Police Abuse

Video of Long Beach Killing by Police of Suspect Released; Officer Shot Partner, Then Both Shot Suspect

The crime for which Noel Aguilar had been apprehended? Riding a bike wearing headphones. Petty law enforcement claims another life.


When Noel Aguilar was shot and killed by two officers in Long Beach, California, in May 2014, the police initially reported that Aguilar had shot Officer Albert Murad before Murad and his partner Jose Ruiz shot and killed Aguilar.

It turns out that in the melee with the pinned Aguilar, his partner Ruiz accidentally shot Murad (who survived) before both men within a minute shot Aguilar and killed him.

Newly released video via Aguilar's family's attorney shows the whole incident, including the rather harsh treatment of Aguilar's cuffed and dying body by Ruiz, and prefaced with a very Officer Friendly-esque "You fuckin' move I'm gonna kill you bitch" from an officer to Aguilar:

The Orange County Weekly reported in detail and first gave press coverage to the video, including this detail about how the wounded Aguilar was treated:

How the deputies handled Aguilar after he had been shot is also a matter of concern, [lawyer Angel] Carrazco says. "He's facing down after being shot four times and they're on top of him," Carrazco says. "There needs to be a medical conclusion to find out whether they were trying to get him to asphyxiate or bleed to death. By the video, it seems like they were trying to do both." Aguilar can be heard screaming, "I'm dying!" while onlookers berate the deputies in English and Spanish that they shot him in the back and to get off him because he's dying. 

The grim punchline, for those concerned with the laws and policing practices that lead to this awful outcome?

The police had apprehended Aguilar for the crime of riding his bicycle while wearing headphones.

I have alas had occasion to write in the past about the madness of all the petty reasons police have to begin an interaction with us, interactions that create danger for both officers and citizens.

Hat tip: Photography is Not a Crime.

NEXT: The End of Doom Is the Anti-Doomsaying Book for This Decade

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. Was it Don Knotts or Tim Conway who shot first?

  2. And nothing else will happen.

    1. The cops involved will get a nice amount of paid vacation. That’s, like, weeks where they can’t lord their power over the community. And you dare to say they weren’t punished?

      Okay, I can’t even laugh at myself there. Fuck everything about this.

  3. The statist legal system absolutely amazes me. People just don’t connect the dots that every statute that gets passed carries a potential death sentence.

    1. Because, to their ways of thinking, it won’t happen to them. And, that’s because they would never dream of breaking a law, much less arguing with police about it.

      1. They don’t realize that “In America, you don’t break the law, the law breaks you.”

    2. Murrica, Fuck yeah! Nevermine the purpose of law, the point is if Congress says the Klan gets to regulate your bedroom or bicycling behavior, the cops get to kill everyone in the entire State that doesn’t smartly obey and assist. “Both parties” agree this is the ONLY alternative to murder-legalizing anarchy. Ya wouldn’t want that, woodja now? We mass-murder people legally, like in christian Germany, dammit.

  4. straight up double murder

    1. Murdering people who ride bicycles with headphones is just something we all do together.

      1. Imagine the anarchy if we didn’t !!!!11!11

      2. It takes a village to hire a policeman to murder someone for riding a bicycle with headphones.

  5. IDK why, but that one was as nutpunch-y as Tamir Rice to me. The point blank discharge of three rounds to the back was just too ‘cold-blooded hit’ to believe.

  6. This ends when normal citizens, seeing something like this occurring, start giving the same treatment back to cops.

    Sadly, it’ll probably happen when the idiot cops have accidentally stumbled onto a shitbag who deserved to be shot.

    1. I thought they were pretty brave just to stand around and “berate” a couple of men who had just cold murdered someone.

      1. Yeah, the ‘Get back in your house’ goons certainly weren’t there to deescalate the situation either.

      2. Yes which could result in the enforcers turning the incident into an audience participation sport using their remaining ammo. And this will happen on multiple cellphone vids with at least one going viral.

        The next time this happens the crowd may go to straight beat down mode as a defense mechanism.

        1. Until nobody’s left alive in the world who isn’t police?

          1. That would follow, were it not for the second amendment. I believe it was Patrick Henry who disarmed a governor and his goons lest they cause such imminent danger as would admit of no shilly-shallying around.

    2. It should end because normal citizens demand that they be prosecuted, elect DAs and judges who will do so, and vote to convict when they are on a jury.

      1. I don’t disagree, but I think the likelihood of that happening is somewhere around the same as a libertarian winning the ’16 presidential election.

  7. Just what I wanted for Christmas…a Chuck Norris-esque roundhouse kick to the nuts.

  8. OT (sorta): Are any of you watching “Making a Murderer,” the Steven Avery documentary on Netflix? If you do, wear a steel cup, because it’s pretty much a nut punch, like, every ten minutes or so.

    1. Watshing teeve causes brain damage.

  9. I’m confused, I get that the one cop shot the other, but did Aguilar have a gun of his own, or not?

    1. Yes. Aguilar had a gun. It’s not clear whether he grabbed it or reached for it or not. Nor is it clear who’s hands were on the officer’s weapon when it went off.

      It was a straight up execution for riding while wearing headphones, but at least once officer’s story/alibi jives with the evidence.

    2. I thought I read earlier that the cops planted the gun on him? Or do I have that mixed up with another one? I am not going to watch this video.

      1. Yeah, I thought this was another “he reached for my gun”.

      2. I thought I read earlier that the cops planted the gun on him?

        The Police state that a gun belonging to Aguilar was recovered at the scene.

        1. Not that owning a gun, riding a bike with headphones while armed, or reaching in the presence of a police officer are crimes deserving swift enforcement of the death penalty…

          1. You forget, this was in California, where being pro-gun or Republican merit instant on-the-spot executions.

        2. The Police state that a gun belonging to Aguilar wasrecovered thrown down at the scene.
          See Uranium Savages “On the Bayou”

  10. This is one where murder in the 1st degree could actually hold up in court. I think usually prosecutor files a charge knowing the burden of proof can’t be met and the cop will get off, but in this case murder 1 is obviously what happened and that’s what the charge should be.

    1. Actually, I think its more 2nd degree.

      First degree would be more if they planned to kill him when they stopped him.

      Either way, though, it don’ matter. The cops are walking. They always do.

  11. This is straight-up murder.

    However, when cops straight-up murder somebody, the penalty is a few weeks of paid vacation.

    1. Thaink Ghawd, Ghawd’s own Party and the Baybee Jayses for ‘Murrican justice.

  12. Let this be a lesson, now we know why it’s dangerous to ride a bike wearing headphones.

  13. Were they Beats?

    1. Racist!

  14. If it weren’t illegal to wear headphones & bike at the same time, & all similar petty laws were abolished, they’d just make their excuses by saying they’re apprehending people on suspicion of serious crimes. It’s obvious the supposed infraction had nothing to do with this, just pure malice. Unless you abolish all law & all police, that’ll always be there.

    1. I have to disagree, Robert. I think getting rid of petty, victimless crimes would reduce the number of violent encounters between citizens and armed agents of the state.

  15. …killing of suspect…??? “Suspect”? Riding with earbuds makes you a suspect???

    1. Suspected they could kill him and get away with it. And they were right!

    2. It sure as hell does in Salt Lake City of Ghawd or El Lay! No warning, deadly force, handcuff the bullet-riddled corpse hest he try to make an ES-cape or (Ghawd ferbeeid) resist an offissa a da law.

    3. In this police state, with all the laws we have on the books that criminalize just about everything, you and I and everyone else are suspects at all times, because “ignorance of the law is no defense.”

      Each of us is guaranteed to have broken some law above an infraction without knowing it at some point in our lives.

  16. At what point do Americans start shooting at the pigs, if only as a pre-emptive move to being murdered themselves?
    I’m not advocating it, just wondering whether this is something we’ll see. Where is the tipping point?

    1. Cant happen soon enough as far as I am concerned.

  17. Officer Gunman. Perfect job description if I’ve ever heard one.

  18. A clear assassination. Its P O S cops like this that deserve to get clipped in the line of duty and its when P O S cops like this get clipped in the line of duty I rejoice!


  19. Perfect storm of incredibly stupid cops, stupid laws, and irate cyclists who will soon be on the warpath…in lycra. Those cops will be lucky to be wearing orange in a month or two.

    1. Those cops will likely be found to have 1) reasonably stopped him, 2) accidentally discharged the first shot, and 3) reasonably believed Aguilar was the source of the first shot.

      Because, you know, the LAPD has said he was a “known gang member” (like all Hispanics) and it was a “high crime area.”

      1. Murder scene, high crime area… I’m gonna haveta go with the pigs on that one.

  20. The greatest threat to national security is law enforcement not terrorism. The police are committing atrocities all over the country and no one is being held responsible. I imagine this is how it started in Nazi Germany when millions of Jews were killed and no one did anything. Apartheid is happening today here in america.

    1. It’s becoming more like feudal Japan, where the samurai had the right to kill any peasant they pleased.

      1. Feudal Japan was better, because samurai who did wrong or were merely perceived to have done wrong would have to commit seppuku. Could you see today’s cops committing suicide if they wrongfully shot an unarmed man?

  21. You damn cophaters! If we don’t let them murder us they might stop doing it, and then where will we be!!

  22. Police One posters probably gizzing all over their keyboards over this one.

  23. The officers need to sit down and contemplate their actions

    1. And pray for guidance, understanding and fergiveness…

  24. I always wonder in these situations what would have happened if a mass of onlookers decided to grab and hold the cops down while someone calls 911, and others attempt to help the victim.

    1. See Lysander Spooner: If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that “our country” is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and “save the country,” cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands, and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done; that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore.
      Any questions?

  25. I always wear earphones when riding my bike. Thanks for the warning. I guess the lesson here is that bicyclists have no option but to pretaliate with deadly force if approached by legal murderers intent on adding a notch to their pistols.

  26. Long time lurker. After too many “cops are evil for murdering an innocent citizen” article/commenting spectacle I felt compelled to register/comment.

    I’d argue it’s articles/comments like those above that prevent the most Americans from seriously considering libertarianism. Conflating cops shooting a guy who likely escalated a minor traffic violation into a life & death struggle to cops murdering a man just riding a bike & wearing headphones, you’ve lost most of America.

    I’m not inferring that the cops here were right in their actions or that the perp was the devil incarnate but with all the cases out there where cops unquestionably violate people’s civil rights, to hold up cases like this as worthy of the average citizen’s outrage only serves to cast doubt on libertarianism.

    And if it is relevant to the discussion, no, I don’t identify as a libertarian though “surveys” I’ve taken identify me as somewhere on the spectrum between libertarian and right wing. FWIW, I give credit to a couple years of reading Reason and its comments section off and on in helping raise my awareness of libertarianism in my existing ideology and to even moderate some of my right wing values to something more libertarian (e.g. role of government in marriage — going from hard core SoCon to something a bit more libertarian).

    That said, I can’t see myself ever going full blown libertarian because of, in part, articles and comments like those above and I suspect most people are the same.

    1. Ultimately what you have here is a belief that this police stop should never have happened because riding a bike with headphones shouldn’t be against the law. Someone shouldn’t be shot in the back 3 times and summarily executed. It’s a scary prospect and instead of freaking out totally it’s easier to make fun. That’s my take. I personally believe in the death penalty, abortion rights, gun rights, public schools, gay marriage, prosecuting police, legalizing it, and a free market amongst other various and sundry things. None of those things in combination would preclude me from being either Republican, Democrat or Libertarian as far as I can tell. You don’t actually have to go full retard to join a political party.

      1. So, what is more libertarian? Allowing a group of people to live in a city/state and write laws, through elected officials, that reflect the wishes of the people? Or to say that everyone everywhere must be libertarian and cannot make any laws that aren’t associated with NAP?

        With regards to execution, that’s a pretty loaded phrase. It presumes that the “executed” posed no threat or had no means of defense. This guy was not only actively resisting arrest but apparently carrying a gun. I’m not familiar with any executions where the executed is armed with the same instrument of death as the executor and in a position of actively resisting.

        And that goes back to my point that it seems Reason and most of its commentariat are so vested in the “cops are thugs and they’re just rampantly killing folks” narrative that they can’t even acknowledge those instances where that isn’t the case or at least there’s some gray area.

        As far as one cop knew, the perp shot him and he was returning fire because something caused his partner to fire. When bullets begin to fly, people don’t begin a game of 20 questions to figure out what is going on. It’s survival mode.

        I see two guilty parties here. The perp for escalating the situation (resisting/unlawful carry) and the first cop who fired and didn’t tell his partner it was him shooting and not the perp. The perp paid for his actions, the first cop needs to be investigated (maybe charged), and the second cop is innocent in my book.

        1. Allowing a group of people to live in a city/state and write laws, through elected officials, that reflect the wishes of the people?

          We don’t live in a direct democracy, and I would never want to. When the wishes of the people conflict with fundamental liberties, the people must be denied their wishes. It’s not libertarian at all to just let other people infringe upon everyone’s fundamental liberties merely because not allowing them to do so would ‘force’ freedom upon people. You could argue for any amount of oppression using that logic. Freedom is being forced upon you by the evil libertarians! How horrible!

          And that goes back to my point that it seems Reason and most of its commentariat are so vested in the “cops are thugs and they’re just rampantly killing folks” narrative that they can’t even acknowledge those instances where that isn’t the case or at least there’s some gray area.

          Sometimes it might be justified. But I don’t think that cops are almost all thugs merely because of some killings; they violate people’s constitutional rights in numerous other ways. Think stop-and-frisk, DUI checkpoints, asset forfeiture, the drug war, etc. Supposedly ‘good’ cops will defend and lie for the cops who directly violate people’s rights, which makes them bad as well.

          Even if it’s true that this cop didn’t do anything wrong here, there are still very few good cops.

          1. Oddly enough, I didn’t call for a direct democracy so I’m not sure what your point is. But in case you’re confused, our Constitution calls for the federal government to be a representative democracy. What is not covered by the Constitution remains with the people and the states. Considering each state has a constitution, that means the people have ceded further power to their state governments through another level of representative democracy. Running municipalities through municipal charters is just another level again where power has been ceded by citizens. None of that is direct democracy as it is all performed under constitutions/charters and elected officials (not counting the instances where government exceeds their constitutional powers).

            Regarding violations of essential liberties. there is no fundamental liberty to resist lawful arrest in a representative democracy and you don’t violate a liberty when that liberty is ceded to the government by the people.

            Now laws and the duty of officers to enforce the laws cities and states have written through their elected representatives and within the bounds of their constitutions/charters is not oppression and your conflation is exactly the point I was making before. The majority of people desire some sort of organized and regulated society and when that gets attacked by libertarians, libertarians act all confused as to why neither liberals nor conservatives want to get on board with them.

            1. Part 2. I’d have quoted you but I don’t know what the codes are here and it’s been forever since I used a system that required it.

              I too resent some of those laws you cite. The easy answer is to move to a place without them and go on your merry way. E.g. I was cited in CA for wearing headphones while riding a motorcycle as juvenile but now live in a place where there is no such law. Not that I moved here for that reason but it would have been an option.

              A more difficult but just as reasonable answer is to convince those around you that the freedoms they’ve ceded don’t really do anything to make their lives better and to repeal those laws or amend their constitutions. The fact is, however, that many people support those laws and have ceded authority to the government to enforce those laws. That doesn’t make an LEO working a DUI checkpoint a thug. It’s simply representative democracy in action.

              And while I’m all about holding LEOs to their oaths to support and defend not only the constitution of the US but of their states, if a law is unconstitutional, that’s what a lawsuit is for and that’s why we have the courts. If the courts fail to uphold the appropriate constitution, your problem is much greater than a well-meaning cop enforcing laws the courts say are constitutional.

              As to the number of good cops to bad cops, I find your assessment to be common among the cops-are-thugs crowd, but I’ve yet to find any objective research supporting that notion.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.