|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Laura Dixon | Bay City News Service
San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said Monday he would not file charges against a sheriff’s deputy who shot and killed an 18-year-old woman wielding a kitchen knife near Half Moon Bay in June.
Yanira Serrano-Garcia was killed outside of the Moonridge housing complex on Miramontes Point Road the night of June 3 when San Mateo County Sheriff’s Deputy Menh Trieu shot her as she charged toward him with a knife, according to Wagstaffe.
In a letter to Sheriff Greg Munks Monday, the district attorney said he had concluded that Trieu’s use of force against the teen was legally justified and may have saved his own life, if not the lives of other officers arriving on the scene.
Trieu responded around 9:20 p.m. to the home on Maidenhair Walk after Serrano-Garcia’s brother called police to report that the teen was acting violently toward their parents, according to Wagstaffe.
Within about 30 seconds of arriving at the home and after trying unsuccessfully to speak with Serrano-Garcia’s Spanish-speaking mother, the teen started screaming and charged at Trieu while holding a 10-inch knife over her head, according to the district attorney.
According to Wagstaffe, the deputy retreated as the teen came toward him and repeatedly told her to drop her weapon but Serrano-Garcia continued running toward him with the knife poised, ready to strike.
Feared that he would be stabbed, Trieu shot the teen once, striking her in the chest, according to the district attorney.
The deputy immediately called for medics to render aid to the teen but she died within minutes.
Investigators later confirmed that Serrano-Garcia suffered from schizophrenia and that her “four-year history with mental illness is well-documented,” the district attorney wrote.
Wagstaffe said that while Serrano-Garcia’s death was tragic, “Deputy Trieu’s decision to protect himself and others against great bodily injury or death was preceded by the exercise of restraint on his part, and repeated commands for Yanira Serrano-Garcia to stop her attack.”
In his own statement today, Munks called the deadly shooting a “truly tragic occurrence.”
“Each day the men and women of the sheriff’s office put on their uniforms, they do so knowing that they may find themselves in harm’s way. The deputy involved is still dealing with the gravity of the incident,” he said.
Munks said his office’s investigation also showed Trieu followed official policies and procedures when he shot Serrano-Garcia.
After initially being put on administrative leave following the fatal shooting, the deputy has returned to work in the office’s corrections division, Munks said.
He said his office is planning a community meeting to discuss the outcome of the investigation into the shooting.
The office will introduce a new pilot program meant to coordinate efforts between the county Sheriff’s Office and San Mateo County Behavioral Health and Recovery Services to deal with mental health crises, sheriff’s officials said.
Could the deputy have stopped the lady from charging at him by shooting her in a location of her body that wouldn’t cause immediate death (her chest)? Are we training our deputies and police to do this, or is it just shoot to kill? Yes, I know if I were in the situation, I’d probably not have the presence of mind, etc., to figure that out, and just want to save my life, but should police officers have the training to be able to accomplish this?
I would hope so.
I see some parallels with the Ferguson situation. I admit, I was fairly mortified about it at first, but when recent reports came out about how it may have happened, including the size of Michael Brown (6’2″, 300 lbs), if he was charging at the cop, I can see firing off a shot justified especially if there was a scuffle in the car. But again, the question is were six or eight shots needed to remove the threat to his life?
Apparently the standard is once there’s a threat to the U.S. officer’s life, shooting to kill (and continuing to shoot until killed) is justified. But when fewer police bullets were fired in all of the U.K. last year than at Michael Brown, we should be looking at better ways.
Shooting to “wing” someone ended with 1950’s westerns. Actually, it didn’t even exist back then, it was just shown in movies and tv shows because it was cool and in the script.
When a suspect is charging at you – a crazy person with a knife in the Half Moon Bay instance – you shoot to kill. Try to hit this person in the arm or leg and the next time your family sees you will be very nicely dressed in a coffin.
The rules of engagement are typically in two sequences. Part 1: you never draw your weapon unless you are prepared to use it. Part 2: if you are prepared to shoot your weapon, the best target is usually dead center, chest high.
In Ferguson, although we now know the victim was unarmed, the police officer did not know that at the time. Besides, Mr. Brown was 6’4″ and nearly 300 pounds and had just committed a serious crime (and it was not shoplifting) which included an assault on a man half his size and was belligerently walking down the middle of a street and refused a police officer’s order to move to the sidewalk.
That doesn’t mean he deserved to die, but he was hardly the boy scout or “gentle giant” that he has been made out to be. I’ll reserve judgement until all of the facts are in.
am I missing something?:
Yes, you are. Real life isn’t like TV or the movies. Cops can’t shoot guns out of peoples hands or shoot to “wing” them. In the heat of the moment when you are being attacked you have neither the time or the skill to shoot someone in an extremity. Besides that shooting someone in an arm or a leg will not necessarily stop the attack. Especially in the case of someone that is on drugs or is seriously mentally ill as this woman was.
One aims for center of mass as a hit there is most likely to stop the attack the fastest. One meets deadly force (a knife attack) with deadly force.
The deputy in this case should be commended for his restraint. He attempted to retreat so he would hopefully not have to use deadly force. When that didn’t work he was placed in the position of defending his own life.
I would like the 10 extra seconds to be explained. Now it is 30 seconds from time of arrival to shot fired.
Yanira Serrano had a club foot according to the family. not very fast moving.
Tragic for all involved BUT
Contrary to a myth perpetuated by the media, law enforcement officers ARE NOT trained shoot to kill. They are trained shoot to STOP the threat. This situation is NOT any way like Fergusson, MO. It was a tragic situation that a mentally ill person armed with a cutting-stabbing sharp weapon charged at a law enforcement officer. Think about this, some of you say shoot the legs or feet… little targets to hit while retreating-charging forward. Multiple shots to hit little targets with potential to richochet and hit others.
To stop a charging threat, bullet placement in torso region will most likely stop the incoming threat.If the bullet strikes-disables a leg or foot and neutralizes the incoming threat, Great! But in realty, hitting the torso will usually result in a serious if not fatal wound and THAT will STOP the deadly threat. The people recommending shooting the legs or arms of a threatening armed person watch too much TV and movies. Let them try putting on a badge and going up against some person with a weapon. They most likely would pee in their pants, call out for their momma and run away. SUPPORT your POLICE.
If police have been trained to shoot to kill, then there’s something wrong with the training. This isn’t a black-and-white world, though some in law enforcement seem to behave as if it is.
I would think the training would focus on keeping your head in the midst of an emergency and considering options. Given how many non-lethal weapons are out there now, resorting to a lethal one should be subject to much more questioning than it is now.
The scales are not balanced in situations like this. Police get the benefit of the doubt, a knee-jerk reaction tied to some kind of abject fealty to law and order and a deep and ignorant reluctance to criticize authority.
Police are doing too much killing, given that their mission is to protect and serve — at the pleasure of the public, I might add.
They have so much equipment appropriate to soldiers. Maybe they’re thinking that they have enemies.
I am in the physics science field and there are many of us working on a hand held Star Trek Captain Kirk “phasers on stun” hand held weapon that will emit a “STUNNING beam of light” and immediately will drop you like a sack of potatoes. The current TASER is a good start but has barbs and wires that shoot out from the unit and THEY need to make contact with the body to be neutralizing. Not a good defensive weapon against knives and guns.
The current problem is a “Stun gun” needs a tremendous amount of power that CAN NOT be currently made portable to be made into a hand held unit. We do not have that technology yet. But we are working on it.Until then, we do our best of what we have today. Technology always evolves so stay tuned. The sheriff’s deputy in this situation is to be commended and he was FORCED into defending his own life by a mentally ill person who attacked HIM with a knife.
pogo: “Shooting to “wing” someone ended with 1950’s westerns…Try to hit this person in the arm or leg and the next time your family sees you will be very nicely dressed in a coffin.”
Menlo Voter: “In the heat of the moment when you are being attacked you have neither the time or the skill to shoot someone in an extremity.”
OK, you make a persuasive case.
A Citizen Who Knows: “Contrary to a myth perpetuated by the media, law enforcement officers ARE NOT trained shoot to kill. They are trained shoot to STOP the threat.”
I would hope so. And while I agree with pogo that Michael Brown “was hardly the boy scout or “gentle giant” that he has been made out to be”, the question in this shooting has to remain were that many shots fired required to stop a threat.
Joe: “Given how many non-lethal weapons are out there now, resorting to a lethal one should be subject to much more questioning than it is now.”
Yup.
Joe: “The scales are not balanced in situations like this. Police get the benefit of the doubt”
I think it’s more like every benefit of every doubt in the multiple decision forks making up an overall situation. Easy to justify when pitting a cop against a kid who just robbed a store and was acting quasi crazy aggressive. My point comes back to there are other options, as Joe pointed out, that work in other countries with criminal violence, and we should be more open to actively considering these.
Scientist working on it: Assuming you’re not joking, that’s actually a great technology to pursue.
Per the Sheriff’s Office: “The (Sheriff’s) office will introduce a new pilot program meant to coordinate efforts between the county Sheriff’s Office and San Mateo County Behavioral Health and Recovery Services to deal with mental health crises, sheriff’s officials said.” Great idea, and a program much needed.
Pogo and Menlo Voter: Thank you for informing ‘Am I missing something’ of the reality of situations like this was. I’m am so weary of the rush to negative judgment of police officers. In today’s environment with a plentiful supply of guns and armed people, it is unrealistic to expect police to second-guess whether or not a threatening person is armed or not. In this case, the knife and the threat were obvious; the officer acted to protect everyone present. Please also realize that this shooting is also awful for the officer and is something he won’t easily forget.
“Please also realize that this shooting is also awful for the officer and is something he won’t easily forget.”
If in need of an example of when the word “callous” might be called for, this sentence is a good candidate.
Joe:
there’s nothing “callous” about it. Police officers are human beings not monsters. They aren’t out there because they want to kill people. They are there to serve. Unfortunately, that service sometimes involves taking a life. I can tell you from experience the officer involved is questioning and second guessing everything he did. I’m sure he is suffering whether you think so or not. Taking a human life is never easy. Frankly, I think you are the callous one.
The officer is the one with the power and the training — and the responsibility, above all, to do the right thing.
“I think officer safety is the number one issue.” Sam Dotson, chief of St Louis metropolitan police.
To call that statement appalling is hardly sufficient. I have another comment, but it is an expletive.
I’m not sure anyone really disagrees with each other here, do we?
Yes, we can all envision situations in which it is appropriate for a police officer to have to use lethal force (and if he or she is a decent human being, feeling bad about it afterwards, even if there was no other way).
I think we can all agree (can we?) that there are also situations in which a police officer uses inappropriate lethal force, and must be held accountable. Apparently that is happening in Staten Island as of today (a grand jury is being convened), and I don’t see anyone here defending the officer who choked that unarmed man who did not attack him in any way, to death (something expressly forbidden for him to do as a NYC cop) on video.
I think we can all agree (can we?) that the scale can’t be 100% officer safety, 0% regard to using other options than lethal force, nor the other way around. The right balance has to be struck, and discussed.
I think we can all agree (can we?) that cops in camouflage gear actively pointing machine guns at protestors is inappropriate, even if the cop in St. Louis was justified in killing the man (who knows), and even if the protestors are rowdy, because they are protecting, not fighting a war.
I’d like to understand Support Your Police’s views on these issues.
Joe:
officer safety is number one. If an officer doesn’t keep himself safe he can’t do anything to keep citizens safe. People like you with no experience behind a badge no concept of what is involved in the job who throw BS like the above. With all due respect Joe, you haven’t clue as to what you’re talking about.
I call them as I see them.
Menlo Voter, you’re right. I am not a police officer and never have been one. Nor do I want such a job. Why? The apparently huge risk of switching over to a black and white world.
Police have gotten out of control. There are too many killings. I am very, very tired of seeing police act out their rage on the public, a public who won’t “take orders” like good little citizens.
Police seem to believe in a world in which people follow orders. Sorry, that’s not the way the works. The problem is that no one is willing to stand up to them and remind them who is in charge here. The public, in broad definition of the word.
It’s complicated, no doubt, but the answer is not to let the police work it out themselves. They don’t have the imaginations and the profound understanding of the law that’s needed. They’re the sharp end of the stick. They need to be reined in.
We’re not in the military and police are not justified in expecting all of their orders to be obeyed. Some orders are not justified.
I’ve been concerned,Ike many of you, about the way police conduct themselves on calls. I look forward to info becoming public re studying this alarming trend.
Joe:
it’s not a black and white world for the police. At least it wasn’t when I was one. It becomes very black and white when you’re being attacked and your life is in imminent danger. I suspect that’s never happened to you has it? It’s happened to me and I can tell you it’s very black and white. In fact your vision goes black and white, sounds become muted, time slows down and your vision becomes razor focused. It’s you or them. If that’s too “black and white” for you, tough. I was going home at the end of the night and I could give a damn what happened to the person trying to kill me.
I suggest you go on a ride along with your local police department so you get an idea of what the police are up against day to day. Better yet, go on a ride along in a city like San Jose or Oakland or San Francisco. You might actually see that police don’t see the world in black and white as you seem to think.
Educate yourself so when you “call them as you see them” you don’t speak from a place of ignorance.
I’ll tell you the reason that I generally give the benefit of the doubt to police.
I once did a “ride along” with a police officer (it was in another city in another state) and I have to admit it was a terrifying experience. I rode with an officer that was physically unimpressive – he was small, balding and wore glasses.
What I quickly realized is that this officer voluntarily puts himself between me and the bad guys. And we saw some very bad, very dangerous people that night. Yes, that officer was being paid, but you couldn’t have paid me ANY amount of money to do what that uniformed young man did ROUTINELY that evening.
Have you ever shot a handgun? It’s incredibly difficult. Trying to hit the arms or legs of a running target with your weapon under calm circumstances is nearly impossible. Trying to do that while you are (a) in fear for your life, (b) with bystanders yelling and (c) with someone coming at you with a weapon is a pipe dream. You aim at the biggest part of the target, not at an arm or leg. Get real.
With regard to the tragedy in Ferguson, imagine being confronted by a 6’4″ 300 pound 18 year old – a person who had just robbed a store and without a bit of hesitation assaulted and physically intimidated the store clerk? I can’t tell you what I would do if he had just punched me in the face, tried to take my weapon and then was disobeying my order to stop and instead charged at me. (No, we don’t know this happened for sure, but we now know that Mr. Brown did not fall to his knees and was shot in the back as was originally claimed either.)
While I will reserve final judgement until the facts are in, in this instance, I value the judgement of a six year police officer who was an honor student with no prior record of even a single improper act to that of someone who appeared to disregard the most basic rules of our society and the safety of others.
The Ferguson incident could just as easily have been a one paragraph story at the very back your newspaper that said a six year veteran police officer was tragically killed in his car on a street of Ferguson in broad daylight.
Sadly, you wouldn’t have given that story a second thought.
Joe: What facts do you have that there are “too many killings”? In the perfect world of Allied Arts 1 maybe too may, in Crime ridden Chicago 1 may not be enough to stop bad guys. Should our police try and “share their feelings” as thugs charge them with a knife or gun? What is the % of justified killing to non justified relative to the population in 2013, 2003,1993, 1983. Do you have facts to support your observation or is just a feeling?
A certain number of killings “not enough”? Sharing feelings with thugs?
I think the issues are quite a bit more subtle. There is data, as has been pointed out here, that the St. Louis officer fired his gun more times last week than in all of Britain last year. Police officers are not getting slaughtered there, and while you can make some arguments the U.S. faces some different issues, it’s one of the most similar societies in the world.
There are ideas to discuss here with resort to ridiculing people. In most or all of our cases our feelings are based on our personal experiences, which are all valid since they happened.
wow is a perfect pseudonym because it describes the accuracy of your claim.
“There is data, as has been pointed out here, that the St. Louis officer fired his gun more times last week than in all of Britain last year.”
Seriously?
I guess your internet is unable to google data.
No, it is. Is yours?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/armed-police
I think police are abusing their power. Maybe they know this and are self-regulating, but if so, it isn’t working. The incidents keep coming. Arresting reporters for doing their jobs. Demanding that people put away their cell phone cameras. Pepper spraying students in a sit-down action. Having non-lethal weapons at their disposal and choosing to use a lethal ones.
We’re all humans and subject to abusing what power we are given. “Power corrupts,…” It’s probably hard to acknowledge that when you have acquired significant power.
This incident I am about to relate may seem insignificant, but it is telling.
I was pulled over while walking home by four Palo Alto police officers one summer evening. It was hot and I had taken a swig from a bottle of root beer at a corner. They apparently thought I was drinking beer. The resulting encounter shone a bright light on attitudes of impunity.
They realized it was root beer and handed it back to me without an apology for stopping me on my way home. They used language appropriate to a perp. They told me be on my way. Their comments were dismissive and overbearing and riddled with an imperial sense of authority.
Who cares, right? A case of mistaken accusation. But where was the respect for me as a member of the taxpaying public??? Where was apology??? When I complained, the lieutenant shrugged and said they have a tough job, that some wealthy Palo Alto residents make police use the servants entrance when visiting their mansions, and that I should empathize. I should empathize, not them, when they’re the force for disruption in stops like the one I was subjected to. I don’t even live there.
You know what? I don’t care what they have to go through. They have a job to do and if they purport to be professionals, they need to conduct themselves accordingly. We’re paying them a professional wage. They need to do a professional job. They chose their careers. Regardless, it’s not a personal relationship they have with the public, not in any sense whatsoever.
The public is deserving of respect from police ALL the time, not some of the time. And PARTICULARLY when violence from the public is not an issue.
This attitude of impunity is revealing. What are the police doing to arrest it? Does the sergeant at the beginning of the shift tell them to be respectful out there? Does the sergeant remind them of who they’re working for? Or is it the thin blue line, us against them, gird for terrorism because terrorists could be anywhere and/or anyone? Guilty until proven innocent. Arm ourselves to the hilt because we can.
Joe:
so now we know, one bad experience has colored your vision of the police, who they are and what they do. Again, I suggest you take a ride along so you can actually see what they deal with on a daily basis. It will be eye opening.
As to your accusation that police are abusing their power. I readily acknowledge that some do. But I can tell you from experience they are a minority. Do you have any data to suggest that police are abusing their power any more now than in the past or is just that it is being reported in the media more often when it does?
Police officers who are abusive eventually will be removed from their department as a liability risk. One bad experience should not paint all offices as abusing their authority.
Joe, your should take a ride along and see how things are really done. Or some law enforcement have citizen law enforcement academies which teach citizens what police do and how they perform their duties.
Joe,
Your point is exactly how I feel. The police no longer feel like part of our community.
I have another observation: the serve part of to protect and serve.
Recall the fire on Canada road that took out all the traffic lights about 6 weeks ago? I had had a meeting that evening with folks coming down 280, 101, and through Menlo. Everyone was almost an hour late. What I found interesting is that no one saw the police directing traffic in any municipality.
I know this is not a glamorous part of the job. It got me thinking. I’ve been in Menlo for 20 years and I have never seen the police direct traffic. In DC and NY, its commonly seen.
Its probably that my view of what the role of the police should be it different from their view. I see them as public servants first.
You guys make excellent points, especially the last post from Scott about “serving” by directing traffic. I agree. I notice that when a traffic light goes out (and reverts to “flashing red” on all sides), especially at a major intersection, that no police officer commandeers the intersection to facilitate traffic flow. They used to. They don’t. They should.
But with regard to protecting us from the bad guys – which is the subject of this thread – I think any of us would be horrified to have to walk up to a car filled a bunch of gang members wondering if there was a shotgun being aimed at you from the other side of the blacked out windows. Any volunteers for that job?
That said, I do see a sense of arrogance from some officers and I can easily envision the unfortunate experience with the root beer. There is simply no excuse for that and I won’t attempt to make one. When these types of complaints are lodged, the police department would be very wise to investigate them thoroughly and take appropriate action when warranted.
If you’ve participated on this thread, please read this article.
http://bit.ly/1q6XyoW
109 Police Officers killed in 2013.
http://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2013
I don’t see anyone screaming, crying and gnashing their teeth about these deaths. 109 men and women DOING THEIR JOB as opposed to most of those that died at the hands of police who were attacking the police with deadly weapons.
It’s tragic when someone that is mentally ill is killed, but the police have to deal with what they face.
As a comparison, 1 police officer killed in the United Kingdom in 2013. Four in 2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty
Since firearms are not permitted in Britain (most police don’t even carry them), we should expect more use of lethal force by police in the United States. But when it’s clear that no guns are involved (as in the subject of this thread, or Ferguson), a direct comparison is justified. They are dealing with this quite differently, civilians aren’t being killed, and as Menlo Voter shows, not at the cost of officer lives either. In other words, their way is simply better (again, when it’s clear no gun threat is present).
Wow:
the problem is in this country guns are everywhere and police have no idea where they are so they have to assume they are anywhere. I invite you to walk up to a car at night without being able to see everything in that car including the occupants hands.
In addition, just because someone has a knife it doesn’t mean they can’t hurt or kill you because you have a gun. I remember a training seminar I attended years ago in which the instructor staged a test. He placed someone with a holstered gun and he held a knife. He then asked how far everyone thought he should be that when he charged the “officer” that person could draw and fire his weapon. Most people thought 10′. They were wrong. The instructor was on the “officer” before his gun cleared his holster. Mind you this person knew the attack was coming.
The instructor then backed off five feet and repeated. He had to keep backing up until he was twenty five feet away before the “officer” could draw his weapon and fire at the charging instructor.
Another note. Bullet resistant vests do not provide much protection against knife attacks.
Food for thought.
I always wondered why San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Menh Trieu arrived by himself. He was by himself when he shot and killed Yanira Serrano. Tony Serrano told dispatcher 157 “She is following the cop with the knife.”
Tony, his mother and father were there and they never said she was attacking the deputy.
Why didn’t he wait for his partner?
I have heard the 911 call, dispatcher was distracted. Tony Serrano said
“Medical, This is not really an emergency I’m calling because my sister has schizophrenia.
She is not taking the medications she is acting out and yelling at my parents”