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.

[absalom01]

Just to get over this endless ping pong, I’ll stipulate your point.

But please answer this question. It’s sincere. So what? What is your point? I gather that you think that there is some sort of cover up/conspiracy or some other malfeasance on the part of the department and/or the deputy. But what, exactly, do you think is going on? And do you have any better evidence than a couple of bad press releases?

[dragnet2]

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?

Yes

You do understand after officer involved shootings, or any shooting for that matter, it's extremely critical to interview the witnesses immediately?

This is very important to get their account of the event while it is still up front or fresh in their memory. If this was not the case, the Sheriff, and all those involved in this investigation, need to resign.

You can bet the rent, there were formal statements taken from both passengers within hours after this event.

I can assure you, OCSD knows *exactly* what the two young witnesses stated, that day.

No offense, but if ya believe Amormino's statement he did not know if the passengers statement was consistent with the deputy's statement, you'll believe anything.

[absalom01]

You can bet the rent, there were formal statements taken from both passengers within hours after this event.

I am sure that the statements were indeed taken, but the DA investigator. I can assure you, OCSD knows *exactly* what the two young witnesses stated, that day.

So now you're accusing the DA of leaking material facts regarding an on-going criminal investigation to the suspect and his organization? Really? OCSD IA and possibly homicide detectives may have access to those statements so they can conduct their own investigations at this point but the press office? No way.

It's all going to come out in time. I ask again: why are you so concerned to have the case file opened up before the case is presented to the DA and, if he thinks charges are warranted, the grand jury?

I've tried to engage; you keep evading my simple question.

[dragnet2]

So what? What is your point? I gather that you think that there is some sort of cover up/conspiracy or some other malfeasance on the part of the department and/or the deputy.

Question: Is it not possible for law enforcement agencies to deceive or twist a version of events to fit, in order to avoid career damage/criminal penalties and or extremely costly litigation/?

But what, exactly, do you think is going on?

Anyone can speculate, but I've based most of my comments on comments made by directly by OCSD.

Since it appears OCSD's version of events has possibly changed, I have no idea, except the fact Marine was not armed, and it appears OCSD is not alleging the Marine attempted to run over the deputy.

Does this not seem somewhat suspect to you?

[dragnet2]

Let me ask you, and forget the DA. Do you not believe OCSD investigators interviewed these two passengers after this officer/deputy involved shooting?

[dragnet2]

I ask again: why are you so concerned to have the case file opened up before the case is presented to the DA

What do you think the DA bases their investigation on?

It's based on witness statements and the deputy's statement obtained by OCSD investigators.

You do not know this?

[dragnet2]

So what? What is your point? I gather that you think that there is some sort of cover up/conspiracy or some other malfeasance on the part of the department and/or the deputy.

Question: Is it not possible for law enforcement agencies to deceive or twist a version of events to fit, in order to avoid career damage/criminal penalties and or extremely costly litigation?

Well?

[absalom01]

As I stated up thread, this could be anything from a tragic, but lawful and justified use of deadly force, to a criminal act.

That said, I have seen nothing in the press that leads me to believe that anything other than a full investigation is underway, and that the investigation itself will be fully vetted by a host of people, not the least of whom will certainly be the base commander at Pendleton, a range of private lawyers and every tom dick and harry on the internet.

But let me answer one of your questions, again, even though you refuse to answer mine. “Does this not seem suspect?” No, it seems like the almost inevitable confusion that must, almost inevitably it seems, surround such a bizarre event. What I find suspect is the extraordinary cynicism that immediately indicts a deputy in the conspicuous absence of any real information.

[dragnet2]

So what? What is your point? I gather that you think that there is some sort of cover up/conspiracy or some other malfeasance on the part of the department and/or the deputy.

Question: Is it not possible for law enforcement agencies to deceive or twist a version of events to fit, in order to avoid career damage/criminal penalties and or extremely costly litigation?

Well?

[dragnet2]

But let me answer one of your questions, again, even though you refuse to answer mine.

Whats that? Be specific and I will answer in short order.

[absalom01]

Of course it’s possible but there is nothing about this caper, at least as it’s been reported to date, that leads me to believe that it is the case in this instance.

[dragnet2]

it seems like the almost inevitable confusion that must, almost inevitably it seems, surround such a bizarre event.

Bizarre event?

You keep implying this is some complex, confusing incident or conspiracy involving all kinds of stuff. Ya got an UNARMED marine who was shot to death at close range through the driver side window..With two passengers in the vehicle.

To be honest, the only smoke, possible deception, distraction and confusion I see, are from your own comments.

[absalom01]

You said: “Tell me, after about a week...”

I’ve asked a bunch of times “What’s the urgency? “ Why is it important to have a detailed public statement prior to the conclusion of the investigation?

[dragnet2]

“What’s the urgency? “

You think I've been evading this question?

I never suggested there was an urgency, those are your words.

My comments were in regards to and based on apparent discrepancies and other comments made by directly by OCSD.

My comments above and throughout the course of this thread can not possibly be any clearer.

[absalom01]

“What do you think the DA bases their investigation on?”
They have their own investigators, sworn LE, detectives, called “DA Investigators”. They work for the DA. Not the sheriff.

I have no doubt that they have a very detailed policy manual on who, exactly, interviews witnesses after an OIS. Since they’ve gone to the trouble to set up an outside office for all OIS’s, it seems reasonable that they would have that office conduct the entire investigation, not just some small bits of it.

[dragnet2]

I ask again: why are you so concerned to have the case file opened up before the case is presented to the DA

What do you think the DA bases their investigation on?

It's based on witness statements and the deputy's statement obtained by OCSD investigators at the scene.

You do not know this?

They have their own investigators, sworn LE, detectives, called “DA Investigators”. They work for the DA. Not the sheriff.

Oh good grief! No kidding!

I said what do you think they BASE their investigations on?

It's based on reports, supporting documents from those involved, who were on the scene, the deputy, witnesses, digital images, radio traffic etc. Gezzz

Ya think the the DA comes out a week later and starts their own investigation from scratch, from a cleaned up, sanitized empty scene?

[dragnet2]

So what? What is your point? I gather that you think that there is some sort of cover up/conspiracy or some other malfeasance on the part of the department and/or the deputy.

Question: Is it not possible for law enforcement agencies to deceive or twist a version of events to fit, in order to avoid career damage/criminal penalties and or extremely costly litigation?

Well?

Of course it’s possible but there is nothing about this caper, at least as it’s been reported to date, that leads me to believe that it is the case in this instance.

You see no issues here?

Oh boy....

This is a really naive statement or one which is very biased.

OCSD has finally admitted the Marine was *not* armed.

OCSD admitted, the Marine drove his own kids to the school.

OCSD said the deputy feared for his life.

OCSD now states the deputy feared for the kids lives.

OCSD admitted shooting to death an unarmed Marine from the driver side window, simply based on the deputy's comment, "The marine was acting or said something irrational and could not let the driver leave with the kids", the same kids he just drove to their school.

OCSD never once alleged the Marine was attempting to run over the deputy, as it's seems substantiated by the blown out driver side window.

Based on what is known, if you're in law enforcement and fail to see some disturbing facts here, I would find a different career.

[Apogee]

Change the story, protecting the children, of course. The fact that the children were forward of the firing line (see what the range officer says about this one) and the possibility of shot deflection from the glass, a skull, or the metal in the headrest would not in any way endanger the children. Trauma, no problem, kids are resilient...

Oh for the days of sanctuary cities and kinsmen redeemers who will execute justice when the state won’t. I am not an anarchist, but the state seems to be providing more danger to the public than protection, in a lot of ways.

[Apogee]

“Personally, I think that it is an over reaction following the Powell father “

BINGO.

You can not govern this way.

[ArmyTeach]

Everybody! Take time to read the comments from Camp Pendleton and SGT Loggins’ immediate supervising officers. He is described as quiet spoken, extremely courteous to all, a mentor to junior Marines, dedicated to duty, a devoted husband and father and a committed Christian. Worked a 12 to 16 hour day and spent as much time as possible with his daughters. I can’t print what I would say about the so-called deputy.