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.

[OneWingedShark]

>But this guy driiving at a high rate of speed, crashing into a gate with his two daughters strapped in the back seat at 4:40 in the morning and refusing to obey legitimate commands of a law enforcement officer isn’t making you curious?

Question: What constitutes a legitimate command from a law-enforcement officer?

1) Would the command to divest myself of my weapon upon entry of a [county or municipal] courthouse be legitimate? (Assume it is posted on the courthouse.)
2) Even if there is no state-law concerning it?
3) Even if such a State Law would be null and void because the State Constitution says: “No law shall abridge the the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense [...]”?
4) Even if the State Constitution flatly prohibits any county/municipality from regulating “in any way” an incident to keep and bear arms?

So, would that be a legitimate command?

[elvis-lives]

How about, “License and registration please.”

[OneWingedShark]

>Sorry. A nutjob had already crashed his vehicle into a gate, refused an order to stop. Returned to the vehicle and with two female minors in the back seat attempted to flee. The deputy did not know if the girls were kidnapped sex slaves, illeghal aliens or escaped mental patients. Deputy deserved a medal.

Ah, so let me get this straight: you want to give him a medal for acting not on facts, nor even allegations, but on the assumption that “it could be...”
I am REALLY uncomfortable with that sentiment; if followed across the board any LEO could get himself a medal for just out-and-out killing ME because I “could be” a terrorist.

[elvis-lives]

I get it. The deputy acted “stupidly”, right Professor Gates.

[OneWingedShark]

>I get it. The deputy acted “stupidly”, right Professor Gates.

No, that’s not what I’m getting at.
What I’m getting at is that in my training in the Army, and even in the civilian world, it is ALWAYS stressed that you are RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY ROUND YOU PUT DOWNRANGE.
To endorse a “give him a medal” attitude like you did for operating on complete unknowns (and ignoring that he was WRONG) is to completely absolve the shooter of responsibility.

We already have a tradition in the “justice” system that absolves people of their duty: unqualified immunity for prosecutors. This means that a prosecutor cannot be held criminally liable for, say, withholding evidence that tends to justify or vindicate the person that he is prosecuting; in fact there was recently a case where just that happened, and the accused went to jail for about a decade (IIRC, I don’t remember the exact numbers) and won a civil suit against the prosecutor (on a due process clause in the Constitution) of several million dollars... this case then made its way to the Supreme Court where it was [sadly] overturned.

The practical ramifications of the above is that the government agents DO NOT have to provide [substantial] training in order to comply with providing ‘due process.’
If that is extended to “Law Enforcement” then we must *expect* a rise in such shootings as this; and, if coupled with a “give them a medal” attitude, then they will be encouraged to do so.

[OneWingedShark]

>How about, “License and registration please.”

To be technical, that sounds more like a request than a command.

But let’s assume that such *is* a legitimate command/request; is there a gap between “License and registration please” & the use of lethal force?
Of course there is!

But there’s nothing in the account that indicates anything in between; IOW, it is the gap itself that is so disconcerting.
That’s why the story smells so bad; even the WestPointGrad/Costco shooting had more details than this (granted there were a lot of witnesses) and there was SOME* (very small, but still existent) reason for the police to use force in that situation... in this case: nothing.

* And that story was a really bad shoot in itself; there were multiple officers issuing multiple commands such that the compliance with any command was non-compliance with another.

[elvis-lives]

And when an unidentified man, at 4:40 am crashes through a gate at a school, ignores calls to stop, tries to drive away with two young girls strapped into the back seat, you recommend that the deputy waves and hollers very loudly, “Have a good day.”

I have a daughter and granddaughter. As far as this deputy knew he was saving a member of my family, or yours. God bless him. He has my support.

You and your Occupy buddies hate the cops, I don’t.

[elvis-lives]

If you do your civic duty and cooperate with the legitimate authorities and offer your license and registration and answer Constitutionally sanctioned questions honestly, there is a great distance between, “License and registration”, and the use of lethal force.

Everything is a learning opportunity. You can take this from the events. When a deputy approaches you at 4:40 in the morning after you crash your car into a locked school yard gate, he calls to you to stop, but you flee only to return to the vehicle to try to drive away with two young girls strapped in the back seat- you are going to be shot. Hopefully we have afforded our law enforcement officeres with enough training that you will not be wounded, you will be killed. God bless the men and women in law enforcement.

[OneWingedShark]

>You and your Occupy buddies hate the cops, I don’t.

I’ve not said one word about the Occupy movement; why do you think to assume I have *any* association with them at all?

But, even more to the point, why do you think I hate the police? What have I said, on this thread, that makes me a “cop hater”?
Is it because I said that I was trained to believe that one legally and morally responsible for discharging their weapon?
Is it because I expect those in authority to bear more responsibility than those not in authority?

So, what exactly makes me a “cop hater?”

[OneWingedShark]

>If you do your civic duty and cooperate with the legitimate authorities and offer your license and registration and answer Constitutionally sanctioned questions honestly, there is a great distance between, “License and registration”, and the use of lethal force.

Ok, let’s use a bit of formal logic here.
{A -> B, read IF A THEN B, says nothing about B when A is false.}
“IF you do your civic duty and cooperate with the legitimate authorities [THEN] there is a great distance between, “License and registration”, and the use of lethal force.”
This says nothing about the case of when civic duty or non-cooperation is done; in fact by itself it would mean that there is only a great distance between ‘license and registration’ and the use of lethal force when you are cooperating!

Don’t you see how horribly dangerous such a mentality is?

>When a deputy approaches you at 4:40 in the morning after you crash your car into a locked school yard gate, he calls to you to stop, but you flee only to return to the vehicle to try to drive away with two young girls strapped in the back seat- you are going to be shot.

Ah, so there is no need for a judge, or jury, or warrant, or hell even allegations!
All an officer has to do is shoot first and then concoct some trail of COULD HAVE and MIGHT HAVE reasoning?
Which part of that justifies lethal force, anyway? (Or is it some magic combination of all of them?)
— Being up at 4:40? (Because nobody who is law-abiding is active at those hours! Forget about night-watchmen!)
— Crashing into a gate? (Because nobody who is a law-abiding citizen ever has an accident! Forget about any inclement-weather/accident correlations!)
— Him telling you to stop and you not complying? (Because nobody might possibly not hear you! Forget about deaf people.)
— Having two young girls in his car? (Because no law abiding male citizen would have females in his vehicle! Forget about a family coming home from a long road-trip!)

I did not spend near a decade in the Army to defend THAT.

[elvis-lives]

If this dangerous, selfish, moron wanted to speak to a judge or answer a warrant, he was granted the opportunity. All he had to do was obey the deputy and he would have had an opportunity to be heard by a judge.

Instead he obviously had the same ego that you have and believed that laws do not apply to him. He endangered his daughters and community because he didn’t have to follow the same laws that the rest of us do.

You have some sort of freakish Occupy Wall Street hatred for law enforcement- more power to you. Crank up the ham radio and enjoy your survival rations. I instead will live on earth.

Don’t bother responding. I’m done with your ignorance.

[OneWingedShark]

>All he had to do was obey the deputy and he would have had an opportunity to be heard by a judge.

Nothing in the story indicates that was the case. All we really have is a sequence of events, as told by the deputy:
1) There was a crash,
2) There was an unidentified male walking back to the vehicle,
3) There was a command to stop,
4) There was a shot fired.

At first the statement was that the officer was in fear for his own life, then the story changed to in fear for the safety of the children; granted the two may not be mutually exclusive... but only the first case (belief his own safety was immediately imperiled) offers any measure of the justification of the use of lethal force... except that the man was LEAVING.

Now, you may not have heard but generally the law takes a VERY dim view of non-LEOs who shoot someone who is retreating.

>If this dangerous, selfish, moron wanted to speak to a judge or answer a warrant, he was granted the opportunity.

Why do you speak so much ill of the dead; most especially attributing to him character traits that seem so at-odds with everything else reported about his character?
Did you know him?

Furthermore, I ask, WHEN was he granted the opportunity? (I don’t believe there was near enough time for him to do so between the crash and being shot.)
Or, did you perhaps mean to say “He would have been granted the opportunity”?

>Instead he obviously had the same ego that you have and believed that laws do not apply to him.

Where have I said that the laws do not apply to me? Or to him? WHERE?

>He endangered his daughters and community because he didn’t have to follow the same laws that the rest of us do.

Which laws was he disobeying? More importantly, weren’t his children put in more danger being in front of the deputy’s line of fire than by their father’s minor fender-bender?

>You have some sort of freakish Occupy Wall Street hatred for law enforcement- more power to you.

I asked you before: WHAT is it that makes you think I’m a cop-hater?
Seriously; I want to know.

[Ken H]

I have a daughter and granddaughter. As far as this deputy knew he was saving a member of my family, or yours. God bless him. He has my support.

From the article:

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.

____________________________________________________________

If the deputy was concerned about the safety of the two girls in the back seat, explain why he took no measures to secure them when Loggins walked away into the darkness for 5 minutes.

[Altariel]

An update to the case is here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2856163/posts

Marine’s daughters held 13 hours after he was shot, attorney says