Posted on Jul 15, 2015
"Palm Springs police: Marine shooting was 'reasonable'"
21K
52
33
1
1
0
From: Desert Sun
--
The Palm Springs Police Department has argued in federal court that a police officer who dove into the open window of a fleeing car, then fatally shot a drunk driver at point-blank range, acted "reasonably."
New court documents also show that the officer has changed his explanation for why he leaped into the car in the first place.
These arguments were filed this week in response to a lawsuit from the family of Cpl. Allan DeVillena, a 22-year-old High Desert Marine who was killed by Palm Springs police on Nov. 10, 2012. DeVillena, who was drunk, was shot six times as he attempted to drive away from two bicycle cops, Mike Heron and Chad Nordman, on the bottom floor of the downtown public parking garage.
The confrontation escalated dangerously when Nordman attempted to stop DeVillena's Chrysler by jumping through the passenger-side window with his gun drawn, leaving his legs dangling outside the car. Heron did not see Nordman leap through the window, so he assumed his partner had been pulled into the vehicle and was under attack, according to statements he made to law enforcement. Heron opened fire on the Chrysler to save Nordman, then Nordman shot DeVillena in the torso to save himself.
The Police Department argues that it was appropriate for both officers to use deadly force because, if DeVillena had kept driving, Nordman's legs would have been crushed against the concrete pillars at the exit of the parking garage.
"Under the rapidly evolving events confronted by the officers, their fear that DeVillena would hit and hurt or kill someone was objectively reasonable," wrote Lois Bobak, an attorney for the Police Department, in court documents.
These Police Department arguments come from a motion for summary judgment, filed Monday, that asks a judge to dismiss the DeVillena family's lawsuit without the need for a trial. Much of of the motion focuses on the "reasonableness" of the officer's actions because police are generally immune to use-of-force lawsuits if their decisions are considered reasonable in the spur-of-the-moment.
In this case, the Palm Springs Police Department has said Nordman and Heron were forced to make a split-second decision in a life-and-death scenario, but experts have said that Nordman created the danger in the first place.
During prior interviews with The Desert Sun, three law enforcement experts said the DeVillena shooting was an extreme example of "officer-created jeopardy." When Nordman dove into a fleeing car, he endangered himself, prompting his partner to use deadly force to protect him, the experts said.
"It's a horrible situation the police officer is in because I'm sure he wants to stop this guy from driving away drunk, but unfortunately diving in the car makes the situation worse," said Geoffrey Alpert, a deadly force expert at the University of South Carolina. "At the time the officer pulled the trigger, he may have had a reasonable fear for his life, but with that said, it was his actions that created the jeopardy."
Nordman and Heron have been cleared of all criminal culpability by the Riverside County District Attorney's Office. The court documents filed Monday revealed for the first time that the officers were also cleared by an internal investigation conducted by the Palm Springs Police Department.
Both officers have declined to talk to The Desert Sun about the DeVillena shooting.
Pivotal moment, shifting story
The new court documents show that Nordman has shifted his explanation for why he jumped into DeVillena's fleeing vehicle.
"I entered the front passenger window both to stop Mr. DeVillena from driving and to avoid being hit by the car as it turned upon me," Nordman said in a court declaration, filed Monday.
The second part of that statement is new.
In two prior interviews with investigators, Nordman has said repeatedly that he jumped into DeVillena's Chrysler to stop the car. He never said that he jumped through the window to avoid being hit by the car.
"Why'd you jump in that window?" an investigator asked Nordman after the shooting, according to an interview transcript obtained by The Desert Sun.
"Make the driver stop the car," Nordman responded. "He didn't seem like he was gonna ... taking me seriously enough, me being outside the car and telling him to stop, so I figured I'd get inside and make him stop."
http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/crime_courts/2015/07/14/devillena-shooting-court-documents/30150189/
--
The Palm Springs Police Department has argued in federal court that a police officer who dove into the open window of a fleeing car, then fatally shot a drunk driver at point-blank range, acted "reasonably."
New court documents also show that the officer has changed his explanation for why he leaped into the car in the first place.
These arguments were filed this week in response to a lawsuit from the family of Cpl. Allan DeVillena, a 22-year-old High Desert Marine who was killed by Palm Springs police on Nov. 10, 2012. DeVillena, who was drunk, was shot six times as he attempted to drive away from two bicycle cops, Mike Heron and Chad Nordman, on the bottom floor of the downtown public parking garage.
The confrontation escalated dangerously when Nordman attempted to stop DeVillena's Chrysler by jumping through the passenger-side window with his gun drawn, leaving his legs dangling outside the car. Heron did not see Nordman leap through the window, so he assumed his partner had been pulled into the vehicle and was under attack, according to statements he made to law enforcement. Heron opened fire on the Chrysler to save Nordman, then Nordman shot DeVillena in the torso to save himself.
The Police Department argues that it was appropriate for both officers to use deadly force because, if DeVillena had kept driving, Nordman's legs would have been crushed against the concrete pillars at the exit of the parking garage.
"Under the rapidly evolving events confronted by the officers, their fear that DeVillena would hit and hurt or kill someone was objectively reasonable," wrote Lois Bobak, an attorney for the Police Department, in court documents.
These Police Department arguments come from a motion for summary judgment, filed Monday, that asks a judge to dismiss the DeVillena family's lawsuit without the need for a trial. Much of of the motion focuses on the "reasonableness" of the officer's actions because police are generally immune to use-of-force lawsuits if their decisions are considered reasonable in the spur-of-the-moment.
In this case, the Palm Springs Police Department has said Nordman and Heron were forced to make a split-second decision in a life-and-death scenario, but experts have said that Nordman created the danger in the first place.
During prior interviews with The Desert Sun, three law enforcement experts said the DeVillena shooting was an extreme example of "officer-created jeopardy." When Nordman dove into a fleeing car, he endangered himself, prompting his partner to use deadly force to protect him, the experts said.
"It's a horrible situation the police officer is in because I'm sure he wants to stop this guy from driving away drunk, but unfortunately diving in the car makes the situation worse," said Geoffrey Alpert, a deadly force expert at the University of South Carolina. "At the time the officer pulled the trigger, he may have had a reasonable fear for his life, but with that said, it was his actions that created the jeopardy."
Nordman and Heron have been cleared of all criminal culpability by the Riverside County District Attorney's Office. The court documents filed Monday revealed for the first time that the officers were also cleared by an internal investigation conducted by the Palm Springs Police Department.
Both officers have declined to talk to The Desert Sun about the DeVillena shooting.
Pivotal moment, shifting story
The new court documents show that Nordman has shifted his explanation for why he jumped into DeVillena's fleeing vehicle.
"I entered the front passenger window both to stop Mr. DeVillena from driving and to avoid being hit by the car as it turned upon me," Nordman said in a court declaration, filed Monday.
The second part of that statement is new.
In two prior interviews with investigators, Nordman has said repeatedly that he jumped into DeVillena's Chrysler to stop the car. He never said that he jumped through the window to avoid being hit by the car.
"Why'd you jump in that window?" an investigator asked Nordman after the shooting, according to an interview transcript obtained by The Desert Sun.
"Make the driver stop the car," Nordman responded. "He didn't seem like he was gonna ... taking me seriously enough, me being outside the car and telling him to stop, so I figured I'd get inside and make him stop."
http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/crime_courts/2015/07/14/devillena-shooting-court-documents/30150189/
Posted in these groups: 
Police
Marine Corps
Police Marine Corps
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 11
13
13
0
To call this chain of events reasonable is to call it reasonable to shoot a man for drunk driving. The strict logic chain breaks down at the dive inside the car.
(13)
(0)
5
5
0
First and foremost, to anyone who responds to this discussion: WERE YOU THERE? I am a retired LEO, and I know I was not there. I cannot nor will not make any assessment of this incident without being privy to ALL the facts. Our system of justice is based upon that premise. What I can and will address is one outrageous element of the above news report, as provided. Some academic "expert" in deadly force, states, and I quote, "At the time the officer pulled the trigger, he may have had a reasonable fear for his life, but with that said, it was his actions that created the jeopardy." He called it "an extreme example of officer-created jeopardy." I've heard everything now. So, an officer, running into the midst of a raging VERBAL domestic disturbance (the kind of call-for-service that can kill more police every day in this country, second only to routine car stops) is, by his mere presence, somehow responsible for the escalation of the fight when one of the players pulls out a gun, forcing the officer to shoot him or her. Absolutely asinine. This officer-created jeopardy concept is tantamount to an individual robbing a store of some kind, causing the proprietor to take a defensive posture by retrieving a weapon from under the counter, to which the would-be robber responds by displaying a weapon, resulting in the store owner shooting the bad guy...then being charged with aggravated homicide!!! Leftist, liberal excuses created by lawyers or academia to give the bad guys more rights than crime victims. Damn, I am glad that I am done and gone from that everyday war of words and weapons!!! Below, if anyone is interested, is a recent video of what police can face daily, and an increasing number of them are. This is a car stop, a routine car stop, but, as you will see, it turns out to be anything but routine. Given the above definition of "officer-created jeopardy," it could be easily argued that the officer in this car stop "created the jeopardy" in which he found himself, by merely stopping the car.
Brilliant, America, absolutely brilliant!!!
http://conservativetribune.com/mob-thugs-attacks-innocent-cop/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=TPNNPages&utm_content=2015-07-14
Brilliant, America, absolutely brilliant!!!
http://conservativetribune.com/mob-thugs-attacks-innocent-cop/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=TPNNPages&utm_content=2015-07-14
VIDEO: Mob of Thugs Attacks Innocent Cop, But It Didn't End There
America's police officers are still under attack.
(5)
(0)
Sgt Ken Prescott
Yes, I've been in a couple of situations like that. Yes, I remembered pretty clearly what happened. This doesn't look like that at all.
The first statement indicated that the officer was acting in a fashion that was almost certainly outside of department policy (probably out of a combination of extreme stupidity and feeling that he was being "dissed"--the Southern California police culture can be every bit as prickly about that as hardest of hardcore gang-bangers). Only after this went to court did the officer suddenly say the magic words about fearing for his life.
Then again, my experience with the cops may be coloring my opinion. Getting muzzle-swept (along with my family) by a 'roid-raging cop during a routine speeding stop can do that. (Incidentally, it was for 68 in a 65 zone.)
The first statement indicated that the officer was acting in a fashion that was almost certainly outside of department policy (probably out of a combination of extreme stupidity and feeling that he was being "dissed"--the Southern California police culture can be every bit as prickly about that as hardest of hardcore gang-bangers). Only after this went to court did the officer suddenly say the magic words about fearing for his life.
Then again, my experience with the cops may be coloring my opinion. Getting muzzle-swept (along with my family) by a 'roid-raging cop during a routine speeding stop can do that. (Incidentally, it was for 68 in a 65 zone.)
(1)
(0)
SGT William Howell
I am still trying to figure out why nobody has, put the slightest bit of blame on the young Marine. If he had continued on and ran over somebody then everybody would have said the police need to do more. The officer did not "Change his story" He added to it. You can do that.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Ken Prescott
"If he had continued on and ran over somebody then everybody would have said the police need to do more."
False dichotomy; the hidden assumption in this statement is that the only options available to the police were to either do nothing at all or to use deadly force. There were other options, but the cops' own behavior systematically foreclosed those options.
"The officer did not "Change his story" He added to it. You can do that."
Sorry, adding to your story to make it more palatable in a courtroom is changing your story. The facts in evidence immediately after the incident indicate that the officer was trying to be a hero and wasn't in fear for his life (well, he should've been, given that his partner was shooting in his direction, but the driver wasn't the source of any real fear he may have felt).
Was the Marine entirely innocent? No. But the situation should not have required lethal force, and the cops demonstrated extraordinarily poor judgement here. Consider that the cop inside the car was in the danger space of the shooter's weapon. The only thing that kept the idiot window-jumping cop alive was pure Grade-A dumb luck.
Yes, this was officer-created hazard. Yes, the officers need to find other work. Yes, the idiot who jumped through the window needs to spend some time in the Hotel Graybar for false official statement.
False dichotomy; the hidden assumption in this statement is that the only options available to the police were to either do nothing at all or to use deadly force. There were other options, but the cops' own behavior systematically foreclosed those options.
"The officer did not "Change his story" He added to it. You can do that."
Sorry, adding to your story to make it more palatable in a courtroom is changing your story. The facts in evidence immediately after the incident indicate that the officer was trying to be a hero and wasn't in fear for his life (well, he should've been, given that his partner was shooting in his direction, but the driver wasn't the source of any real fear he may have felt).
Was the Marine entirely innocent? No. But the situation should not have required lethal force, and the cops demonstrated extraordinarily poor judgement here. Consider that the cop inside the car was in the danger space of the shooter's weapon. The only thing that kept the idiot window-jumping cop alive was pure Grade-A dumb luck.
Yes, this was officer-created hazard. Yes, the officers need to find other work. Yes, the idiot who jumped through the window needs to spend some time in the Hotel Graybar for false official statement.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Korey Thompson
Everyone here acts like the officer responded to the situation with the intent to use deadly force. That's incorrect. The officer may not have made the best decision, but the driver still chose to continue driving even after being confronted. The officer attempted a seizure, as his job requires. It was unconventional yes, but he used deadly force only after the seizure failed and lives were clearly in danger. I wouldn't jump in a window unless it was my only option, but as stated above, I wasn't there. We can't scrutinize too heavily about things we didn't witness. If a plane crashes do we automatically blame the pilot?! I would hope that we would consider the many other possibilities of how the incident happened.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Really? I wouldn't think this type of action would be close to being reasonable.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google