Police officer kills unarmed adolescent

[Uraniun235]

Northside district sued by mother of slain teen
By Brian Chasnoff

Updated 12:58 a.m., Saturday, September 10, 2011


A mother whose teenage son was shot and killed last year by a Northside Independent School District police officer has sued the cop, the school district and its police chief.

Denys Moreno filed the complaint Thursday in federal court, alleging that the civil rights of her 14-year-old son, Derek Lopez, were violated in November when the officer, Daniel Alvarado, chased the unarmed boy into the backyard of a Northwest Side home with his gun drawn and fired seconds later.

Alvarado had witnessed Lopez punch another student at a bus stop off campus. Although a supervisor told Alvarado to stay with the victim of the assault, Alvarado ordered the victim into his patrol car and drove off in pursuit of Lopez, according to police dispatch recordings and reports.

Lopez was hiding in a shed in the backyard of a nearby home when Alvarado, flagged down by a neighbor, ran up the driveway with his weapon drawn and entered the backyard, according to witnesses.

No one saw the shooting. But the lawsuit alleges that Alvarado “charged up to the shed, flung open the door and shot and killed the unarmed boy.”

Craig Wood, the school district's attorney, disputed that.

“It seems pretty clear that the student charged out” of the shed, he said.

The lawsuit, seeking unspecified damages, claims the use of force was excessive and “clearly not objectively reasonable.” But Wood said Alvarado feared for his own safety before firing his weapon.

“He did indicate in his report that he had just witnessed a violent attack on another student and had reason to believe the student was dangerous,” Wood said.

The San Antonio Police Department has ruled that the officer's use of force was justified.

The lawsuit also alleges that the school district and its police chief with “deliberate indifference” failed to train Alvarado on the department's procedures, including its policies on the use of force and responding to incidents that occur off campus.

The lawsuit also claims the district is liable in part because Alvarado, before the shooting, was reprimanded, counseled and threatened with termination several times for not following orders, yet he never was fired or offered remedial training.

Alvarado remains on the police force in an administrative position, said Pascual Gonzalez, a spokesman for the school district.

Mom Says Prickly School Cop Killed Her Son

SAN ANTONIO (CN) - A 14-year-old boy got into a fight at a school bus stop and the school district's police officer responded by shooting him to death, the boy's mother says. She says the cop had been reprimanded 16 times in the previous 4 years, suspended without pay 5 times, and "recommended for termination for insubordination," but the school kept him on the force "without remedial training."

Denys Lopez Moreno sued the Northside Independent School District, of San Antonio, the district's Chief of Police John Page and the alleged shooter, Daniel Alvarado, in Federal Court.
Lopez says her son, Derek, got into a fight with another boy at a school bus stop and punched the other boy once, in November 2010.

"Defendant, Alvarado, having responded to a call regarding a bus with a flat tire, witnessed Derek strike the other boy. He ordered Derek to 'freeze.' Derek hesitated and then ran from defendant Alvarado," according to the complaint.

"In his patrol car, Alvarado began chasing Derek in the neighborhood across the street from the high school. Alvarado lost sight of the boy in the neighborhood and returned to the location of the school boy fight. At that time, he called dispatch. Dispatch recordings reflect that his supervisor directed Alvarado to stay with the other boy and to 'not do any big search over there.'

"Ignoring his supervisor's orders to 'stay with the victim and get the information from him,' Alvarado placed the second boy into the patrol car and sped into the neighborhood to search for Derek."

Lopez says her son jumped over a fence and hid in a shed in the back yard of a house. The homeowner saw him, called 911, and alerted a neighbor, who pointed Alvarado in Derek's direction. Lopez says her son never left the shed, never approached the house or threatened the homeowner or her daughters, and posed no threat to anyone.

Nonetheless, she says: "In violation of NISD police department procedures, Alvarado drew his weapon immediately after exiting the patrol car. With his gun drawn, he rushed through the gate and into the back yard. Within seconds from arriving at the residence, Alvarado shot and killed the unarmed boy hiding in the shed."

A neighbor, who is an EMT, called an ambulance, which arrived in 20 minutes, during which time the EMT was trying to save Derek's life, his mom says. But she says her son died in the ambulance about 50 minutes after Alvarado shot him.

Lopez says the district acted with "deliberate indifference" in keeping Alvarado on the force despite his poor disciplinary record.

"In approximately a four (4) year period leading up to the shooting, defendant Alvarado had been reprimanded sixteen (16) times," the complaint states. "Specifically, he had been reprimanded for insubordination and failure to follow supervisors' directives seven (7) times. Due to his poor service record, Alvarado was suspended without pay on five (5) occasions. On May 21, 2008, Alvarado was recommended for termination by Page. Despite being recommended for termination for insubordination and for refusal to follow supervisor directives, Alvarado remained on the force without remedial training."

Rather than fire Alvarado, the district transferred him to patrol, "an area of duty with less supervision," according to the complaint.

Lopez claims the district, which has about 70 police officers, failed to train its officers on procedures regarding off-campus criminal activity, use of weapons, use of force, and communication with other law enforcement agencies.

"Even after the tragedy of Nov. 12, 2010," Lopez says, "NISD has not trained its officers on its procedures relating to actions officers should take when witnessing an offense occurring off campus."

She seeks punitive damages for civil rights violations, supervisory liability and negligence. She is represented by Wallace Brylak.

Mother sues police for shooting unarmed 14 year old son to death

A mother has filed a federal lawsuit after her 14-year-old son got into a fight at a school bus stop and was later shot to death by a police officer while the her son was hiding in a shed.

The lawsuit, filed by Denys Lopez Moreno against the Northside Independent School District of San Antonio, the district's Chief of Police John Page and school district police officer Daniel Alvarado, seeks punitive damages for civil rights violations, supervisory liability and negligence.

According to the lawsuit, Moreno's son, Derek, got into a fight with another boy at a school bus stop and punched him once. Alvarado witnessed the incident and ordered Derek to "freeze."

But instead of freezing, Derek ran, causing Alvarado to lose sight of him. Derek ended up jumping over a fence and hiding in a shed in the back yard of a nearby house.

The homeowner saw Derek enter his shed, called 911, and then flagged down Alvarado while he was driving around, searching the neighborhood.

In violation of police department procedures, according to the lawsuit, Alvarado drew his weapon immediately after exiting his patrol car, rushed into the back yard, and shot Derek within seconds of arriving at the house.

"When the homeowner heard the shot, she ran to the patio window facing the back of the house," the lawsuit states. "There she witnessed Alvarado carry the boy from the shed and lay him in the grass outside the shed door. She ran outside and saw Alvarado hovering over the boy who was moaning and thrashing in pain."

Derek died in an ambulance about 50 minutes after Alvarado shot him.

"Alvarado did not have a reasonable belief that he or any other person was in danger of imminent bodily harm," the lawsuit says. "Consequently, shooting and killing Derek was unwarranted under these circumstances, and was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances."

The lawsuit also claims the district acted with "deliberate indifference" by keeping Alvarado, who had been reprimanded sixteen times, on its police force without remedial training.

In summary:

• Alvorado witnesses a 14 year old boy hitting another boy. Alvorado orders him to freeze, and the boy bolts.
• His supervisor orders him to remain with the boy who had been hit. Alvorado defies his orders and takes off in a pursuit.
• After being tipped off by someone, Alvorado draws his gun and advances on the location of the boy. He does not call for backup, despite being in a situation where he feels it necessary to draw his gun.
• Alvorado enters the shed and opens fire on the boy, who later succumbs to his wounds.
• The school district's attorney and the San Antonio police department insist that the sight of a 14 year old boy hitting another adolescent was sufficient cause for Alvorado to fear for his life and shoot an unarmed adolescent.

This case is deeply troubling, not just for the death of a boy but also for the response from this police officer's superiors. Does the district think that if they absolve the officer, they might be able to dodge liability in the lawsuit? Do they genuinely believe that the officer acted appropriately despite violating orders and regulations - in which case, what are those orders and regulations worth? Is it some twisted notion of "if we don't stand up for this one we'll get sued over every police action in the future"? I don't know.


(Wisecracks about Texas executions and Rick Perry may be more obvious and less witty than you think.)

[TheHammer]

I once had a pretty vigorous debate with some people on this board in regards to having a reinforced door to make it more difficulty for police to simply "kick-in" the door whenever they felt they had "reasonable suspicion". And shit like this is the reason why. I hope the dept gets taken to the cleaners, another investigation is performed on the officer by an outside agency (hopefully one with integrity), and that several people get fired over this...

[Rahvin]

Hiding in a shed, it's possible that the boy may have attempted to rush the officer with a tool or other weapon. If somebody rushes a cop with a pickaxe or a shovel or gardening shears, that would be sufficient cause to act in self defense.

It seems pretty clear though, that this was a death that absolutely didn't need to happen. The best course of action would have been to obey the supervisor and stay with the victim, who could almost certainly identify the assailant easily. If charges were to be filed, just pick him up later, at home or the next day at school without a fuss. It was a schoolyard fight at the bus stop, not a deadly armed robbery.

[Zaune]

Nobody apart from Alvorado himself seems to have seen exactly what went down, so I suppose it's possible the kid had picked up a weapon from the shed he was hiding in and was intending to fight his way out. Doesn't excuse drawing his sidearm instead of pepper-spray and his baton though.

[Rahvin]

Agreed. And apparently department regs say that he shouldn't have drawn his gun immediately upon exiting his cruiser regardless. I don't know much about proper police procedure, I just know the entire situation seems to consist of a series of really bad calls on the part of the cop, and a stupid teenage kid who might have deserved a suspension at school but didn't deserve to get killed.

[Lord Baal]

It's stupid to kill a kid in this way, even if he ran with some blunt weapon the officer could easily had shoot the guy in a leg or make a fire of warning. This seem like a pretty suspicious thing. In the first place, why the boy hit the other? And why pursuit we (if the boy was already identified?) simply put an arrest order or a expulsion or something? He just hit the guy (not that I support it), not tried to murder him.

[spaceviking]

It's stupid to kill a kid in this way, even if he ran with some blunt weapon the officer could easily had shoot the guy in a leg or make a fire of warning. This seem like a pretty suspicious thing. In the first place, why the boy hit the other? And why pursuit we (if the boy was already identified?) simply put an arrest order or a expulsion or something? He just hit the guy (not that I support it), not tried to murder him.

It is not easy to shoot someone in the leg even for a trained professional. The cop was stupid for disobeying orders and the situation should not have come to this.

The main crime was not that the boy hit the other boy; it was that the attacker bolted when the cop came.

[TheHammer]

Nobody apart from Alvorado himself seems to have seen exactly what went down, so I suppose it's possible the kid had picked up a weapon from the shed he was hiding in and was intending to fight his way out. Doesn't excuse drawing his sidearm instead of pepper-spray and his baton though.

He is repeatedly described as having been "unarmed". Even the district's own attorney doesn't dispute that, merely their story that the boy "charged out of the shed" and the Cop was so terrified he fired.

Problem with that story is that it doesn't jive with the third article, which I'm quoting here:

In violation of police department procedures, according to the lawsuit, Alvarado drew his weapon immediately after exiting his patrol car, rushed into the back yard, and shot Derek within seconds of arriving at the house.

"When the homeowner heard the shot, she ran to the patio window facing the back of the house," the lawsuit states. "There she witnessed Alvarado carry the boy from the shed and lay him in the grass outside the shed door. She ran outside and saw Alvarado hovering over the boy who was moaning and thrashing in pain."

Home owner states Alvarado carried the boy from the shed and lay him in the grass. No weapon is mentioned. If he had in fact "charged out" of the shed, his momentum would have continued to carry him forward even if he were shot.

The district is trying to paint it as though the "violent beating" the other student suffered, or ONE PUNCH as is described in the law suit, resulted in the officer fearing for his life is ridiculous. Given the timing of it being "seconds" after entering the backyard, it would seem highly unlikely any warning was given prior to the shot.

The Cop never bothers to call an ambulance, leaving that to a neighbor. He was probably too busy coming up with his "story" as to why he needed to kill an unarmed fourteen year old.

Top it off with the fact that Alvardo had been a very shitty cop for years, and it looks to me to be highly in favor of going down exactly as the lawsuit describes.

[Zaune]

All fair points, but I doubt Internal Affairs and the CSI team are even close to finished reconstructing the sequence of events, so for the time being I'm going to take all three press reports with a large grain of salt.

[TheHammer]

All fair points, but I doubt Internal Affairs and the CSI team are even close to finished reconstructing the sequence of events, so for the time being I'm going to take all three press reports with a large grain of salt.

It happened over a year ago. San Antonio Police dept rule it as "justified" to the surprise of no one I'm sure...

[Justice]

My little brother (as well as a couple friends) are cops, so I talked to him about the story and situation. He said that, in all likelihood, the guy completely fucked up the situation.

- He said in Michigan, you'd have to get in the felonious assault area before you could justify pulling your weapon like this guy did. However, he said that there is no need for a "warning" to shoot if he feels immediately in fear of his life while within the reactionary gap (7 yards, basically the distance you could charge a cop). Now if the guy is just standing there and he's compliant, that's something different. But if he really did charge out, he wouldn't technically need to warn the suspect; there simply wouldn't be time.
- He pointed out that the kid could have still charged him, even if he ended up back in the shed: While he might have momentum if he charged out, we don't know how he reacted to the gun or being shot. He could have stumbled back himself, hesitated and fallen back, among other things. He'd need to see the evidence to make a conclusion on it rather than relying on just witness testimony.
- However, he doubts that. To him, it looks like the guy went macho and ran right to the shed door, surprised the kid and himself, and ended up shooting him. He completely escalated the situation in an inappropriate and unnecessary way. To quote, "The kid is in a 1-door shed, right? Just wait him out. He's not going anywhere without you saying something about it first."

Nobody apart from Alvorado himself seems to have seen exactly what went down, so I suppose it's possible the kid had picked up a weapon from the shed he was hiding in and was intending to fight his way out. Doesn't excuse drawing his sidearm instead of pepper-spray and his baton though.

No. You do not decide to be sporting and get into a fencing match with the guy if he holds a weapon. My best friend's dad is a veteran detective and sports an 8" scar on his forearm from a guy attacking him with a concealed knife in his early days. A guy with a weapon can still thrash about with pepper spray, and what happens if he breaks your arm or knocks you out with the weapon? You don't fuck around with a guy who could hurt you.

Perhaps he could use a tazer, but there's still a danger there. Of course, not all departments are issued tazers, either. A guy charges you with a weapon is a pretty cut-and-dry situation for deadly force. Obviously there can be exigent circumstances, but generally speaking it's foolish to risk your life in such a situation.

It's stupid to kill a kid in this way, even if he ran with some blunt weapon the officer could easily had shoot the guy in a leg or make a fire of warning. This seem like a pretty suspicious thing. In the first place, why the boy hit the other? And why pursuit we (if the boy was already identified?) simply put an arrest order or a expulsion or something? He just hit the guy (not that I support it), not tried to murder him.

It is not easy to shoot someone in the leg even for a trained professional. The cop was stupid for disobeying orders and the situation should not have come to this.

The main crime was not that the boy hit the other boy; it was that the attacker bolted when the cop came.

Cops don't shoot to kill because it's easier, they do it because if you have pulled your weapon, you are justifying the use of deadly force. It is not meant to be a warning or a wounding weapon; this is to prevent cops from instantly going for their sidearm for all situations. Things like warning shots or hobbling someone is a completely inappropriate usage of your gun; you only use it in situations where deadly force is warranted.

In short, if you are using your gun then you are saying that deadly force is necessary. Suddenly saying "Well, I figured all I needed to do was wound him" means you weren't thinking when you pulled your gun. It's not an all-purpose multitool, it's a deadly weapon and it should only ever be used as such.

Also, at least in Michigan, there's no such thing as a "main crime". There are obviously crimes which would escalate the SOP further than others, but there's no such thing as a "primary crime" outside of what a prosecutor might focus on.

[SVPD]

There are basically 2 separate issues here:

1) The officer shooting the kid.
2) The officer's failure to heed the orders of his superior.

The two are interconnected insofar as that he probably would not have shot the kid had he obeyed, but that's immaterial to whether the shooting was justified since obeying superiors is an internal disciplinary matter, where as unlawfully shooting a subject is a crime.

First, one cannot take the lawsuit's description at face value; it's a lawsuit. It's job is to represent the plantiff's interests, and the job of the lawyer writing it is to do the same; not to present an impartial view of the facts. The same applies to any sort of legal response by the police attorney; although not necessarily to the internal affairs documents used by the department without evidence that they improperly exonerated the officer.

Now, the question as to the shooting is a very difficult one. Was the boy unarmed after being shot? Yes. Does this mean he was unarmed when the officer opened the door and he charged? Not necessarily. We here can talk about what was more or less likely, and in the lawsuit that is what it comes down to: "preponderance of the evidence", but if the officer is to be actually charged with a crime, he must be convicted byond a reasonable doubt and "it's likely that..." isn't sufficient.

Whether he charged at the officer and whether he had anything in his hand are matters unfortunately only the officer knows. It's possible an object might be found laying on the floor of the shed that the lawsuit would, naturally, fail to mention, and which the plaintiff's lawyer would (correctly) point out might have been lying there all along. We don't know. It's also possible that the officer yanked open the door with the preconceived idea the kid would have a weapon and his brain told him something was in the kids hand and he didn't realize until too late that there was, in fact, not a weapon. This is not an excuse, but it speaks to how hard it is to establish what really happened.

As to him being shot, as someone stated, you never shoot to wound. By the same token, you don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stop. You aim center mass which is obviously more likely to result in death, but the important point is that if the subject doesn't die, it's irrelevant; you stop shooting when the aggression stops.

As for momentum, that isn't really something we can base any assumptions on. Momentum doesn't carry anyone that far once they start to fall unless they're on ice or on a downslope because human legs don't keep rolling the way a wheel would. People react a wide variety of ways to being shot, and there is no good rule of thumb for what might have happened. There's also the fact that sheds aren't that big and "started to charge" could have been only 1 or 2 steps; not enough room to build much speed or momentum.

As to his disobediance: I think the situation calls the supervisor's judgement into very serious question. Remember, the supervisor had no reason to assume he was going to get into a shooting situation, justified or otherwise, when he gave his order. I wonder what is going through this supervisor's mind that he tells this guy to stay with the victim rather than staying with the victim himself where he can better coordinate the situation, such as arriving backup and an ambulance, and dealing with school officials or parents. That's what supervisors are for, not to have the officer sit there while they go chasing off after the criminal.

I can't speak to why the supervisor did this, but if it's because he just thinks since he's a supervisor he should be the one to go handle the more "difficult" stuff, he's got a very bad attitude both in terms of his attitude towards his subordinates abilities and towards his own; simpyl being a supervisor does not make you better able to handle high-stress situations. If it's because he already knows that this guy, or his officers in general don't handle such situations well it calls into question their entire hiring and training methodology.

[Uraniun235]

As to his disobediance: I think the situation calls the supervisor's judgement into very serious question. Remember, the supervisor had no reason to assume he was going to get into a shooting situation, justified or otherwise, when he gave his order. I wonder what is going through this supervisor's mind that he tells this guy to stay with the victim rather than staying with the victim himself where he can better coordinate the situation, such as arriving backup and an ambulance, and dealing with school officials or parents. That's what supervisors are for, not to have the officer sit there while they go chasing off after the criminal.

I can't speak to why the supervisor did this, but if it's because he just thinks since he's a supervisor he should be the one to go handle the more "difficult" stuff, he's got a very bad attitude both in terms of his attitude towards his subordinates abilities and towards his own; simpyl being a supervisor does not make you better able to handle high-stress situations. If it's because he already knows that this guy, or his officers in general don't handle such situations well it calls into question their entire hiring and training methodology.

It's not entirely clear in the articles, but my impression was that Alvarado had received his orders via radio:

"In his patrol car, Alvarado began chasing Derek in the neighborhood across the street from the high school. Alvarado lost sight of the boy in the neighborhood and returned to the location of the school boy fight. At that time, he called dispatch. Dispatch recordings reflect that his supervisor directed Alvarado to stay with the other boy and to 'not do any big search over there.'


That said, one of the articles cites the lawsuit as evidence of the disciplinary record of Alvarado:

"In approximately a four (4) year period leading up to the shooting, defendant Alvarado had been reprimanded sixteen (16) times," the complaint states. "Specifically, he had been reprimanded for insubordination and failure to follow supervisors' directives seven (7) times. Due to his poor service record, Alvarado was suspended without pay on five (5) occasions. On May 21, 2008, Alvarado was recommended for termination by Page. Despite being recommended for termination for insubordination and for refusal to follow supervisor directives, Alvarado remained on the force without remedial training."

I grant that we should not necessarily take the lawsuit at face value regarding events as they occurred, but it seems less likely that an attorney would hoke up a phony disciplinary record.

[Enigma]

There are basically 2 separate issues here:

1) The officer shooting the kid.
2) The officer's failure to heed the orders of his superior.

The two are interconnected insofar as that he probably would not have shot the kid had he obeyed, but that's immaterial to whether the shooting was justified since obeying superiors is an internal disciplinary matter, where as unlawfully shooting a subject is a crime.[snip]

But if the lawyer is any good, he can use the insubordination and Alvarado's history of that to tell the jury that the officer would have eventually facing the consequences of his actions. That constant disobedience to superiors would eventually lead him to commit a grievous error.

The fact that he did not call for back up could be implied that the officer did not want his superiors to know that he was going to go after the kid despite being told not to. That also could have been fatal for he officer if the kid did have a gun and somehow shot the officer instead of the other way around.

The way I see it, either this suit goes to trial or it gets settled out of court.

[Korto]

To my mind, if we take the event of the shooting in isolation, stipulate that the officer enters the shed, then it's, as far as we can tell from the evidence provided here, a justifiable shooting.

An unarmed 14 year boy is not a threat to a fit adult male. Such a suggestion is laughable. However, a 14 year old boy armed with an axe, a claw hammer, or a screwdriver, or anything else he could have picked up in there, is a lethal threat. He's in close confines, any hesitation on the officer's part to shoot could have seen him dead. Once in that shed, any move on the boy's part even remotely threatening leaves the officer with no choice.
If I was running an inquiry that was really meant to clear the officer, I would just concentrate on that, and ignore any events before entering the shed.

Because it's the events before entering the shed that to my mind are damning. Firstly, if they knew who the boy was, what's the rush? Obey orders, see to the victim, and pick the lad up at home later.
Secondly, after the boy runs into the shed, a confined and dangerous area, again, what's the rush? The boy's scared, under pressure; push him and the odds are he's going to do something stupid. A 14 year old doing something stupid while under the effects of fear and adrenaline is hardly front-page news material. In fact, him doing so seems so likely I would suggest it was as predictable as the results of releasing a trained (read - abused) fighting dog in the middle of a crowded shopping centre. Pushing him unnecessarily is cowboy negligence to me, and in this case resulting in death.
SVPD, I would assume that part of police training rests upon trying to calm a situation down. No-one makes good decisions when scared and emotional. All the officer had to do was stay outside the shed, and talk the lad down. No rush, no fuss, no muss, and no-one gets hurt.

I think the cop figures he's Dirty Harry, and the kid died because of it.

[Stark]

I'm pretty sure they specifically train cops not to corner people, because it increases the odds of violence.

Then again, this IS America.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The officer should never have been IN the shed without calling for backup. A good officer doesn't play cowboy, because entering a confined space where you don't know the location of a possible assailant is a good way to get shot with your own gun.

[Enigma]

The officer should never have been IN the shed without calling for backup. A good officer doesn't play cowboy, because entering a confined space where you don't know the location of a possible assailant is a good way to get shot with your own gun.

He may have known that but remember, he disobeyed orders. Calling in for backup would let the supervisor know that the officer didn't do what he was told and would chew him out.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm pretty sure they specifically train cops not to corner people, because it increases the odds of violence.

Then again, this IS America.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you but it sounds like you're saying that police in some part of the world are specifically trained to give persons suspected of a crime an exit so chances of violence are decreased. As far as I'm aware no law enforcement organization in the world trains their police that way. It is the job of the police to locate and secure persons suspected of crimes and in order to do that you need to sometimes chase people, use force against then, track them with dogs, or even corner them. Now, our response to barricaded individuals is different unless lives are at an immediate risk.

However, this was not one of those situations. A suspect is considered barricaded when the following conditions are met. 1 - The suspect is believed to be armed. 2 - The suspect is believed to have been involved in a criminal act; or is a significant threat to the lives of citizens or police. 3 - The suspect is in a position of advantage that affords cover or concealment. 4 - The suspect refuses to submit to custody. Once those four conditions are met then the containment and utilization of SWAT and negotiation teams will happen. In this situation none of these conditions are met because of the officer had no idea the suspect was in that shed. If those conditions are not met then the officers assigned to the call, like this officer, will search for the suspect and take the suspect into custody if located.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

In this situation none of these conditions are met because of the officer had no idea the suspect was in that shed.

Slight nitpick, but the article states otherwise:

Lopez was hiding in a shed in the backyard of a nearby home when Alvarado, flagged down by a neighbor, ran up the driveway with his weapon drawn and entered the backyard, according to witnesses.

No one saw the shooting. But the lawsuit alleges that Alvarado “charged up to the shed, flung open the door and shot and killed the unarmed boy.”

Craig Wood, the school district's attorney, disputed that.

“It seems pretty clear that the student charged out” of the shed, he said.

Granted, we have nothing more than 'he said, she said' at the moment, but with what little evidence we have to go on, I think it's a reasonable conclusion to assume that the officer had, at least, a very strong suspicion that the kid was in the shed. You're the expert on procedure here, but I'd think if you're that reasonably certain there's someone dangerous enough to warrant pulling a gun, in a location with only one exit with no one else in immediate danger, staying back and keeping that one entrance covered while waiting for backup would be the proper thing to do, yes?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Slight nitpick, but the article states otherwise:

Not really. He was flagged down and told what exactly? Was he told this kid was in this shed?

Granted, we have nothing more than 'he said, she said' at the moment, but with what little evidence we have to go on, I think it's a reasonable conclusion to assume that the officer had, at least, a very strong suspicion that the kid was in the shed. You're the expert on procedure here, but I'd think if you're that reasonably certain there's someone dangerous enough to warrant pulling a gun, in a location with only one exit with no one else in immediate danger, staying back and keeping that one entrance covered while waiting for backup would be the proper thing to do, yes?

I agree. I'm not saying this officer handled the situations correctly. I was mostly addressing the idea that police aren't suppose to corner suspects.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Not really. He was flagged down and told what exactly? Was he told this kid was in this shed?

One of the accounts states that he charged the shed and threw open the door, ergo he obviously knew the kid was in the shed (if the account's true). The only other account says nothing about whether or not he actually knew the kid was in there, only that allegedly the kid charged out of it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Not really. He was flagged down and told what exactly? Was he told this kid was in this shed?

One of the accounts states that he charged the shed and threw open the door, ergo he obviously knew the kid was in the shed (if the account's true). The only other account says nothing about whether or not he actually knew the kid was in there, only that allegedly the kid charged out of it.

Or he was searching the shed aggressively. Based off his service record he sounds like an idiot.

[TheHammer]

The homeowner saw Derek enter his shed, called 911, and then flagged down Alvarado while he was driving around, searching the neighborhood.

Just in case there was any need for clarification, the home owner clearly informed Alvarado that the kid was in the shed. Alvarado was driving around searching the neighborhood, the only way he could have known to search that particular shed would be because he was tipped off.

As I said earlier, its pretty clear that he was a very shitty cop. His reckless decision to put himself in harms way escalated the situation unneccessarily. Failure to follow proper procedure should immediately invoke severe penalties akin to manslaughter at the very least. I'd like to see the findings of the "investigation" in to the shooting, but at this point it doesn't appear anyone is saying he was at any point "armed". The only defense fostered by the school district was that he "charged out" of the shed, which again seems like bullshit given that the body was carried from the shed and laid on the grass. For what purpose? Why move the subject from the shed to the grass unless you were wanting to create the story that he "charged out" and you "had to shoot him".

[Kamakazie Sith]

I once had a pretty vigorous debate with some people on this board in regards to having a reinforced door to make it more difficulty for police to simply "kick-in" the door whenever they felt they had "reasonable suspicion". And shit like this is the reason why. I hope the dept gets taken to the cleaners, another investigation is performed on the officer by an outside agency (hopefully one with integrity), and that several people get fired over this...

And you're still wrong. Shit like this? So, you want reinforced doors so strangers can run into your yard and barricade themselves from the police. Hammer, you are an idiot.