More details on CA officer killed as he was being arrested. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : More details on CA officer killed as he was being arrested.


Sam Spade
02-06-2012, 14:45
http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/5015497-Details-emerge-in-death-of-Santa-Maria-cop-at-DUI-checkpoint/

An absolute crap sandwich.

Patchman
02-06-2012, 14:51
Yeah, that's messed up. I guess the question is, their sexual relationship began how many years ago?

RocPO
02-06-2012, 14:52
http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/5015497-Details-emerge-in-death-of-Santa-Maria-cop-at-DUI-checkpoint/

An absolute crap sandwich.

And all of it caused by the deceased.

FiremanMike
02-06-2012, 15:59
And all of it caused by the deceased.

Yes, he is absolutely ultimately responsible. With that said, and bearing in mind that I almost never take this position, it just shouldn't have gone down this way. What the **** was that moron supervisor thinking when he told everyone that the victim was being pulled for an investigation.

While I believe that the deceased was in the wrong, I believe this supervisor was responsible for the frenzy of events that escalated that incident into a shooting.

Mayhem like Me
02-06-2012, 16:02
Screw that family I had to do the same thing to one of my guys, only he came in to my office and I told him I need your gun and badge, and told him why , he took his belt off, I had him take off his shirt so they did not get to see him in uniform with cuffs on.
He told me where all his agency equipment was at the house, he walked out of my office cuffed and I turned him over to state attorney investigators.

Same thing police explorer situation...No way we were letting him get off shift, as when one cop knows they all know!

Kadetklapp
02-06-2012, 16:09
What a dirtbag.

Vigilant
02-06-2012, 16:56
Quote from his father in the article: "What happened to the brotherhood?"

Since when do brothers draw on brothers?

Mayhem like Me
02-06-2012, 17:20
"What happened to the brotherhood?"

Since when do brothers draw on brothers?

He was never part of the brotherhood in spirit... if he thought his position allowed him to have sex with young ladies in the explorer program...

jhooten
02-06-2012, 17:51
This one ended better than the BOP's dog and pony show attempting to arrest an employee on duty.

http://www.wesh.com/r/9411162/detail.html

TexasFats
02-06-2012, 17:54
Once again the inexorable law, "Stupid games have stupid prizes", worked it wrath and proved that not even police are exempt from that law of the universe. Stay safe out there people. America needs every good cop we can get.

TexasFats
02-06-2012, 17:59
By the way, having gone to high school and to college with some girls who could trip you and beat you to the floor, we don't know just what part that 17-year old played in the start of this cluster XXXX. Maybe she was seduced or maybe she was the seducer. We'll never know. Remember that guys. When I was 15-16, my dad told me about how stupid sexual temptation can make a man. Remember that all cops are under a microscope for their behavior. It goes with the job.

Vigilant
02-06-2012, 18:03
He was never part of the brotherhood in spirit... if he thought his position allowed him to have sex with young ladies in the explorer program...

I agree. That quote in the first line came from his father. IMHO, regardless of how low he stooped, drawing on his fellow Officers was an even worse abomination. Just my .02.

steveksux
02-06-2012, 18:18
How long was the affair going on? She might be 17 now, and that's probably legal in a lot of states, but it gets much creepier much faster the further you go back in time...

Randy

PawDog
02-06-2012, 18:33
This one ended better than the BOP's dog and pony show attempting to arrest an employee on duty.

http://www.wesh.com/r/9411162/detail.html

There was no "dog and pony show." The arrests were SOP, and the POS officer, Hill, was on an unarmed post, the jail control center, and smuggled the pistol into work in a backpack. This case is the reason BOP now screens all staff entering the secure facility. There was no screening of staff prior to this incident.

I personally worked cases with OIG Agent Sentner, and knew BOP Lt. Cockerham, who was wounded in the shooting, as well as the POS Hill. Sentner was an outstanding agent, very professional and by the book. Cockerham is also a great guy, who would give you the shirt off his back.

Hill was nothing more than a low-life scum, protected for years by the local AFGE, who knew he was dirty well before this incident.

Dragoon44
02-06-2012, 18:40
The LE employed individual of the story (notice I didn't say cop.) forfeited any sympathy or compassion when he decided to resist and draw his gun on the cops. Doing so not only showed who he really was but also what he truly wasn't, ( a cop).

Tiro Fijo
02-06-2012, 18:53
The LE employed individual of the story (notice I didn't say cop.) forfeited any sympathy or compassion when he decided to resist and draw his gun on the cops. Doing do not only showed who he really was but also what he truly wasn't, ( a cop).


We have a winner.

Dukeboy01
02-06-2012, 20:13
Gawdalmighty what a clusterfark. Yeah, it's ultimately the dirtbag's fault, but some administrative heads need to roll.

RocPO
02-06-2012, 20:20
Gawdalmighty what a clusterfark. Yeah, it's ultimately the dirtbag's fault, but some administrative heads need to roll.

I agree only if you're talking about the idiot LT that opened his yap. Everything else seems like the admin was trying to do it as safely as possible.

Dragoon44
02-06-2012, 20:40
I agree only if you're talking about the idiot LT that opened his yap. Everything else seems like the admin was trying to do it as safely as possible.

It may be that the LT. was not told what was going on besides that the explorer was being removed from the scene. Even if that is the case however why did he feel the need to share that info with everyone? Apparently he fails to recognize the concept of "Need to know".

txleapd
02-06-2012, 20:42
Sounds like there are plenty of idiots in that department. My heart goes out to the officer who had to put down his best friend. He may never survive emotionally from that.

HandyMan Hugh
02-06-2012, 21:09
A truly sad situation all the way around. Is it possible that when the deceased found out that he was in deep trouble, he committed suicide by cop? If so, that just makes it worse. Prayers for the officer who was forced to shoot the offender, and prayers for the offender's widow.

South Fla
02-06-2012, 21:37
The LE employed individual of the story (notice I didn't say cop.) forfeited any sympathy or compassion when he decided to resist and draw his gun on the cops. Doing so not only showed who he really was but also what he truly wasn't, ( a cop).

I agree with you 100%.

My problem is the administrators shortsightedness of putting officers in the position of having to shoot the officer in the first place.

This was not exigent circumstances and the officer could have been arrested when he was away from the job.

It seems to me that the administrators were trying to make a point of arresting him on duty for embarrassing the department.

Dukeboy01
02-06-2012, 21:52
I agree only if you're talking about the idiot LT that opened his yap. Everything else seems like the admin was trying to do it as safely as possible.

How is making the decision to arrest him in a public place while he's armed and the alleged victim is at the location as "safely as possible?" That decision was made by some other idiot above the idiot LT's pay grade. It seems like they were trying to be too clever by half.

Mayhem like Me
02-06-2012, 21:56
I agree with you 100%.

My problem is the administrators shortsightedness of putting officers in the position of having to shoot the officer in the first place.

This was not exigent circumstances and the officer could have been arrested when he was away from the job.

It seems to me that the administrators were trying to make a point of arresting him on duty for embarrassing the department.

You don't know that he could have been arrested away from work OR who made the call to arrest him OR approach him on scene.

Lets give the admins the same courtesy we give patrol cops and not judge them till we have all the facts.

I speak from experience I had to arrest a guy I worked with a 43 year old SWAT cop was caught up with a 15 year old explorer. He was married with 5 kids.. YUP gets no worse than that..Trust me if we did not take him at work the family would have taken him out .

You have no idea what the back story on this case is.

Dukeboy01
02-06-2012, 22:10
Lets give the admins the same courtesy we give patrol cops and not judge them till we have all the facts.



The admin weenies are paid the big bucks to avoid this kind of clusterfark. And when do they ever give line officers the same courtesy?

I agree he probably had to be arrested at work. Every department should have figured out long in advance how they are going to handle having to arrest one of their own. Springing it on them out in a public space where they are not contained and a citizen might catch a spare round as opposed to calling them into an office where they can be quickly disarmed before they know what's up seems like a bad idea from the beginning. There was no ongoing sting where they were tying to gather more evidence on him.The decision to arrest had been made. Calling him into the office before the detail began and relieving him of duty before you tell him what the charges are seems like a more tactically sound plan to me.

Like I said before, too clever by half.

Dragoon44
02-06-2012, 22:32
There was no ongoing sting where they were tying to gather more evidence on him.The decision to arrest had been made.

From the info in the story that part is not true. the whole purpose of the "pretext call monitored by the Dept. was to get his admission of the sexual relationship.

The big mouth Lt. giving out info h had no business sharing with the officers set the stage for him to figure out what was going on.

I suspect the decision to arrest immediately was based on his follow up texts to the girl after the phone call where he stated he was not going to jail and he would kill himself. At that point they obviously could not allow him to leave the scene.

The situation they ended up with was a frantic, distraught individual indicating he was either flee, fight, or kill himself. how could they possibly allow him to leave the scene?

South Fla
02-06-2012, 22:41
You don't know that he could have been arrested away from work OR who made the call to arrest him OR approach him on scene.

Lets give the admins the same courtesy we give patrol cops and not judge them till we have all the facts.

I speak from experience I had to arrest a guy I worked with a 43 year old SWAT cop was caught up with a 15 year old explorer. He was married with 5 kids.. YUP gets no worse than that..Trust me if we did not take him at work the family would have taken him out .

You have no idea what the back story on this case is.

One could look at the ATF/FBI siege at Waco in the same light.

I stand behind my statement that this was not exigent circumstances and as one poster said, administrators get paid for avoiding situations just like this.

And....you do not know the back story on this case is either. And, just because you and a case where the law enforcement employee had to be arrested on-duty, does not mean that every law enforcement employee that needs to be arrested is done on-duty.

You catch them when they are most vulnerable, just like you do when you catch other bad guys.

Or are they not teaching that stuff at police school any more?

South Fla
02-06-2012, 22:47
Just to clarify, he should have been arrested prior to the detail to begin with.

Because the investigators and administrators had to have know that they were going to arrest him at some point. Why put all of the officers in that situation in the first place?

I am not defending his actions in no way, shape or form. I am just questioning the administrators actions.

Dragoon44
02-06-2012, 23:53
Just to clarify, he should have been arrested prior to the detail to begin with.

Because the investigators and administrators had to have know that they were going to arrest him at some point. Why put all of the officers in that situation in the first place?

Without knowing at what stage the investigation was or when it began one has to wonder why they chose to make the pretext call while he was on duty. instead of making it while he was off duty then arresting him when he came to work.

As I see it they screwed the pooch by not following simple common sense procedures like keeping their investigation on a restricted need to know basis. Their idiot move in briefing the LT. about their investigation ultimately forced their hand when the big mouth LT. felt the need to share the info with everyone.

Reyn
02-06-2012, 23:57
You think the Lts comment was an attempt to see his reaction or part of the investigation to get an incriminating spontaneous statement? If he made statements about killing himself then I doubt calling him to come in off duty or showing up at his house would be any safer. I always carry a gun on me so it would be reasonable to assume he was armed off duty also.

Plus,society would scream blue wall if they let him walk off knowing they had enough for a felony arrest. Let's say he did panick and tried to get to the girl to prevent her from talking. If they let him go and something happened to her before they could pick him up then everyone would question why the police didn't arrest him when they had the chance.

TBO
02-07-2012, 00:11
The cat may have already been out of the bag.

It may have been one of those "coffee table" conversations that grew and turned out to be real.

I'll not judge too harshly w/o knowing more.

jmho

Dragoon44
02-07-2012, 00:25
You think the Lts comment was an attempt to see his reaction or part of the investigation to get an incriminating spontaneous statement?

I thought about that but if that is the case they were terminally stupid to do it that way.

One of the things my old Chief once told me about having to discipline an officer was that it was always best to remember you are dealing with someone who is armed.

Tiro Fijo
02-07-2012, 02:25
I thought about that but if that is the case they were terminally stupid to do it that way.

One of the things my old Chief once told me about having to discipline an officer was that it was always best to remember you are dealing with someone who is armed.


I believe it was Thoreau that said there was never a man so dangerous as one whose belief system had been totally shattered.

MeefZah
02-07-2012, 06:58
Putting aside the fact that he was donking the teenager, and resisted when he was told he was under arrest...

...why in the world would he make admissions during the set up call, and then send further admissions via text afterwards, if he had just watched her being taken away for "investigative purposes"? He obviously wasn't assigned to the detective bureau since he couldn't do the simple math on this one.

Dragoon44
02-07-2012, 07:18
Putting aside the fact that he was donking the teenager, and resisted when he was told he was under arrest...

...why in the world would he make admissions during the set up call, and then send further admissions via text afterwards, if he had just watched her being taken away for "investigative purposes"? He obviously wasn't assigned to the detective bureau since he couldn't do the simple math on this one.

Fear and panic make for stupid decisions.

RocPO
02-07-2012, 08:26
And how do you safely get him to the office to relieve him of duty? Especially since the LT told everyone the explorer was going to be called away? And then the phone call/texts between the deceased and the explorer?

If they waited too long and the guy offed himself or the explorer, people would be screaming that he should have been locked up immediately.

How's that 20/20 hindsight working for you?

Reyn
02-07-2012, 09:15
Putting aside the fact that he was donking the teenager, and resisted when he was told he was under arrest...

...why in the world would he make admissions during the set up call, and then send further admissions via text afterwards, if he had just watched her being taken away for "investigative purposes"? He obviously wasn't assigned to the detective bureau since he couldn't do the simple math on this one.

He MIGHT have viewed it as no big deal or that he could talk amongst his buddies. I say no big deal because in some states 16 is legal with consent. Just saying,not agreeing.

4949shooter
02-07-2012, 09:23
Personally I could care less about the dirt bag. My own concern would be that of getting other officers killed.

Mayhem like Me
02-07-2012, 09:31
I would have tasered him in the junk... But i'm an *******...

merlynusn
02-07-2012, 09:49
I think the LT was just stupid and blabbed when he shouldn't have. I don't think he knew what was up or else he wouldn't have briefed everyone. Obviously he panicked and that set the stage for everything else. His subsequent texts to the girl saying he'd kill himself forced their hand.

I agree they should have just done it all when he was off duty instead of setting up the call while he was on duty. Unless it was another thing that was forced on the department by the girl's family saying stuff like "if you don't care of this today, we'll take care of it."

jhooten
02-07-2012, 09:52
There was no "dog and pony show."

On this we will never agree. The BOP wanted to do this on duty so they could do the Perp Walk of the handcuffed employee in uniform for all the other employes to see.

The arrests were SOP, and the POS officer, Hill, was on an unarmed post, the jail control center, and smuggled the pistol into work in a backpack. This case is the reason BOP now screens all staff entering the secure facility. There was no screening of staff prior to this incident.

SOP or not they showed extremely poor judgement. WHO was it who ran the doors to allow the "team" of arresting officers into the Facility? Who was it that monitored the CCTV cameras at the front of the facility where the arrest "team" had to enter? Where does information concerning "non-routine" events occurring in the facility flow through? The arrest should have been done before he got into control for the start of the shift, or better yet off the grounds, not on duty. Management wanted publicity. They got it. Others paid the price.

The last sentence is not entirely true. There was no Central office mandate to screen ALL employees. Institutions could adopt local policies concerning screening and many did. Now it is mandatory, better implemented at some facilities than others, but mandatory.


Hill was nothing more than a low-life scum, protected for years by the local AFGE, who knew he was dirty well before this incident.

On the failings of our union you will get no argument from me.

CAcop
02-07-2012, 10:49
He MIGHT have viewed it as no big deal or that he could talk amongst his buddies. I say no big deal because in some states 16 is legal with consent. Just saying,not agreeing.

Age of consent is 18 in CA for various sexual acts. We are weird in that every act gets it's own code section. It is pretty clear when you go to the academy what the age of consent is.

MeefZah
02-07-2012, 13:32
He MIGHT have viewed it as no big deal or that he could talk amongst his buddies. I say no big deal because in some states 16 is legal with consent. Just saying,not agreeing.

They pulled the girl off a detail and told everyone assmbled that it was for an investigation, then she calls him a little later and makes idle **** chat about him railing her, and he makes admissions to her during the call?

I imagine it went like this:

Girl: "So, umm, yeah, hey, you remember that time that you inserted your ***** into my ****** at the park?"

Dead guy: "Yes, sixteen year old girl, I, a 32 year old man, do vividly recall the time I had sexual intercourse with you".

Girl: "Yeah, that was cool. Ok... ummm... well, gotta go. Bye!"

Dead guy (speaking to no one in particular): "Hmmmmm......"

PawDog
02-07-2012, 16:00
On this we will never agree. The BOP wanted to do this on duty so they could do the Perp Walk of the handcuffed employee in uniform for all the other employes to see.



SOP or not they showed extremely poor judgement. WHO was it who ran the doors to allow the "team" of arresting officers into the Facility? Who was it that monitored the CCTV cameras at the front of the facility where the arrest "team" had to enter? Where does information concerning "non-routine" events occurring in the facility flow through? The arrest should have been done before he got into control for the start of the shift, or better yet off the grounds, not on duty. Management wanted publicity. They got it. Others paid the price.

The last sentence is not entirely true. There was no Central office mandate to screen ALL employees. Institutions could adopt local policies concerning screening and many did. Now it is mandatory, better implemented at some facilities than others, but mandatory.

On the failings of our union you will get no argument from me.

You've obviously never effected an arrest of a LEO. The scum bag thug Hill knew he was eventually going to be arrested for screwing convicts, smuggling in drugs, cosmetics, and cell phones. He planned his own suicide, and was too much of a coward to take his own life or face prison time.

The arrest had nothing to do with 'publicity' or a 'perp walk,' that's the normal union biased propaganda. The on-site arrest was in the interest of officer safety, for the staff and the arresting agents, as BOP staff are not authorized carry of personal weapons on agency property (excluding some of the MCI's). To effect an arrest at the subject officer's residence would have placed the officer and the arresting agents at greater risk, and is seldom if ever done.

And, i don't know where your information regarding screening policy came from, but it's wrong. It was mandated by the Central Office to have a uniform policy nation-wide. I know, as I was part of the study group that formulated the procedures before implementation.

Cav
02-07-2012, 19:02
Sad, I feel now like it might be common for Police to mess with Explorers reading these threads.

But as I said in the first thread about this, it was dealt with wrong I feel.

CAcop
02-07-2012, 21:41
Sad, I feel now like it might be common for Police to mess with Explorers reading these threads.

But as I said in the first thread about this, it was dealt with wrong I feel.

One of our Lts. said we would never have an explorer program for that reason.

jhooten
02-08-2012, 00:02
You've obviously never effected an arrest of a LEO. The scum bag thug Hill knew he was eventually going to be arrested for screwing convicts, smuggling in drugs, cosmetics, and cell phones. He planned his own suicide, and was too much of a coward to take his own life or face prison time.

The arrest had nothing to do with 'publicity' or a 'perp walk,' that's the normal union biased propaganda. The on-site arrest was in the interest of officer safety, for the staff and the arresting agents, as BOP staff are not authorized carry of personal weapons on agency property (excluding some of the MCI's). To effect an arrest at the subject officer's residence would have placed the officer and the arresting agents at greater risk, and is seldom if ever done.

And, i don't know where your information regarding screening policy came from, but it's wrong. It was mandated by the Central Office to have a uniform policy nation-wide. I know, as I was part of the study group that formulated the procedures before implementation.

Do you now or have you ever worked for the FBOP?

You obviously have no clue what I have or have not done.

That "in the interest of officer safety" thing worked out real well didn't it?

I never said at his residence. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Prior to the Coleman incident and for several years after there was not Central Office mandate. It took many years of Negotiations between management and the union before the final policy was agreed to and another year or so for the equipment to be procured and installed in compliance with the agreement, including a complete remodel of the front entrance at many institutions to have separate staff and visitor screening areas.

Here let me help you figure out where I got my information, and the experience that formulated my opinions of the way things were done.

FBOP Retired

Oh, and that arresting cops thing, BTDT got the damn t-shirt. Do you know what it feels like to be but in the position of putting the cuffs on a fellow officer first hand? One DWI, One DWI with injuries (this one was a MP if they count), and the one who didn't know the badge bunny was 15.

PawDog
02-08-2012, 06:26
Do you now or have you ever worked for the FBOP?

You obviously have no clue what I have or have not done.

That "in the interest of officer safety" thing worked out real well didn't it?

I never said at his residence. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Prior to the Coleman incident and for several years after there was not Central Office mandate. It took many years of Negotiations between management and the union before the final policy was agreed to and another year or so for the equipment to be procured and installed in compliance with the agreement, including a complete remodel of the front entrance at many institutions to have separate staff and visitor screening areas.

Here let me help you figure out where I got my information, and the experience that formulated my opinions of the way things were done.

FBOP Retired

Oh, and that arresting cops thing, BTDT got the damn t-shirt. Do you know what it feels like to be but in the position of putting the cuffs on a fellow officer first hand? One DWI, One DWI with injuries (this one was a MP if they count), and the one who didn't know the badge bunny was 15.

<--Also 23 years, FBOP retired 2009. from CO, SOS, Lt., SIS, SIA, CCS, as well as DCT and SORT, and yeah, I unfortunately conducted over 600 staff investigations, administrative and criminal, 45 staff arrests and successful prosecutions, and over 200 cases prepared, and presented to the AUSA over the years. Haad six years county/state LE work prior. And, I'm still conducting federal BI investigations via OPM-FIS contract for the past two years.

As to reading comprehension, the "incident" happened at FCI Tallahasse, not FCC Coleman as you inferred.:upeyes: I know Tallahassee quite well, I was there 1994-95, and knew the six POS officers involved.

And no, it wasn't several years after. All institutions were mandated to implement staff screening in late 2007. As I posted, I was tapped to assist writing the staff search/screening procedures, and was not yet retired when implemented.

.

And, we've derailed this thread enough, so PM if ya want to discuss further........Sorry for the hijack OP!

Cav
02-08-2012, 07:13
One of our Lts. said we would never have an explorer program for that reason.

Here is my local story, and I have read and been told of a few other Explorer issues over the past few years;

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/Local_Cop_Accused_Of_Sexually_Assaulting_Teenage_Explorer_Scout_137215658.html

http://www.kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=63696

merlynusn
02-08-2012, 10:12
I was actually looking to see if we had an Explorer program before posting. Apparently we do, though I've never seen one or heard of one. We do have Cadets, which are in students college and are people who want to become a police officer. It's pretty much a guarantee to get hired as long as they keep their nose clean.

ray9898
02-08-2012, 16:11
Crappy situation. It looks like the suicidal threats made after the admission on the phone call prompted the immediate decision to arrest on scene. They ended up getting an admission during the phone contact but it was probably just part of the investigation where they were trying to corroborate or disprove the claim.