Deputy Says He Shot 'Irrational' Marine to Protect Kids in Car

Camp Pendleton Patch ^ | February 10, 2012 | Roy Rivenburg

[brityank]

Deputy Says He Shot 'Irrational' Marine to Protect Kids in Car

15-year veteran of Sheriff's Department says Sgt. Manny Loggins was about to drive away, so he opened fire to prevent a perceived danger to Loggins' daughters. One other deputy was nearby at the time.

The deputy who shot and killed an unarmed Marine sergeant after a predawn traffic stop said the Marine was acting so "irrationally" that it seemed dangerous to let him drive away with his two daughters, an official said Friday.

So when the Marine -- later identified as Sgt. Manny Loggins Jr. of Camp Pendleton -- climbed back into his GMC Yukon and turned the ignition, the deputy opened fire, according to Jim Amormino, a spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

Amormino stressed that he was merely relaying statements made by the deputy to investigators and "not defending" what happened.

"This was a very tragic event, we all feel bad for the family," Amormino said.

The deputy, a 15-year veteran, told investigators he was parked at San Clemente High School writing reports when he spotted Loggins driving "at a high rate of speed" before turning into the lot and crashing into a gate near the football field.

The deputy pulled up behind Loggins and radioed for backup. It was about 4:40 a.m. Tuesday.

Loggins, 31, stepped out of the Yukon and walked off into the darkness toward the football field, ignoring a series of commands made by the deputy. His two daughters, ages 9 and 14, remained in the vehicle.

Other deputies soon arrived and formed a perimeter around the back end of the football field in case Loggins was trying to flee, Amormino said. Because it was dark, nobody could see where Loggins was.

"About five minutes later, Loggins walked back toward the Yukon," Amormino said.

The deputy issued "a new set of commands" which Loggins again didn't follow, Amormino said.

"Due to Loggins' failure to follow the commands and his irrational behavior, including statements he made, the deputy had a deep concern for the safety of the children," Amormino said. "In the deputy's mind, it was unsafe for [Loggins] to drive away with the girls."

Amormino said he couldn't disclose what the alleged "irrational" behaviors or statements entailed, but said Loggins didn't appear to be intoxicated.

When Loggins got back into the Yukon and either started the engine or began trying to drive away, the deputy opened fire, shooting Loggins through the driver side window, which shattered. (The girls were in the back seat and not injured.)

Amormino acknowledged that this version of events differs from an earlier account released by the Sheriff's Department, in which the deputy reportedly opened fire because he feared for his own life.

"The real threat was for the lives of the children," Amormino said Friday. In a case like this, "some information becomes immediately available and some takes longer to get because witnesses have to be interviewed," he noted.

Amormino said this account came from the deputy who fired the shots. Another deputy was nearby, but "I don't know what he saw," Amormino said.

Loggins' daughters were also interviewed by investigators, but Amormino said he didn't know what they said or if their story lined up with the deputy's.

"Whatever the truth is will come out," Amormino said, noting that "a complete and thorough investigation" would be conducted by the Orange County District Attorney's office, which investigates all officer-involved shootings.

Results of the autopsy on Loggins probably won't be made public for a few weeks, after toxicology tests are finished and the sheriff reviews the findings, he said.

Loggins' friends and colleagues have questioned official accounts of what happened, describing the Illinois native as a kind and faith-filled Christian family man who would never disobey authorities or jeopardize the safety of his daughters.

[TigersEye]

The more information that comes out about Sgt. Loggins the more straight arrow and squared away this Marine sounds.

[Still Thinking]

Executed for what he might do?

"Precrime" dontcha know!

[Bshaw]

Ditto Png.

[Petruchio]

After reading the source article a few times, it is really starting to look like the Marine went into the darkened Football Field to take a leak. If so it is a hell of a price to pay for a public piss.

[babygene]

“Is there anyone here who believes an accidental trigger pull is not possible during a tense situation?”

I’m licensed to carry. An accidental trigger pull that results in a death is still murder.

[dragnet2]

That wasn’t the question.

[starlifter]

Standing by for the contradictory evidence...

[starlifter]

The copsuckers on FR are the real keyboard commandos and will absolve nearly any cop of nearly any action. Many of us are disgusted with the swaggering fools who in the police forces.

Sara Silverman had it right.

[Hot Tabasco]

The copsuckers on FR are the real keyboard commandos and will absolve nearly any cop of nearly any action.

Are they any different than the keyboard commando copsuckinghaters who claim to know every detail and appropriate reactionary response to every incident that is posted on FR and just carte blanche condemn the officer?

As I stated previously, I'm reserving judgment until ALL THE FACTS are presented and a thorough investigation is performed.

But that's obviously too much to expect from you and the other copsuckinghaters isn't it?

Guilty until proven otherwise seems to be the new common mantra around here.......

[dragnet2]

How many versions from OCSD are you willing to accept? This implies that OCSD has given its official version of events. They have not. The press office, we are told, said immediately after the shooting that the deputy "fearing for his safety/life/something" fired. They then corrected that and said "fearing for the safety of the children"

Fearing for something?

Got a link to that?

What OCSD reported repeatedly to the media, the deputy feared for, "His life". That version did not change until several days after the event.

That a huge leap to now suggested he didn't fear for his life, but the life of the Marine's kids.

And why would he fear to the kids life when apparently the Marine had no weapon. Did he tell the deputy he was going to kill his two kids? My bet is he didn't.

[dragnet2]

Finally, the right question. Why indeed? Was a Taser avaliable? Where was the deputy standing relative to the driver? At what point was he aware that the children were in the car? There’s too much fog, too little facts available bla bla bla..

There is no fog here.

This is not a complex incident. All the players are accounted for. No?

Why would you think this is so complex?

Why not just ask the deputy involved or the teenagers in the vehicle?

Why is there suddenly a different version of events?

OCSD originally stated the deputy feared for his life. Days later, the deputy now feared of the kids in the vehicle?

Hows that work?

Tell me, after about a week, how is it possible the OCSD spokesperson has no idea if the passengers versions of events is or is not consistent with the deputy's version?

How is that possible?

I could not help but notice you evaded most of the questions here.

[dragnet2]

As I stated previously, I'm reserving judgment until ALL THE FACTS are presented and a thorough investigation is performed.

There is one shooting victim, the cop admitted to shooting the victim/suspect in his own vehicle, there were two witnesses in the same vehicle. This is not a complex incident or somehow a difficult investigation.

In fact, all the players are accounted for.

Considering the facts above, with multiple investigators involved, why do you think it's going to takes weeks for OCSD to come up with their version of events?

BTW, after about a week, how is it possible the OCSD spokesperson has no idea if the passengers versions of events is or is not consistent with the deputy's version?

How in tarnation is that possible?

[absalom01]

There is no fog here.

Well, I wasn't there. And I've stated previously that I have no, zero, nada faith that the media can accurately report anything. That said, being an expert, I'm sure that you know that the IA investigation is going to be asking "how is it that he got back into the car, leaving you no option but deadly force?" The criminal investigation, being undertaken by the DA, not the Sheriff, will be asking if this homicide was in fact a crime, or a legal, if tragic use of force. The deputy's tactics will be dissected as a part of that investigation, too. Maybe a crime occured here. I don't know. But neither do you.

This is not a complex incident. All the players are accounted for. No?

Accounted for? I don't know. Neither do you. How many other deputies were there? Where were they standing? What did they see? What did they hear? Were there any other witnesses? What does the physical evidence show? Why was the Marine ignoring the deputy's orders? That's not very Marine-like behavior, in my experience. Sorry, you're the expert, but it doesn't sound so simple to me. And then there's this: it's a badly kept secret that there are close ties between the military, especially the Marines and LE. All the sergeant had to do was identify himself as active duty, and the stress level would have gone down by an order of magnitude. He didn't. Why?

Why would you think this is so complex?

Because it doesn't make any sense. A car pulls up, at oh-dark thirty, collides with something. I'd be thinking "drunk driver' right about then. Then the driver exits the car, and wanders off into the night. That's really weird. I'd be thinking "drunk, maybe drugs". At some pone the kids are seen in the car; now i'm thinking 'child endangerment'. Finally the Marine returns to the car and gets in (how?) and at this point the deputy has to make a split-second decision, which will be analyzed, dissected, reviewed and second-guessed for a long time, by a lot of people. That's what the word "complex" means.

Why not just ask the deputy involved or the teenagers in the vehicle?

This is rhetorical, right? Is there any doubt in your mind at all that the DA investigator has not been questioning the deputy, the children, any other officers present and that they are, or have, searched for any possible additional witnesses?

Why is there suddenly a different version of events?

OCSD originally stated the deputy feared for his life. Days later, the deputy now feared of the kids in the vehicle?

Hows that work?

Well, this seems to be a big issue for you because you seem to think that those two things are a) mutually contradictory and b) evidence of some sort of conspiratorial cover-up at the OCSD. That strikes me as over the top: an active duty Marine is killed by a deputy, in Orange County, in a department full of retired and reserve Marines. There is no way those guys are going to let that happen: it's just not credible. Did the press office flub the initial press release? Probably. Is is evidence of collusion? Nope.

Tell me, after about a week, how is it possible the OCSD spokesperson has no idea if the passengers versions of events is or is not consistent with the deputy's version? How is that possible?

Look, I answered that above, but I'll answer it again for you since you asked in a civil fashion: There are two investigations underway: a criminal case and an administrative case. The Sheriff has cleared decided that she's not going to release any more information until she believes she knows exactly what happened that night. I'll ask you again: so what? What's the urgency? Why is is so important to go to the media while the DA and IA are working the case?

I could not help but notice you evaded most of the questions here.

Didn't mean to: I just don't agree with you. This caper has a serious WTF factor. It makes no sense at this point in time, unless one is willing to assume facts not in evidence to either exonerate the deputy, or convict him, and his department.

[dragnet2]

Tell me, after about a week, how is it possible the OCSD spokesperson has no idea if the passengers versions of events is or is not consistent with the deputy's version?

How is that possible?

There are two investigations underway: a criminal case and an administrative case.

What in tarnation does that have to do with the above question?

The Sheriff has cleared decided that she's not going to release any more information until she believes she knows exactly what happened that night.

Excuse me, OCSD already released information, and then changed their version.

[dragnet2]

This is not a complex incident. All the players are accounted for. No?

Accounted for? I don't know. Neither do you. How many other deputies were there? Where were they standing? What did they see? What did they hear? Were there any other witnesses?

Other wits at 430 or 5 am? Very unlikely. There were no reports of any others involved. Of course, you know this.

Yes, all are accounted for. Were these other deputies you speculated about not accounted for?

[absalom01]

Seriously, if an outside agency is investigating a shooting, they don’t tell the agency being investigated what the witnesses are saying. That’s what the investigation has to do with your question.

One more thing: the IA investigation will also prompt most chiefs and Sheriff’s to lay off making any detailed public statements because they don’t want to create the perception that they’re trying to dictate the outcome of that investigation.

That bears directly on your question.

[dragnet2]

Why would you think this shoot is so complex?

Because it doesn't make any sense. A car pulls up, at oh-dark thirty, collides with something. I'd be thinking "drunk driver' right about then. Then the driver exits the car, and wanders off into the night. That's really weird. I'd be thinking "drunk, maybe drugs". At some pone the kids are seen in the car; now i'm thinking 'child endangerment'. Finally the Marine returns to the car and gets in (how?) and at this point the deputy has to make a split-second decision....

Uh no, I was talking about the investigation, not your speculation.

Once again, it's reported one deputy shot, there is one dead victim/suspect, and two witnesses in the victims vehicle. It would seem everyone is accounted for according to everything I have read, and according to OCSD.

This is not a complex investigation such as one with multiple victims, multiple shooters, with multiple locations, tampered evidence, multiple by-standers, etc., etc.

[dragnet2]

if an outside agency is investigating a shooting, they don’t tell the agency being investigated what the witnesses are saying. That’s what the investigation has to do with your question.

What are you talking about?

Nearly a week after this incident, Jim Amormino, spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff's Department said he had no idea if the passengers versions of events is or is not consistent with the deputy's version.

Do you actually believe this?

[dragnet2]

One more thing: the IA investigation will also prompt most chiefs and Sheriff’s to lay off making any detailed public statements

Once again, they already released information to the public and then apparently changed their own version of events regarding specifically why the deputy shot the suspect. There are two versions of this, both of which came from OCSD.

[absalom01]

Do you actually believe this?

Yes, for the reasons previously stated.