap, while placing his 2 kids in even more danger, and if he gets off school grounds everyone else as it would have resulted in a police pursuit.

But you've already said that you can only tase when there's back-up there with their gun at the ready. There was back-up there, so you can hardly use the possibility of the taser not making proper contact as a justification for just going straight in with a killing shot.

I appreciate your comments about people taking steps to get the laws changed. I'm in another country, but if I was over there, that's what I'd be looking to do. The law re wounding, as you stated it (and thank you for that, because on behalf of those of us who are ignorant of that aspect of the law, I've asked for clarification repeatedly in this thread) clearly encourages deaths like this, and should definately, imo, be changed.

I don't know how many officers were present ultimately (maybe it's been stated and I've missed it), but there were at least 3. What I want to know is why there was no attempt to physically overpower this marine, to prevent him from getting back into the vehicle. Why did it go straight from 'commanding', to shooting dead?

The fact that he ignored them and got in the car, creating a situation where he was considered to be a threat, why did they let him get in?

I don't think that people have been ignoring the facts of the marine's strange conduct, but as has been mentioned several times, he could have been suffering some kind of illness or breakdown, which of itself, is not a crime - let's not equate irrationality with criminality. And while there was a distinct possibility the marine himself may have needed help, there should have been proper attempts made to stop the matter escalating when they saw he was ignoring their commands.

I personally know a number of UK policemen, both serving and retired, and I have trust and respect for those individuals because they earn it by the way they behave - so I won't have people like Domo1 calling me a cop-hater. What I 'hate' is the rising tide of unnecessary civilian deaths.

The other point I wanted to raise is, why has there been no mention (or again, have I missed it?) of dash-cam footage?

First 3-5 rounds in every cops magazine should be rubber bullets.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Really? They see similar situations? Large, volatile men, at 4 a.m., in abandoned parking lots, with children in their care, and a split second to make a decision? I don't think so...

It was 4.30am, and he did not have to make a 'split second decision'. They had all the time the marine was wandering about making irrational comments, to assess that something was amiss, and he shouldn't be allowed to get back in the car. They had the time in which he was walking back towards the car and ignoring them in which to plan their next step. Split second my eye!

As far as I am concerned, the Police have released too many conflicting statements for me to believe this is anything more than a cover-up. Why is it that the Dept. immediately released a statement saying the deputy was "in fear for his life" then changed it after? Looks like a case of automatic cover-up to me.

All I can say is I am SO glad I do not live in the United States - I would hate to be constantly in fear of my life not only from civilian scum, but also from LEO's who clearly have a "Shoot first, ask questions later" policy. In Australia it is "Shoot ONLY if ALL other options have been thoroughly explored and shooting is the LAST course of action left". I don't go out in fear of my life, when I see an Aussie copper I am proud that we, as a nation, aren't so trigger happy as those in the US.

(Need I remind people of the thread started by a certain mod here on ATS who is a cop who tried to blame police actions on the general public? Here it is.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by semperfortis

Why taze granny? Why gas granny? YOU...... That's right I said it, YOU.

The gradual change I have referenced is of course the sue happy people of this once great nation. The police can't physically assert their authority, can never build a reputation because the moment they lay hands on any one of you, you will sue them; and the liberal courts, or liberal jurisdictions will award them money and at the very least they lose their jobs or even worse, their homes and other possessions.
Yet they are still required by YOU to enforce the laws of their particular jurisdiction or again lose their jobs. What a funny little society we have that requires miracles from our police.

See the ridiculous excuses LEO's use? Nothing is ever their fault, it is the fault of the general public.)

not even KGB did this to its heroes.