Attorney Leaks Dash Cam Video of Police Shooting After DA Rules Shooting Justified

Parolee shot 13 times in Manteca, California in the summer of 2010


going viral helps
Duenez family

If you ever see a news story about a police shooting that the local district attorney does not rule justified, please e-mail me. For now, the story: Ernest Duenez was a parolee shot to death during a traffic stop a year and a half ago. He was the passenger in a vehicle pulled over because the "officer had knowledge that Duenez, a wanted parolee, was inside the vehicle and considered armed and dangerous," according to the Modesto Bee. The district attorney ruled the police officer was justified in shooting Duenez 13 times because the parolee brandished a knife at the officer, was wanted and considered armed and dangerous, and had a lengthy criminal record.

While Duenez' family has been protesting for the last year and a half, with two police officers even getting a temporary restraining order against his brother, the case didn't receive much attention.  

After the DA ruled the shooting justified, the family's attorney decided to release the dash cam video on which part of the DA's conclusions were based. The video, and the case, went viral. Dash cam video in full below:

NEXT: Rahm Emanuel Calls For Assault Weapons Ban

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A clear case of murder, but the corrupt system protects it’s thugs.

  2. Why is a DA ruling on anything? Why not a grand jury? Grand juries really are pointless in light of DAs doing what the grand jury is intended to do.

  3. Wow, just wow. That was murder, this cop should be imprisoned for life, or just stood up against a wall and shot. We can only hope against hope that this video will bring justice to this poor guy and his family, in the end.

    1. But….but….what if he WAS holding a knife and threw it at the cop? Clearly this man could have been a professional knife thrower. That cop has every right to go home to his family and if murdering this criminal is what it takes, then so be it! We can’t have ex-criminals just driving around now can we?

      1. Yeah, he could have been a Ninja, and for sure he had to shoot the guy several more times when he was just lying limp on the ground.

        Cold blooded murder, the fucking coward.

        1. and for sure he had to shoot the guy several more times when he was just lying limp on the ground.

          Zombies, dude. You can never be too careful.

  4. If he didn’t want to be shot, why was he riding in a car? LAW&ORDERWND;

  5. If we disbanded every local police force in this country, the crime rate would plummet.

    1. I think a bunch of frustrated ex-cops, with lots of time on their hands, would only cause the crime rate to go up.

      1. The crime rate that a police force would be concerned with would go up. There would be no change in the actual number of crimes.

  6. If I watch this video I’m going to rage out, aren’t I.

    1. Yeah, it’ll be ruining your day. Enjoy the nut punch.

      1. Wait, raging out ruins his day?

        1. Raging out IS his day.

        2. Don’t make me angry, nicole. You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.

          (turns green)

          1. So you ARE the Jolly Green Giant I knew it!

            And you’re right – I hear nicole doesn’t like vegetables. PWND!

            1. He’s Sprout, the sexually abused underage sidekick.

          2. But I thought you were naturally green. Like me. Greenish at least.

            SO ALONE.

            1. That’s a spicy meat-a-ball!

    2. The groans of the dying man are the best part.

      1. Man, Ima avoid this like SugarFree posted it. Thanks for the warning. My nuts can’t take another punch right now.

      2. So I shouldn’t watch this. Got it.

        1. Yeah, definitely not, although Warty is wrong about the best part, which is the female loved one running out of the house.

          1. Woman, when I want your opinions, I’ll give them to you. I can hear shrieking women all the time, but a dying man’s groans of agony are a rare and precious treat.

          2. So you prefer hearing the lamentations of the women to crushing your enemies and seeing them driven before you.

            We’re seeing a new side to you, nicole.

  7. I can’t tell. Did the guy even have a knife?

    1. He did after he was shot, and that’s all that matters.

      1. From what I read, a knife was found in the bed of the truck – but I didn’t read anywhere that it was on his person or believed to be on his person.

        1. Make sure to mentally insert the sarcasm that dripped from my comment.

          1. I think all of it must have dripped off before nioldsajfhsdkjf got here.

            1. I’m not going to get on neodymium. We have idiots here that would say something like that and not be kidding.

              1. Nah – nio’s aight – see comment above. (S)he on da team, yo.

                1. I was told that all libertarians are privileged white males with trust funds.

              2. Well, I can’t tell from the video if he had a knife or not. But I will say that if someone has a gun drawn on you, making quick movements is probably not the best idea.

                I’m not saying this was justified, but I always try to look at these situations as if I personally were carrying a gun and I perceived a threat. If the guy got out of the car and bolted anywhere close my direction, I’d have shot him too.

                My guess is that this guy was just trying to run the hell away. But if he *did* have a knife in his hand, then all bets are off.

                1. Except that he wasn’t bolting in any direction. He wasn’t even facing the badge wearing thug.

                2. Of course, the question does arise: if he was considered armed and dangerous, why did one cop pull up, get out of his car, and take him on, alone?

                  The driveway was blocked. The guy’s whereabouts were known. What if he did run? Where would he go? If he DID bring a knife to a gunfight, what kind of a threat did he really pose?

                  How do bail bondsmen do their jobs without gunning people down every day?

          2. Oh I got all the sarcasm, it’s still dripping… I replied to you instead of GW by accident. Missing sarcasm…did you read the first comment I wrote?

            1. Maybe you should go back to threading school!

            2. If GW was supposed to be sarcastic, it wasn’t all dripping wet with it like yours.


              2. Ew!!


                SO gross….

                PS Why is that commercial not still on 24/7. Cause – FUNNY

                1. Undoubtedly some soccer mom with a tween daughter was offended by it.

                  1. (responding to Almanian)

              3. No sarcasm. Everything happened fast, and I can’t tell from low res YouTube video if there was anything in his hand or not.

    2. It looks like he has a knife in his right hand. around the 40 second mark in the video. I had to watch it about 5-6 times but still can’t say for sure.

    3. Let me first say that I believe this use of force was excessive. However, if you look at the :42 mark, and look at his right hand on the roof of the truck, to me there appears to be a knife. At that point, however, the deceased was not fully out of the vehicle, as he appears to be tangled in the seat belt. Plus, there was approximately 10 feet between the officer and the deceased. The deceased had not even advanced on the officer when the first shots were fired. The officer also had ground behind him to give, and could have placed his cruiser between he and the deceased. Also, at least two shots were fired into the deceased back when he was on the ground. The officer was justified in having drawn his weapon, and depending on how things might have unfolded, such as the deceased advancing on the officer, I could be persuaded that a three shot burst was justified. I think the officer acted too quickly with the amount of force used under these circumstances. I have a concealed carry permit. I believed that under similar circumstances, i.e. a person brandishing a knife at me with 10 feet between us, if I were to unload my firearm into that person, I would likely have to face a grand jury at the least.

  8. Why the outrage? He was a parolee; I mean, its not like he was a person.

  9. I can’t see the video, what happens in it?

    1. Cop (to guy climbing out of vehicle in a hurry and trying to do something behind the seat or in the bed of the truck):”Drop the knife!”

      Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

      Cop (speaking to corpse now lying on the ground): “Get on the ground now!!!”

      later… “Cuff him! We have to cuff him!”

      On the plus side, the jacked up officer who was clearly in over his head managed to avoid shooting the girlfriend/sister who just watched him kill her family member. so there is that.

      1. Sounds like he thought “Police Academy” was a training film.

      2. On the plus side, the jacked up officer who was clearly in over his head managed to avoid shooting the girlfriend/sister who just watched him kill her family member. so there is that.

        He probably had trouble reloading. THIS is why we need larger magazines!

        1. Yeah, I was sort of amazed by this.

      3. The citizen’s family said he was hung up in the seat belt and was trying to free himself when the thug started firing. Knife or no knife, the citizen was not facing the thug when the thug fired the first shot.

        1. That sounds like a believable story from watching his movements. It looks like he’s trying to get his foot free of something. Hard to tell from the angle of the camera, but the cop would have a much better angle.

      4. 7 seconds from “hands up” until his clip his emptied. Wow.

    2. Cop pulls up on perp who is in pickup on his driveway. Perp gets out of pickup and is ordered to put hands up. There is some hesitation from perp, so cop fills perp with lead. Totally fucked procedure.

      1. Can’t/won’t watch the video, but I thought I heard the cop gave the classic “Don’t move! Put your hands up!” instructions.

      2. Perp wasn’t out of his vehicle when the initial command of “hands up” was given. He looked confused as shit.

  10. That is fucking crazy. If a cop’s gonna go that nelly and go trigger happy, he needs to call for back up. Needless to say, he executed a man without trial. There oughtta be a law against that. You know, like there should be a law against massacring school children.

    1. go that nelly


  11. OK – if the fucking skwerlz will finally let me comment:

    Of COURSE it’s a good shoot! Every shoot is a good shoot! Why do you think they call Timothy Olyphant’s show “Justified”??

    Man – for a magazine called “Reason”…

  12. In the real world (meaning if you are not in law enforcement), even if the first couple of shots are ruled justified, the final few finishing shots into the guy laying in a ball on the ground will definitely be charged as pre-meditated murder.

    1. Yes. There is the owner of a drug store in Oklahoma doing life for double tapping a guy who was robbing his store.

      1. Oklahoma? Really? I thought they were a little more understanding out there… Like every gun owner is supposed to know the exact minimum amount of force needed to subdue any given aggressor.

        If someone else is credibly threatening your life, the only appropriate level of response is “excessive”.

        1. Based on my recollection, the store owner’s mistake was in what he said, not necessarily what he did. Can’t recall what he said, exactly, but it was basically something like “Yeah, I knew he was down and put an anchor shot into him. What of it?” rather than “I thought I saw him make a furtive movement toward his waistband”, which apparently is a green light to open fire (again).

      2. It wasn’t a double tap. He shot one robber who collapsed to the floor, then went out the door after the other robber. Then he came back into the pharmacy and shot the collapsed robber a few more times. It was the shots when the guy was already collapsed that earned him a murder conviction.

        Here’s a link to the actual story.

        1. You took the words out of my mouth.

  13. Why did the police bother handcuffing a dead man?

    1. Procedure, man. Procedure!

    2. In case the victim pulls a Jesus

  14. I don’t care at all what the police say this was, after the guy was lying helpless on the ground and the cop shot him several more times, it became murder.

    1. I counted 4 shots after he was rolling on the ground.

      1. I would go further than what I said before and say that I saw nothing in the video that would indicate a reason for firing the first shot. He wasn’t even approaching the officer and he clearly did not have a gun pointed at him.

        Who knows why he didn’t respond as quickly as the cowardly cop thought he should ? Maybe he was drunk or stoned. Is that a reason to murder someone?

        1. Is this the incident where the family claims the guy’s foot was caught in the seatbelt and he was trying to free it when the cop opened fire?

          1. I wouldn’t think so from what I saw. He got out of the truck on the passengers side, and did appear to be doing something odd, but I saw absolutely nothing to warranted opening fire, let alone shooting the guy several more times after he was on his back on the ground.

            1. Definitely looked like passenger jumped out in a panic and got caught on something. When he turned and reached down to free himself he gets himself killed.

              I can see how you could see his movements as going for a weapon if you were standing 20 feet away with your gun drawn. What I can’t see is why you’d be standing 20 feet away in this scenario. Why not back off and wait for him to comply? I thought “officer safety” came first?

              The “he was going for a weapon” argument is completely incompatible with the “drop the knife” commands though. Why would you be reaching for a weapon if you already have a weapon and your opponent is armed with a semi-automatic handgun and he has his weapon pointed directly at you at close range?

      2. I counted between 8-9 after he initially hit the ground. Including a pause before the last shot.

  15. This actually doesn’t look so bad if the cop’s knowledge of “armed and dangerous” included the possibility of a firearm. The post does not indicate one way or another.

    Even if not, the perp is feverishly disobeying every order, making it appear reasonable that the officer thought danger could be coming his way. However, we can’t see exactly what was going on in the officer’s view.

    What is clear is that this is not a case of the suspect being lazy, just mouthing off, clearly posing no threat, no-knock raid victim, defenseless, etc that are often the appropriate subject of these posts. This is not a video case to put front and center to argue the case of police overreaction, even if possibly technically within the line.

    1. No, the “possibility” of a firearm does not justify emptying your magazine into someone, R.

      And if a “civilian” goes to jail for emptying his weapon into a bona fide attacker who is on the ground, then so should a cop.

      The corpse had been given contradictory instructions, I seem to recall, so it should be no surprise that he didn’t obey them, promptly and without hesitation.

      Bad shoot. Full stop.

    2. “feverishly disobeying every order” is an outright bizarre way of describing what Ernest is doing: The officer never identified himself as a police officer, less than a second elapses between the point that Ernest clearly knows the shrieking madman accosting him is a police officer and the officer opening fire.

  16. I’m watching the video without sound, but here’s what I see (which I have to say is slightly different– although maybe not in substance) than what some posters are saying.

    00:34: Duenez opens passenger door, some activity in the cab of truck is taking place…
    00:39: Officer exits vehicle, and by shadow of sun and appearance, appears to have his weapon drawn.
    00:41: Officer appears to reholster his weapon. Duenez is now exiting the vehicle, his right side facing officer. Appears to stand on door frame, ie not putting feet on ground.
    00:42 Office draws back partially holstered weapon and points at duenez (as you can see, things are moving very quickly)
    00:43/44 Duenez turns back into vehicle and appears to doing fumbling with something possibly inside vehicle.
    00:44 Officer fires first shot(s), Duenez immediately drops to the ground.

    I’m listening without sound, so I presume that multiple shots have been fired at this point.

    This one (again, without sound) is a little tense. I’m not 100% ready to make a judgement on this one, as I can see how an officer might believe (or can’t be certain) that Duenez wasn’t going for a weapon inside the vehicle– although the post clearly mentions a “knife”.

    If Duenez was on an APB (proper term) as being believed to be armed and dangerous, I might give the officer the benefit of the doubt.

    1. Unless and until an officer has a clear view of a weapon, no shooting is justified. Period. That never happened here. Bad. Shoot.

      1. I would tend to agree with this in principle, but I’m not sure if that’s actual procedure. (No, I’m not engaging you in an argument about IF it should be procedure, just if it is or not).

        For instance,I believe that if I reach, I can be killed by an officer, no weapon in view, and it will be justified.

        1. if I reach, I can be killed by an officer, no weapon in view, and it will be justified.

          It will certainly be excused, but it will not be justified.

          1. For example, when I’ve been pulled over for speeding, the first thing I did was reach . . . over to where the registration and insurance paperwork are. Because I know that he’s going to ask for it. I would wager that there isn’t a speeding stop made where the driver doesn’t reach, generally into the glove box.

            No weapon in plain view, no justification.

            1. I think circumstances play a role. (I seem to remember reading that you’re not supposed to reach for dl and registration until the officer tells you, ie, sit in your vehicle with hands on the wheel so the officer can see you from his cruiser.)

              I’ve actually got a ‘reaching’ scenario pre-loaded for Tulpa and Dunphy the next time they claim that a pure reach is legit.

              1. I can’t wait.

                While I don’t think it’s a justifiable shooting by any stretch…it’s always a good idea to keep your hands visible in any confrontational dealings with a cop, unless he instructs you otherwise.

      2. R C,

        From watching the video, it looks like he has a knife in his right hand as he exits the vehicle (40 second mark or so). He is also doing everything except what the officer is telling him. I can’t say this was initially a bad shoot. What makes it bad is he continued to shoot AFTER the suspect was on the ground and clearly no longer a danger to him.

        1. ^THIS^

          We can discuss the initial shoot all we want, but the fact that he continued to shoot him after he was by all appearances, helpless, to me seems beyond debate.

          1. Not uncommon. Adrenalin and having to actually use your weapon.

            It’s not uncommon for people who carry concealed to empty a clip if they ever fear for their lives and feel the need to use their gun. These cops don’t get Navy SEAL level of gun training.

            1. There’s that word again.

            2. But an ordinary CCW is probably only going to use their firearm in self defense only once in their lives at most.

              For cops, it’s an expected part of the job. They have to be prepared.

        2. At 00:42, Duenez places his right hand on the roof of the vehicle, and there appears to be something (knife-like) in his hand.

          I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to the fact that it was in fact a knife.

          What I can’t figure out is Duenez’s behavior. It seems clear that he wasn’t interested in rushing the officer, but seemed more interested in something inside the vehicle.

          For instance, just spitballing here, if he was a wanted parolee he may have been trying to put the knife back in the vehicle so it wouldn’t be caught on him during the arrest.

          1. Paul,

            It looks to me like he was going to go after the officer at :42*, but his foot got caught in the seatbelt, preventing him from rushing the officer. What do you see?

            *notice his right hand on the roof and left hand on the door frame, his body facing the officer.

            1. Hmm, didn’t see that at first. This is why many eyes on the same video is interesting. Yeah, now that you mention it, it appears he lifts his leg and reaches down as if he’s trying to back out of the vehicle– like his foot is caught on something. But I can’t go as far as saying he was “going to go after the officer”. Even if you’re correct, all you can conclude is he was trying to unhook himself from the seatbelt.

              1. But I can’t go as far as saying he was “going to go after the officer”.

                I can’t either. But he was facing the officer at that point. I can’t even say whether he was armed at that point either.

      3. Can’t agree with that. There’s a reason they want to see your hands. I could shoot a cop dead with a gun hidden in a jacket pocket, shooting it from inside a pocket. He’d never see the weapon until it was too late.

        Is your life worth wagering whether the guy has a weapon or not?

        1. Is your life wagering on whether you get your hands out of your pocket fast enough to satisfy a cop?

          As for whether he had a knife in his hand, let’s say he did. That doesn’t justify a shooting until he makes an aggressive move with it.

          1. The point being either (a) cops should have the same rules for using deadly force as anyone else (and us proles don’t have permission to shoot people with their hands in their pockets) or (b) cops, by virtue of their job, will be held to higher standards even though they will inherently be put at greater risk. Don’t like? Don’t be a cop.

            1. The point being either (a) cops should have the same rules for using deadly force as anyone else (and us proles don’t have permission to shoot people with their hands in their pockets) or

              They don’t.

              b) cops, by virtue of their job, will be held to higher standards

              They aren’t.

              Not even using this video as an example, too often there are circumstances where an officer can shoot someone and have it ruled justified on just-in-case grounds where you or I would be jailed for manslaughter.

            2. Actually, I think you COULD be justified in shooting someone with their hands in their pockets under the right circumstances. It all depends on the context of the altercation. The typical average Joe just isn’t going to be in the types of situations a cop is in. but here’s an example:

              I hear breaking glass in a bedroom at home. I grab my gun, go check it out. Flip the light on the see an intruder. He’s as startled as I am. He sticks his hands in the pockets pockets of his jacket. Guess what? I’m not about to find out if he has a gun, especially since as I mentioned earlier, a gun in the pocket of a jacket can easily be fired without removing it. That guy is going to be full of lead. He may not have a gun. He may not even intend any bodily harm. He may just want my TV. But I’m not willing to find out the hard way that he’s willing to kill me to avoid being caught.

          2. I’d say his behavior was aggressive enough. He’s holding a knife and he bolts from the car? Seems aggressive to me. he’s not THAT far from the cop. In fact, he’s close enough that if the weapon had been holstered it’s entirely possible that he could lunge and stab before the cop could draw his gun.

            This is assuming he had the knife, which I still can’t determine for myself.

        2. Cops are extremely well paid and given platinum benefits to take the risk. So yes, I expect the cop to wager his life before he fires a shot.

          1. You’re new here, aren’t you?

            1. No, I am not.

        3. Even if the initial shots are justified, the later ones are not.

          1. There is no “even if” to consider.

            The cop should be tried for murder one, his pension forfeited and his female family members raped.

    2. The questions that linger are that Duenez was clearly not facing or approaching the officer. So from my very brief view of the video, the ‘justified’ ruling would have to completely hinge on the officer’s reasonable belief that Duenez could have been going for a more lethal weapon than a knife– something that could be used at range.

      I’m a little tired of people holding knives being shot at 900 yards by police officers claiming that suspect was “armed”. The recent shooting in Seattle being a great example of this. Yes, Williams was holding a (closed) knife. No, he wasn’t facing the officer, nor was he threatening the officer, nor was he moving towards the officer.

      If I’m trained weapon holder and I’ve already got a draw on a suspect with a knife– and the suspect is more than lunging distance away, I’d think I could kill him before he kills me.

    3. I agree with your replay of the video, that’s pretty much what I saw.

      But I can’t agree with your conclusion. At no time did a weapon appear to be in the guys possession, and he was shot several times after he was on the ground, with still no appearance of being armed.

      1. Ok, some saw a knife, but he wasn’t approaching the officer, so that knife was not an immediate threat. The cop already had a draw on him.

        1. No knife was found in his posession.

      2. But I can’t agree with your conclusion. At no time did a weapon appear to be in the guys possession

        I don’t have a conclusion yet. That’s the point of my post. See my post above: 00:42 there appears to be a knife-like object in his hand, and I’m giving the benefit of the doubt to the reports that it was a knife.

        If the cops are planting knives where cell phones were (as an example) then the whole thing is a pointless argument.

        At this time, I’m working on the presumption that what is in his hand at 00:42 is a knife. But I’m careful to point out that it appears he never approached the officer, and in fact turned away.

        1. I already conceded that point, that there may have been a knife, but he wasn’t threatening the officer, who already had a draw on him, with the knife. So I don’t really know why he started shooting, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, still does not justify the extra shots after he was already helpless on the ground.

          1. still does not justify the extra shots after he was already helpless on the ground.

            I think this is the most important issue.

          2. I absolutely agree with this– which is why I want to be clear that I’m watching the video sans sound. I’m really uncomfortable with the continued shooting after Duenez is clearly incapacitated… with a knife. “Incapacitated” with a gun is a different story, of course, but I don’t see any evidence of that proffered by the police that a gun was in question.

            On the scale of conclusions, I would label this one (for myself) as “not comfortable with”

            It doesn’t feel justified, but I’m not ready to slam this cop under a very rapidly unfolding scene as “unjustified”.

            I’m one of those who believes that a cop’s overall record should also be taken into account. Like if the officer is in a unit with 100 other cops and he’s 27x more likely to be involved in a shooting, then I think a DA can use that in a ruling- especially if it’s on the edge.

            1. So you’d let him walk? As a DA, this is a binary issue. There is no “gosh, I dunno.” You either let him walk, or you take him to the grand jury and ask for an indictment.

              1. So you’d let him walk? As a DA, this is a binary issue

                I’m not the DA so I have the luxury of saying “not comfortable with”. I understand it’s a binary issue with the DA.

                I can’t make a DA-like conclusion because all I have is a blogpost. I don’t have the 500 page report in front of me.

              2. So you’d let him walk?

                Nope. I would present it to a grand jury and let them decide. Just as I would for anyone else involved in such a situation. I don’t know the laws of the state, but if shooting someone who is no longer a danger to you is a crime, then that is what he would be charged with. If the grand jury says no, then that is that.

          3. There was no knife, no knife was found in his possession despite a frantic search.

  17. 13 shots cannot be fired in less than at least a few seconds. That’s a few seconds of shooting a guy on the ground who’s already been shot a few times. WTF?

    Reminds me of that video of that guy with the knife in times square. Appropriate to shoot the guy running at you with a knife? Yes.

    Appropriate for every one of the 15 barney fifes to empty their clip into the dudes corpse in broad daylight? WTF? These people shouldn’t have guns, let alone badges.

  18. I am completely disgusted and I demand to know how any District Attorney could conclude based on some ambiguous video tape this shooting was justified.

    1. His hands were in clear view when he was on the ground, no weapon, and yet he was still shot several times. Apparently for the reason that he was still moving. Except that last shot, I am not sure I could even detect movement at the point, I think he was already dead.

    2. Starting to pay attention is the first step, TS.

  19. This should have been a case for the cop using the tazer. But they seem to like using that for pain compliance.

    1. If you turn the volume up, you can clearly hear the passenger yelling, “Please taze me, bro!”

  20. I’ve seen this scenario done correctly on live TV out of Los Angeles many times. Instead of rushing the vehicle with gun drawn putting himself in harm’s way, the officer will remain behind cover of his own vehicle and announce “Driver! Turn off your engine! Driver! Slowly exit the vehicle and face forward! Driver! Back up toward me, slowly!” etc.

    It does a good job of eliminating the panic spray of gunfire we see in this video. There was absolutely no reason to bum-rush the suspect in this case – he could have just as easily used his PA to tell them to stay in the vehicle and show him their hands until backup arrived (if he was so terrified that the suspect might have a knife). You can’t use a knife to attack someone in a motor vehicle 30 feet away.

  21. After rewatching a couple of times, I see what the guy was doing. He was rushing to get out of the vehicle and got caught up in something (others said the seat belt). He grabs the top of the truck and pulls up before reaching back and down to free himself. Cop sees this move and unloads on him.

    Whether the suspect was trying to run or just panicky in getting out, his quick and unpredictable moves clearly spooked the cop into shooting.

    Something else I can conclude from the video: I also would have been panicky if somebody came running up behind me screaming the incoherent babble that we hear on the tape – prominently featuring “I’ll shoot you!” mixed in with “don’t you move”. The cop has apparently been set up on the guy’s house waiting for him to arrive so he can arrest him … why is he so jacked up and intense? We keep hearing about the “natural reaction” after a long chase as an explanation for excessive force. What is this guy’s excuse? He moved from being parked about 1 block and pulled in behind a guy in his driveway. That’s not a lot of adrenaline inducing drama there.

  22. I realize that the officer fired way too many times, but the fact is that Ernie clearly intended to harm the officer. The officer was alone, so he yelled “hands up” and “dont you move” and clearly, “i will shoot”, yet as the cop approached the car Ernie quickly jumps out of the car and has his hands at his pocket level when he is shot. The cop had the right to fire on that guy for his own safety. Ernie had nearly 8 seconds from where the cop first yelled out to get into a submissive stance and instead he jumped out at the cop. If Ernie hadn’t gotten tangled up the way he did, this would still be the same story, except with a dead cop thrown in the mix (the backup would have shot Ernie dead on the spot if he had managed to stab the gunman).

  23. The officer, at one point, is using a knife to cut off Duenez’s clothing. At around 7:45, the officer can be seen placing the knife in the back of the truck. If I’m not mistaken, this was the knife that was used as justification for Duenez’s shooting… a knife placed by police in the back of the truck.

  24. The guns hurt people more.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.