Dec 112014
Officer Luis Torres

Officer Luis Torres answering questions

On Thursday, Dec. 11, the San Leandro Police Department had an hour-long community meeting to address the shooting that took place on Broadmoor Ave.  Mike Katz-Lacabe attended, filmed and tweeted from the meeting.  The SLPD did not call on him, so he was unable to ask any questions.  The following are his tweets, in chronological order followed by the video of the meeting.

The meeting concerns the December 4 shooting in San Leandro’s Broadmoor neighborhood.

In response to a question from the audience, SLPD Officer Robert McManus says Oct. 5 Woodland Ave. officer-involved shooting is not related.

San Leandro police officer had no chance to get out of way of fleeing vehicle. His leg is why there wasn’t more damage to police car.

Injured San Leandro police officer underwent third surgery today. SLPD says that the officer’s prognosis is unknown.

In response to questions, McManus says they will not share where bullets were found nor how many shots were fired because there are ongoing investigations by the Oakland PD and Alameda Co. DA.

McManus says that both officers fired at the suspect, in response to an audience question.

Reports from local residents described multiple shots (at least 5-6) fired during the San Leandro officer-involved shooting.

McManus says that there is no evidence of a bullet crossing Bancroft Avenue and striking a car in 500 block of Broadmoor.

No weapons were found on the suspect arrested at the scene of the San Leandro officer-involved shooting nor the stolen car.

San Leandro Police Chief Sandra Spagnoli says purpose of meeting was to dispel rumors and answer questions, even though they can’t answer some questions.

Chief says this child was making adult decisions and operated the vehicle as a deadly weapon.

One audience member: “I don’t care how many shots were fired at that car…I hoped that she would end up like that other gentleman.”

Speaker  wants police to “work with public works to make that [Oakland] border crossing more difficult.”

Chief says that surveillance & license plate cameras will be used to solve crime in response to speaker about border crossing.

Chief says of suspects: “We feel that they were there for some sort of criminal activity.”

Meeting Video, Part 1

This is a drawing of the scene before the suspect's car moved.  The suspect's car is the one on the street closest to Kensworth.  Two private cars are parked in front of it.  The two cars in the middle of the street are the police cars. The injured officer was standing by the car closest to Bancroft, which was blocking the street at an angle.

This is a drawing of the scene before the suspect’s car moved. The suspect’s car is the one on the street closest to Kensworth. Two private cars are parked in front of it. The two cars in the middle of the street are the police cars. The injured officer was standing by the car closest to Bancroft, which was blocking the street at an angle.

Note: I removed a note I’d made on how the officer was injured, after Tim’s comment which provides more accurate information. I urge you to read Christine and Tim’s comments below for more information on the meeting.

  6 Responses to “Information from the SLPD Forum on Broadmoor Ave. Shooting”

  1. > thus his leg was dragged as the suspect’s
    > car negotiated the small space between the > police car and the curve).

    I believe what was said, and seemingly what happened, was the second officer got out of his car on the driver side as the suspects car drove between his vehicle to the south of them and the parked car to the north of them, not the curb.

    He fired at the vehicle as it was coming at him an unknown number of times. The second officer fired shots at the vehicle as well. They would not answer in which direction the second officer, how many times, nor when exactly they were fired (as the suspects car was approaching, while the suspect was in the process of actually hitting the second officer, or already past the second officer and fleeing down Bancroft).

    And that is a key issue, when were shots fired and where was the suspect when they were fired?

    >McManus says that there is no evidence of a
    >bullet crossing Bancroft Avenue and striking a
    >car in 500 block of Broadmoor.

    I believe what he said what that they are not aware of any information on a bullet crossing Bancroft. Whether there is evidence is a different issue.

    There were first hand reports by a resident on Broadmoor in the 500 block of bullets whizzing by and a car tire hit and deflated by a bullet and there was crime scene tape around that vehicle the morning of the event. It may have been unrelated.

    I’ve collected that info and passed it along to the police.

  2. One new piece of information (new to me, at least) was that Lt. McManus gave the name of the male teen suspect. I may be spelling this incorrectly, but I believe he said the name was Juan Ramsey. The Chief said something about him contributing to the delinquency of a minor. I found that confusing, as he was not arrested for that or charged with that. The Chief never explained why he wasn’t charged, if indeed that is a valid charge. When asked about a bullet that crossed Bancroft and hit somewhere in the 500 block of Broadmoor, I think Lt. McManus said, “we have no evidence of that at this time”. It appeared at least some residents disagreed.

    I’m looking forward to the posting of the video, so these statements can be confirmed. In response to several audience questions being answered with, “we cannot release that information at this time due to the ongoing investigation” (or something similar), a resident requested that the SLPD hold a follow-up public meeting so that these questions could be answered when the investigation was complete. The Chief responded by saying if anyone had any questions, they could ask them at future “quarterly” Coffee with the Cops meetings. In response to a question about the SLPD’s policy with respect to shooting at a fleeing suspect, Lt. Torres read part of the policy. In response to a request that the policy be posted online, they declined and said give them an email address and they’d forward it instead. When asked the last time the policy was updated, they said it would be on the copy that was emailed. Of course, this means only one person will have the information, even though several community members expressed interest. I guess it’s up to everyone to do a separate CPRA request.

    I do think it’s important for people to hear everything that the SLPD representatives said. Please watch the whole video once it’s posted. Personally, I was disappointed in the presentation. Chief Spagnoli did not use a microphone, and did not stand when making some comments. She spoke quietly, and it was impossible to hear much of what she said unless one was seated at the very front of the room. Lt. McManus was audible, but when referring to what happened, he drew a tiny diagram, on a whiteboard at the front of the room, which was not centered so that people could see, but over to one side where only the people in the first few rows on the left side (facing front) in could see clearly. Take a look at the photo above — that’s looking at his diagram from only a few feet away. There were people in about 8 rows of the audience. I was several rows back, and couldn’t see what was drawn. They cut off the meeting exactly one hour after it started (they started 10 minutes late), even though several more people had questions. They said they’d be sticking around to answer any more questions, and then they all dispersed. The problem with that, of course, is that the questions/answers would not be heard by the others in attendance, and not recorded for reference later. I was interested in what additional questions people had, and was frustrated that the meeting ended so abruptly.

  3. It was a very subjective, self-serving presentation, that offered no proof and no real opportunity to question the information provided. I was alarmed that the Chief said checks and balances over their investigation would come from the DA and sheriff’s office. Those offices are all representatives of the State, and are all charged with proving the cases against the girl and young man.

    I do think that there is a significant need to have a later meeting for the community to discuss shooting policy, with this case and the Woodland Ave case highlighted, as they are in the same neighborhood and involved shooting in a residential area.

    I also was concerned with the emphasis on no questioning the actions of the officer in a rushed situation. Police training is designed to help create muscle and brain reflexes so that people act in accordance with policy, not natural reflex akin to what the average person might do when in such a situation. Inquiry is the only way to assess if policy and training fit community need. So, in my mind, there must be that kind of inquiry. Hesitancy to have that kind of inquiry is very dangerous.

    Re the charges faced by the two teens… It is not uncommon to not charge someone with misdemeanors (like contributing to the delinquency of a minor) if the face a charge of more significance, and a probation violation would carry a year or more of incarceration, so that is a more signification charge and requires a less stringent burden of proof, so the DA will likely just stay with the violation charge and not waste resources proving something else. It is significant that they have charged the girl with attempted murder. It creates a justification for firing at the girl. I also required intent, which may be harder to prove. For all we know, she does not really know how to drive and panicked to get away, and had no intent to harm the officers and little control over the car (she certainly picked an odd way to drive to escape). This is just to say that the outcome is not clear, and this meeting did not present any possible mitigating or defense information, or even a real opportunity to question police conclusions/statements. As I said, it was subjective and unproven.

    • It will be interesting to see what charges actually stick.

      In reality, the only way I see of any type of inquiry over the shooting happening, is if they keep the charges against the girl for hurting the officer. I think the DA declined to charge her with attempted murder and charged her with assault with a deadly weapon instead, but I haven’t quite looked into those details. But if any of those charges remain, then both the girl’s intentions and how the event took place, will very much come into play. The police will have to prove their version of the story, which does not make too much sense to me.

  4. I think the officer pronounced the first name as “doo-wan.” I don’t know how it would be spelled.

  5. On Friday, 12/12, a detective knocked on my door. He was looking for the evidence of the damage to the car on the 500 block below Bancroft due to the shots fired. I have his card and we made plans to speak next week about my experience being on the street when the incoming fire west of Bancroft occurred. I believe we can correct the record. The Chief’s statement that they knew of no evidence of shots crossing Bancroft is incorrect. I provided a statement on the day of the shooting recorded by one of the cadets maintaining the perimeter. Someone taped of the car that was damaged on the day of the shooting.

    So let’s assume that by next week, the evidence and the record is corrected. What then? How do we promote the needed reflection? What else do we want to happen?

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap