Posted on Jul 15, 2015
"Palm Springs police: Marine shooting was 'reasonable'"
22.3K
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 >1 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)
2
2
0
The Marine should not have been driving drunk, no doubt, but drunk driving stops do not warrant deadly force unless the driver did something to escalate the event. He did not, the police officer did. A cop leaping into a car (with weapon drawn) in an heroic attempt to stop it and putting his life and the driver's life at more risk is indefensible. Why is his weapon drawn in the first place?
His partner opened fire too not knowing why he was half in the car. The officer created the deadly situation by his action, period. Had the car pulled away they could have easily had an office in a car engage it. Sounds like an unfortunate chain of events that led to an unnecessary death and the cops are tossing smoke grenades to cover themselves.
His partner opened fire too not knowing why he was half in the car. The officer created the deadly situation by his action, period. Had the car pulled away they could have easily had an office in a car engage it. Sounds like an unfortunate chain of events that led to an unnecessary death and the cops are tossing smoke grenades to cover themselves.
(2)
(0)
Capt Lance Gallardo
When did a DUI become a death penalty crime with the Police Officer acting a judge Jury and Executioner. Piss Poor tactics lead to terrible outcomes for both the Police and the Public!
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
SCPO Donnie Bowerman asked me a question then blocked me from responding, that's a grown up thing to do. Anyway, my comment was based on the article which is why I posted it the way I did. And if facts can only be proven in a court of law, how do you know what color the sky is? I mean really, that is quite the moronic statement, isn't it?
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
The Public across the US is becoming increasing alarmed and disturbed by the quick resort to deadly force by Police Officers against unarmed civilians, and motorists such as the one in this incident (the classic justification for using deadly force against an unarmed motorists is "he tried to run me over, so that is why I shot x number of times at the driver. To stop the threat"). Police are required by their training and tactics NOT to put themselves in a position in relationship to a motorist and the car so as NOT to have to resort to the use of deadly force. There is NO police academy or SOP training Manual on tactics for civilian police officers, that ever taught or teaches a police officer to dive through an open window of a moving car. Such behavior is extremely risky for the safety of the LEO and probably caused the officer in this situation to have to resort to deadly force, when he realized he was in a compromised and life threatening situation. The fact that the District Attorney did not charge him with unlawful homicide does not excuse his horrible decisions and tactics, which ultimately led to the death of the DUI suspect. He should be fired at the minimum!
(1)
(0)
SCPO (Join to see)
Captain Gallardo: (1) How many police academies have you attended for the full duration of training, which is about seven months? (2) How many police SOP training manuals have you read in their entirety? (3) How many felony car stops have you initiated? (4) How many of those car stops went exactly BY THE BOOK? That's four questions, Captain. Four questions that require one numerical answer each. Should be a very simple request for someone with such obvious wealth of police experience. Four questions and four single numerical answers. I look forward to your responses.
(0)
(0)
Capt Lance Gallardo
You don't have to be an expert in police Use of Force to have an informed opinion on what happened here SCPO Bowman. The police depend on the Public's support for how they do their job. If the Public Trust and confidence in law enforcement is lost due to some of the horrible police shootings of unarmed civilians that we have seen across the country, than we are in some troubled times in American Policing. I hope that the use of body cams will lead to a decrease in the amount of unjustifiable uses of force as we have witnessed lately. I am tired of the public paying millions to settle unjustifiable uses of force by the police across the country, as well as the concurrent loss of respect for all police and the civil unrest that occurs with these bad uses of force. I am not anti-police in the least. When done constitutionally, Law Enforcement is one of the most noble forms of public service. Recently we have seen some horrible abuse of the public trust in police officers when the Public is not actively engaged in oversighting what the police do and how they do their jobs. Because policing is so important to the wellbeing of communities and the country in general, the Public should be actively and vocally engaged in how the police do their jobs. The City of Palm Springs is going to settle the civil rights violation case for the wrongful death of this Marine for millions of dollars.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
SCPO (Join to see) It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the same reasonable conclusion that Capt Lance Gallardo did. How about YOU name a police academy or show us a police SOP manual that states it's a good idea to dive through the open passenger window of a moving vehicle being operated by a drunk driver and then shoot the driver. How is shooting the driver of a moving vehicle and potentially turning that vehicle into a 4000 lb. unguided missile a prudent thing to do? The fact is that the police officer in question made a really dumb decision and that decision placed him in the jeopardy he found himself in, which caused him and his partner to wrongfully shoot the driver of the vehicle. And if making a dumb decision that costs someone their life isn't bad enough, now the cop is lying about his reason for doing so. The cop is now stating that he jumped in the passenger window to prevent being hit by the car when he failed to mention that at any time previous to the civil lawsuit. Hmmm, how convenient. But last time I checked it is impossible for a car to move sideways, so I'm wondering how, if this cop was positioned to dive into the passenger window, he thought the car was going to hit him. But you go ahead and keep defending the indefensible. It never ceases to amaze me how cops can totally throw common sense out the window when it comes to defending another cop's dumb behavior that cost some other person their life.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
How would jumping in a window allow you to avoid being hit? Unless the guy was doing some fast and furious drift shit, once the front wheels clear you, the rest of the car will too. You fucked up mr cop man.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
No matter what happened or who's fault it was im not even gona get into that. It all couldve been avoided had he not drank and chosen to drive, much less trying run. Poor desicions on all sides of this issue led to an untimley death, but when you drink ,drive and run you inherintly take the risk something really bad is going to happen.
(1)
(0)
MSG John Wirts
Well yes and our glorified "legal System" is a farce, drunk drivers have their licenses revoked , but their access to a car is not restricted. I have seenbefore MADD, and even after judges who would find a drunk driver guilty, The lawyers and judge would shake hands and proceed on as if nothing happened, til the next time. The judge and lawyers would get together and overturn the last conviction, but they kept the money,and went on to try the driver for a "first Offence drunk driving" With the advent of DUI, vs Under the Influence. Penalties are more severe, but there is no enforcement. Offenders with revoked licenses are allowed to keep their cars, it is not long before they are DUI again. When License is suspended or revoked, all motor vehicles owned by the offender ought to be impounded! The offender could either kee[p the vehicles in impound and pay the impond fees before getting the vehicles back after getting a license again, or sell them. If the offender is caught driving without a license, there should be a determination how he came to be driving, did the offender steal the car, did a friend loan the offender the car. If the car is stolen then dui and grand theft auto ought to be charged. If a friend loaned the car to the offender, the friend should be charged with public endangerment and both of them should be tried and sent to prison! All this namby pamby liberal nonsense about being nice and paroling prisoners who have not reformed is wonderful for the criminals but tragic for the victims who have no lawyer to defend them or court to appeal to.
(2)
(0)
GySgt Curtis L Leetch
The officer's actions violated everything officers are taught in training; he demonstrated a total lack of good and reasonable judgement, which reflects poorly upon the community, his department, and fellow officers.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
This is an unfortunate thing - but the accountability lies with the Marine - he should not have been driving drunk - and - if he wasn't, none of this would have happened.
"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."
WHAT? And we discard the drunk driving all together as having nothing to do with this situation? It's the root cause!!! That's some "expert"!
"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."
WHAT? And we discard the drunk driving all together as having nothing to do with this situation? It's the root cause!!! That's some "expert"!
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
It's always suspect when a law enforcement "expert" is pulled from ACADEMICIA with no other credentials. My first choice would be either the defense tactics instructor at the state public safety academy (who actually worked in the field prior) or the legal coordinator at the state public safety academy (who worked in the field as a prosecutor & judge). Both are well respected, recognized subject matter experts...not "expert" witnesses for hire.
(2)
(0)
Cpl William Bailey
I agree whole heartedly. Where was the Marines standards that he learned in bootcamp. Just because you are not on duty does not make you not a Marine. Also being a Marine does not give you a license to do what we want.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
"Law enforcement experts say however, that the incident was an overwhelming case of “officer-created jeopardy,” initiated by Norman himself, when he unwittingly dove into the car.
“At the time the officer pulled the trigger, he may have had a reasonable fear for his life,” University of South Carolina deadly force expert Geoffrey Alpert said. “But with that said, it was his actions that created the jeopardy.”" From USA Today Article from 7-15-2015 link below:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/15/police-dead-marine-palm-springs/30174563/
“At the time the officer pulled the trigger, he may have had a reasonable fear for his life,” University of South Carolina deadly force expert Geoffrey Alpert said. “But with that said, it was his actions that created the jeopardy.”" From USA Today Article from 7-15-2015 link below:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/15/police-dead-marine-palm-springs/30174563/
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google