There is a case in LA County that has it all: a misdemeanor offense, young white cops, elderly black suspects, a questionable use of force, and a magic catchphrase that cannot be unheard.
This mess in LA County checks all the right boxes necessary to trigger a massive protest against police and edge an already unsafe community into total chaos.
What Happened
On June 24, 2023 deputies with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) were dispatched to a WinCo grocery store in Lancaster, Ca. The call to police dispatch was from store employees who reported that two individuals had shoplifted and “were assaulting loss prevention employees”. It was also reported that there was a “robbery in progress”.
The suspects were described by the caller and it was reported that one of the items that was stolen was a cake.
*As of the writing of this article the involved deputies (as well as the male and female suspects) have not been publicly identified.
Initial Contact
Deputy # 1 arrived on scene and observed a male and a female in the parking lot of the WinCo store that matched the description of the suspects. The male suspect was holding a cake.
Deputy # 1 made initial contact with the suspects and stood by his driver’s side door. Deputy #1 gave multiple commands to “put your hands on the hood” and to “sit down” prior to making physical contact and/or approaching either suspect.
The commands given by Deputy #1 were not followed by either suspect. The suspects were uncooperative.
The fact that Deputy # 1 utilized time, distance, and verbal commands are all evidence of de-escalation tactics in action. Deputy # 1 employed these strategies instead of immediately going hands on and/or utilizing force to gain compliance. This is an important mitigating factor.
Also, had the suspects complied with the lawful commands - using force to detain may have been unnecessary.
Decision to Detain
Once Deputy # 2 arrived on scene the deputies approached the male and informed him that he was being “detained”. Each deputy held onto an arm and he was placed into handcuffs. The male suspect verbally objected but did not physically resist. At one point he threatened to overpower the deputies and escape as he ended an abrasive soliloquy by stating, “I could bust loose!”.
While the male suspect was being placed in handcuffs the female suspect approached and began to record with her cell phone.
Deputy # 2 then walked towards the female suspect with the intent of also placing her into handcuffs.
Since there was reasonable suspicion to detain both individuals - there exists no legal issue with the detention of the suspects.
The Use of Force
As Deputy # 2 approached the female suspect she backed away and became physically resistant. She stated, “You can’t touch me!” and did not allow the deputy to place her into handcuffs.
Deputy # 2 then utilized force in an effort to gain her compliance. Deputy # 2 performed an empty hand takedown and tossed the female to the ground. Once on the ground the female suspect still did not cooperate and actively resisted. She attempted to stand up and refused to place her hands behind her back. The deputy did touch his knee to her back as she tried to roll over. He also gave her a warning that force would be utilized if she did not cooperate as he stated that he would “punch” her in the face. Deputy # 2 also deployed pepper spray into the eyes of the female suspect as she continued to resist.
The Magic Phrase
During the use of force the female suspect complained that the knee of Deputy # 2 was on her neck and then stated the magic phrase,
“I can’t breathe!”
As she muttered the controversial statement the body camera of Deputy # 2 clearly showed that his hands, feet, knees, and toes were nowhere near her neck. So, this appeared to be a disgusting lie.
It is possible to both: 1) have sympathy and demand justice for those who are truly the victims of excessive force by police officers and 2) express disdain towards those who exploit tragedies for personal gain.
Charges
Deputies then completed the criminal investigation for the malfeasance that occurred inside of the WinCo store.
The male was arrested and then cited and released for: resisting arrest, attempted petty theft, and interfering with a business.
The female was then arrested and then cited and released for: assaulting an officer and battery against loss prevention personnel.
2020 Hindsight
It is important to remember that even prudent and ethical police officers can make mistakes when thrown into dynamic, stressful, and violent situations - that they often did not create but are forced to respond to - involving uncooperative suspects.
The absolute easiest thing for anyone to do is to harshly criticize the actions of police officers, especially without the benefit of actual experience, from the safety of home. If you have that privilege - enjoy it.
However, that sentiment must be balanced with honest criticism of police actions in an effort to improve policing.
Deputies
De-escalation, commands, and warning of force.
Deputy # 1 made a good effort to give commands and allowed both suspects significant time to comply. However, after the male was in handcuffs and Deputy # 2 approached the female suspect he did not specifically inform her that she was being detained and did not give a warning that force would be utilized prior to the takedown.
Since the female suspect was elderly, did not appear to be armed, and had remained on scene - a command to comply and a warning of force appeared to be feasible.
Level of force
Again, the female was elderly, appeared to be unarmed, and was backing away from Deputy # 2 (not actively attacking him).
It is reasonable to ask whether or not it was necessary to conduct a takedown and deploy pepper spray.
From the available video evidence (which does not tell the entire story) although the use of some force was likely necessary to effect the detention - the takedown and pepper spray did appear to be a tad excessive.
Handcuffs
Police officers can detain suspects without placing them in handcuffs. Police officers can certainly utilize handcuffs if the reasonableness of such an act can be articulated.
Since the suspects suspects were elderly, did not appear to be armed, and had remained on scene (when they could have fled) - I would be curious to know why the deputies felt the need to handcuff while they investigated this case.
To be clear - the use of handcuffs was likely not a violation of policy or law in this case. And perhaps even asking the question only exposes my personal style when I worked as a patrol officer.
Suspects
Lack of knowledge
The female suspect yelled at Deputy # 2, “You can’t touch me!” as he approached.
This is incorrect as the deputies had reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed and therefore had legal authority to use objectively reasonable force to effect a lawful detention.
“I can’t breathe!”
I’ll leave this noted as an outright and disgusting lie.
This makes it difficult to believe anything that the female suspects says.
Crime
Don’t shoplift from a store and then assault employees.
Practice basic human decency.
If the allegations from store employees are true - the suspects are far too old to be this awful.
Final Thoughts
In this case the male suspect was detained and handcuffed without incident. The deputies did not utilize any force against the male. However, a deputy did utilize force against the female suspect. It is important to understand why. What was the difference between the male and the female suspect?
Active resistance. That’s it.
The male suspect cooperated and no force was utilized. The female suspect did not cooperate and force was utilized. Under the pesky lens of reality - who was really at fault for what happened? I think everyone objective knows the answer to that question.
All opinions on this case should evolve as more evidence becomes available. I would attach some weight to the official statements from the involved officers. I would give nearly zero credibility to any statement made by either attorney. Also, I am curious as to whether the actions of the deputies complied with department policy and delivered training.
Daniel, so well done. So well done. You have covered it objectively from every angle. I am equally frustrated by the use of "I can't breathe" which often, at least in this case, means "I won't comply." It is just unconscionable for her to co-opt that line or experience. And I know we are seeing it often these days.