Town Square

Post a New Topic

John Deming - who could have helped?

Original post made by Wondering, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2016

I was driving downtown last night and I went past Specialty Sales, where John Deming was shot to death by Pleasanton police after breaking into the dealership and acting erratically. I saw the big plate glass window that he broke with a car jack, and I saw cars inside, similar to the ones he was jumping on. I saw the dark area in the back of the store where the shooting occurred. Tragic for all involved.

We now know that John Deming wasn't under the influence of drugs that evening. It doesn't really matter if he was on drugs or not. It was his actions the created the end result of the evening. We now know that whatever made him act the way he did was due to some internal dysfunction.

So, going backward in time, I've been thinking of what signs John Deming may have exhibited in the days and weeks before his death. I've also been thinking of who may have seen those signs, and what corrective actions could have been taken.

And I'm thinking about John Deming's father, the reserve police officer, and why he's so adamant that the Pleasanton police acted incorrectly. Surely as a police officer he'd understand the situation his son put the Pleasanton police in. And before the night he was killed, surely the father would have noticed if his son was exhibiting symptoms of an upcoming mental breakdown.

So, who was in a position to see John, and what could they have done?

Friends: We don't know who John's friends were or what they may have noticed about him. Either they didn't act, or whatever actions they took weren't enough to make a change. I'm confident that the attorney prosecuting his death has instructed all of his known friends to keep mum. So we'll probably never know.

Clergy, teachers: Again we don't know.

John Deming himself: I wonder what he knew. Did he feel something was going on, did he reach out for help? I wonder if medication might have helped. Perhaps he had a prescription, and like so many, decided not to take it.

Cops: The Pleasanton cops couldn't and didn't see anything prior to that night. Unfortunately they were there only at the very end.

The most reasonable answer I can come up with - who was in a position to see, and who could have made a change - are the parents. They were the people in the best position to see that something was awry with their son. The kid was only 19. They would have been the people to start a course correction. We know that they were in very recent contact with their son; he was traveling from one parent's house to the other's that evening when, for unknown reasons, he stopped in Pleasanton and broke into the dealership.

It's possible that their son didn't exhibit any signs or symptoms of unbalance. It's more likely that he did show some signs, and the parents didn't notice, or noticed but didn't act.

Perhaps the parents feel tremendous guilt, and that is what has led them to file suit against the police, as a tactic to deflect blame away from themselves. Using a celebrity attorney, in fact.

Whatever John Deming knew is gone and buried with him. Whatever his parents know, they'll never tell, because of their lawsuit. That's unfortunate, because if they did see something, bringing it to light would help others in their son's predicament. I believe in time we'll get a full and accurate report from the police and DA about the events of that evening, but that will only center on those few minutes spent in the dealership. It still won't answer the question of why, who knew, and what could have been done earlier.

Comments (40)

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 14, 2016 at 2:19 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

My question has been, what would we, as a community, be doing if this young man had been from Pleasanton?


Posted by no user name
a resident of Downtown
on Feb 14, 2016 at 3:08 pm

no user name is a registered user.

When did it become the responsibility of non related parties to supervise, intervene or otherwise take over raising someone else's kids? I would personally love to give some advice about adequate use of discipline to most parents of the brats of this town. I doubt my advice would be welcomed. When parents choose to look the other way about inappropriate behavior they are the ones responsible for the outcome, not me or any of my neighbors. Raising the child of someone who has abrogated their parental duties is not, and never will be, my job.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 14, 2016 at 4:07 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

This was not someone being a brat; no drugs in his system either. What do you suppose was happening? This kind of unnecessary use of force hasn't become just a problem here. Maybe it is easier to be detached when the victim is from across town or from some other town. So maybe I should have asked, what would any of us do if it was our child or a child you knew well? I can extend my concern for my own to others.


Posted by Lou Stuhle
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Feb 14, 2016 at 10:23 pm

Lou Stuhle is a registered user.

And what makes you think it was unnecessary Kathy? Is that based on your vast law enforcement experience and legal expertise? i'm no expert, but i'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the officer, at least until i get my hands on the DA's investigation. you seemed to have already made up your mind.

so sad when people blindly buy into whatever the media flavor of the day is.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 14, 2016 at 11:20 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

The recording of the incident was available, and no, I'm not an expert. But I am not the only concerned citizen in this country and it isn't just a media flavor of the day.

I am not asking an officer, any officer, to put him/herself in harm's way. I am asking that an officer remain at a safe distance if possible, to wait for backup or for no solitary officer to be sent to a scene, to shoot only when absolutely necessary and to not have that shot(s) be lethal, and for, perhaps, additional training for this kind of episode. The one caveat to any of those statements is if a person is endangering other lives. The loss of a life is permanent; there is no undoing it.

From the SF Chronicle: Web Link

Real change will involve two transformational shifts to our approach to policing, and a number of specific improvements to follow. First, and most urgently, we need to fundamentally rethink the use of force. A police officer’s job should be, above all else, to preserve the sanctity of life.

Second, police officers need to be held accountable not only to a legal standard that may allow them to shoot, but to a community standard that demands they do everything possible to avoid a shooting. Police officers work for the people. They are paid by us to protect and serve, not to jeopardize our lives. We have never authorized police to act as jury and executioner in our communities. In other words, when faced with a difficult situation, officers should not ask, “What are the legal limits of our response?” but “What is the most effective way to de-escalate this situation?”


Posted by no user name
a resident of Downtown
on Feb 15, 2016 at 4:28 am

no user name is a registered user.

[Portion removed.] The police are charged with protecting the lives of EVERYONE, not just making certain not to use force against a person who is fully responsible for how this incident played out. Had the police tried to simply talk to this guy, thereby allowing a raging and out of control person go free in my neighborhood, in ANY neighborhood, we would have held the police accountable for failing to protect the rest of us. Trying to save one person, who was clearly responsible for what happened to him, at the cost of potential death to other innocent victims would be the ultimate failure to perform on the part of the PD.

Stop trying to make excuses for a person who had no responsible upbringing and failed at every opportunity to stop the violence. He chose to end it this way and I am eternally grateful that there were cops there protecting my life. That kid forfeited his life by her own choice and behavior.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 15, 2016 at 9:27 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

No, I didn't suggest the officer just chat the man up and let him go into anyone's neighborhood. I said the caveat was endangerment to other lives. I want our community and our officers to be safe. A friend said it best, that officers should have *all* the tools they need. This isn't about one officer; there is a need for training nationwide.

I'm surprised you know how this young man was raised.


Posted by mooseturd
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Feb 15, 2016 at 10:39 am

mooseturd is a registered user.

Kathleen R: I find your use of the word "unnecessary" deeply offensive.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 15, 2016 at 10:47 am

BobB is a registered user.

@no name,

You said:

"... who had no responsible upbringing and failed at every opportunity to stop the violence."

But you have no idea what upbringing this person had or who "failed". You are just making it up.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 15, 2016 at 10:50 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Fair enough, mooseturd. It is how I feel. I could be proven wrong in the Pleasanton case. My concern is on a national level. There is enough on tape now to suggest there is a problem.


Posted by Billie
a resident of Mohr Park
on Feb 15, 2016 at 12:29 pm

Billie is a registered user.

As a resident I like to think that each and every person in the PPD has been thoroughly trained and psychologically vetted to handle any situation appropriately. I'd like to think that anyone who chooses to join a police department does so because they feel the calling to "serve and protect". Unfortunately, with the advent of cell phones, body cams and police car videos, it's apparent neither of those two thoughts are always true. Conversely, body cams and police car videos have also shown when police use of force is justified.

In April 2015, Livermore PD outfitted *all* of their 87 police officers with body cams. According to Livermore police spokesman Officer Ryan Sanchez, "Livermore’s use of the cameras, which began on April 13, will allow officers to document incidents and interactions and obtain evidence during investigations. He said the department will be able to review the video footage [which is automatically uploaded at the end of each shift] to analyze critical incidents and as a tool to keep officers well-trained and prepared. In addition, the footage can be used when complaints are filed against officers. The footage could help clear officers if they responded appropriately to incidents but could also sustain complaints if their actions were improper, Sanchez said." Web Link

Regrettably, an earlier PW article reported that "[Chief] Bretzing said the department had recently purchased body cameras for officers, but [Officer] Kunkel hadn't received one as of the incident."

Do I think that the PPD has a systemic problem of its officers using unnecessary force? Or maybe just a few problem officers? Or no problem at all? Frankly, I don't know. Just like every other person living in a town where police officers have used excessive/fatal force, unless you're directly involved, you only become aware of the problem when someone dies. And then only if their death is captured on video, and the PD, City, or District Attorney has the guts to go after the truth and act accordingly.

Tragically, with the death of John Deming, we will probably never know what circumstances put him in the place where he was killed. Since only Officer Kunkle and John Deming were present when the fatal shots were fired, getting to the truth of what actually happend at that crucial moment is just that much harder without video evidence. According to the police tape, the officer who did have a body cam turned it off about 5 1/2 minutes after shots were reported.

Does that mean we should not ask questions? Or not look for ways to ensure our PPD has received and is using the training and tools that protect them, us, and those they interact with? Or ensure that the District Attorney's investigation is transparent and thorough, and their findings published?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men [and women] to do nothing." Edmund Burke


Posted by Michael Austin
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 15, 2016 at 5:36 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

The Nine Principles of Policing:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public support of police actions.

3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to the public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to, secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

7.Police at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existance.

8. police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9. The test of public efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.


Posted by Lou Stuhle
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Feb 15, 2016 at 7:56 pm

Lou Stuhle is a registered user.

Kathy, so you admit you're no expert, but since you have a "recording" of the incident, you still feel comfortable saying officer kunkel's use of force was unnecessary. you realize the audio of the radio traffic isn't complete right? that was obviously taken from a scanner app that also splices LPFD and LPD traffic onto it. well what do you think happens if LPD is talking and the app switches to them, and a fraction of a second later, a PPD officer speaks? that's right, the PPD officer's radio traffic isn't recorded on that app. so once again, what you think you know probably isn't correct.

sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but i have no problem illustrating for everyone how ill-informed yours is.


Posted by no user name
a resident of Downtown
on Feb 15, 2016 at 8:33 pm

no user name is a registered user.

"I'm surprised you know how this young man was raised."

"But you have no idea what upbringing this person had or who "failed". You are just making it up."

You are both ill-informed and more wrong than you could ever know. It would be nice to have no knowledge of human trash like this, that is not the case. This kid got what he made inevitable by his actions. Bad choices at every step of the way, that night was just the final conclusion to what any parent without blinders on would have seen coming. So now they use his death to attempt financial gain. Yup, fine upstanding folks those so-called parents are.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 15, 2016 at 10:21 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Lou and No Name, on the tape the officers state it is a possible 5150. If this was a person suffering from mental distress, death is a penalty too far.

Lou, we'll see what the DA determines. There is this from both the independent and county coroner autopsies: "The Alameda County Coroner’s autopsy report now shows Deming Jr. did not have any alcohol or drugs in his system, giving the same result as an independent report commissioned by Deming’s family that was released last August. The autopsy report also finds he was not shot at close range as previously suggested by police." This isn't about assigning blame. It's about what we do to prevent officers from feeling threatened and to prevent more loss of life. Even if this death was "inevitable" (No Name), there are many others that were not. I think it is worthy of our attention.


Posted by DJohns
a resident of Downtown
on Feb 15, 2016 at 11:47 pm

DJohns is a registered user.

No one is to blame for mental illness, anymore than they are to blame for a genetic physical illness. A first psychotic break is almost always a shock to family members.

On the dispatch audio the officers identify that the suspect is agitated and talking to himself, officers can see he is holding a box, they have reason to believe he does not have a gun. If they had deescalated instead of attacking, this unarmed and confused teenager, they may have saved a life instead of ending one.

Pleasanton officers receive CIT training, Web Link "The goal of CIT training is to provide law enforcement officers with skills that allow effective problem-solving and promote positive outcomes when responding to incidents involving mental health consumers. This goal is achieved when officers exhibit de-escalation and crisis resolution skills."

The autopsy report shows that John had no drugs or alcohol in his system. It also shows that he was not shot at close range, calling in question the officers statement that John was attacking him when he shot him.

This teenage boy, with no history of drugs or being in trouble, needed help that night. Our police are trained professionals, they should have used de-escalation and crisis resolution skills. They have a responsibility to preserve life.


Posted by DKHSK
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Feb 16, 2016 at 9:56 am

DKHSK is a registered user.

Hold the phone.

From the Aug 8, 2015 article here in the weekly:

"According to Bretzing, Deming climbed on top of Kunkel and kept hitting him in the face and head. The officer felt like he was going to lose consciousness, Bretzing said, and he fired at Deming with his Taser again.

"As the Taser deployment once again failed to stop Deming's attack, Officer Kunkel, in fear for his life, drew his pistol from his holster and fired one round into Deming's torso area," Bretzing said. "Deming continued to strike the officer who then fired two additional rounds, striking Deming at least once in the face."

How does anyone explain the autopsy results of the shot not being from close range with the above statement from the police saying that Kunkel was being beaten around the face and head while shooting a taser followed by a handgun?

This doesn't make any sense.



Posted by Lou Stuhle
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Feb 16, 2016 at 8:42 pm

Lou Stuhle is a registered user.

can someone link me where the autopsy showed that the shot(s) weren't at close range?


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 16, 2016 at 10:24 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

That is the coverage. I cannot seem to find the actual report, although I saw they aren't always made available to the public. I'll look some more.



Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 16, 2016 at 10:54 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

It looks like you have to submit a request to the County Coroner or visit their offices in Oakland.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 17, 2016 at 10:32 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Turns out PW had the link; Web Link


Posted by Billie
a resident of Mohr Park
on Feb 17, 2016 at 11:38 am

Billie is a registered user.

Thank you, Kathleen, for ignoring the personally negative commentary to get down to the facts as documented in the autopsy report.

Facts per the autopsy report from the "External Examination":
Bullet wound #1 (face), Lines 301-304: "There is no deposition of smoke or powder or evidence of burning. It has the characteristics of a bullet entrance wound."

Bullet wound #2 (abdomen), Lines 317-319: "There is no deposition of smoke or powder or evidence of burning. It has the characteristics of a bullet entrance wound."

John Deming was fatally shot on July 5, 2015. The autopsy report was completed and John's body released on July 10, 2015. It's seven months later, and the only *facts* in evidence are from the autopsy report. It will be interesting to see how/if the District Attorney explains the differences between autopsy facts and Officer Kunkel's report of the homicide.


Posted by EBurke
a resident of Bordeaux Estates
on Feb 17, 2016 at 2:14 pm

EBurke is a registered user.

It seems impossible to reconcile the autopsy with the police statement. Not only was John not shot at close range as the statement would require, but the bullet to his face went through his brain. The police claim he continued to resist as they cuffed him. Also how is it possible that no other officer witnessed the shooting when the canine officer was at the broken window near the location of the shooting?
If there is no accountability and the police are allowed to lie, and abuse the use of deadly force, none of our loved ones are safe.
I would like to see PPD step up and take responsibility and tell the community what changes they are making to ensure this won't happen again.


Posted by Lou Stuhle
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Feb 17, 2016 at 7:49 pm

Lou Stuhle is a registered user.

so i read the autopsy report. weird that nowhere in there does it say deming wasn't shot at close range (which it most certainly wouldn't regardless as that is a conclusion based on evidence, the autopsy is strictly physical observations). you sheeple are eating the crap garagos is spoon feeding you and you're asking for more.

do any of you experts know the distance at which powder burns are present? do you know the distance for the specific weapon and ammunition that officer kunkel used? what do you consider "close range"? does that range fit in with what officer kunkel describes (which we don't know. we only have Bretzing's paraphrased version of officer kunkel's account).

wait for the DA's report you brilliant people.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 18, 2016 at 9:23 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Lou, there is plenty of information about gunshot residue online. Here is just one, several pages long and very detailed: www.firearmsid.com/a_distancegsr.htm

The news articles could be the spin from Geragos. Maybe the news agencies made assumptions; I would hope they talked to the coroner.

Certainly we can wait for the D.A., but it's been nearly seven months, and the autopsy was conducted July 5, the morning of the event.

My point stands: this young man's death was unfortunate. The officer shouldn't have been in harm's way; there was backup present that should have kept all parties safe. This has happened time and again in the US. We should be asking for all officers to be trained for de-escalation, particularly if no other lives are in danger.


Posted by Lou Stuhle
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Feb 18, 2016 at 12:42 pm

Lou Stuhle is a registered user.

and my point stands. you are not an expert on gun shot wound analysis, police tactics including building clearances, perimeter containment, and the extremely abstract idea of "de-escalation" that the media is currently spewing (they tried several levels of force to no avail before finally having to go try and get their hands on him). while on the topic of tactics, do you know how many pleasanton police officers were working when this incident occurred? at 2am i'm guessing 4-6 officers. how do you think they can all work in pairs when they sent 3 or 4 officers into the building. that only leaves a couple to try and watch the outside and try to catch him if he leaves. i'm no expert either. that's why i'll wait for the DA's report to determine if they didn't "de-escalate" or used "unnecessary" force. doesn't seem like that difficult of a concept to grasp.


Posted by no user name
a resident of Downtown
on Feb 18, 2016 at 1:31 pm

no user name is a registered user.

@KR "My point stands: this young man's death was unfortunate"

No, his death was predicated entirely on his behavior. You want to make excuses for his actions but the fact is that if he had simply stopped what he was doing -- at any of many opportunities -- he would be alive today. His actions caused his death.

"particularly if no other lives are in danger."

I guess that pounding a police officer's head onto the ground is not putting anyone else's life in danger. Right. Then there was the possibility that if he got loose in the neighborhood he could have broken into a home and killed or injured the occupants. Of course, had he broken into my home the outcome would have been a lot different. No shouted warnings, no beanbags, no dogs, no tazer. Six rounds from the 38 that would have come with no warnings at all. Uninvited intruders have no right to expect anything else.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 18, 2016 at 4:04 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

His behavior was noted to be a possible 5150 on the audio recording. With an autopsy that indicated no drugs or alcohol in his system, his erratic behavior may well have been the result of mental illness. Following orders and making proper choices may not be possible.

IF the officer engaged the young man without backup, that could be changed in protocol. I want officers to be safe too. Yes, if someone ran for a home, I'd expect actions by the police to be different, but still in a manner that avoids anyone's death as long as is feasible.

I would support your right to protect yourself and your family in your own home.


Posted by Lou Stuhle
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Feb 18, 2016 at 4:44 pm

Lou Stuhle is a registered user.

WHAT BACK UP? i already ran down the numbers for you. there are times in a police officer's day where they may find themselves in a position where they have to confront someone by themselves.

for you KB, i take it back. don't bother waiting for the DA's report. it seems that you've already made your decision on the actions of the police, obviously based on your vast expertise in: gunshot wound analysis, police training, police tactics (including, but not limited to: building searches, perimeter containment, use of force, force de-escalation, staffing, and police radio jargon), and psychology. i'm sure mr. garagos will be contacting you shortly to testify as an expert witness. he'll save a lot of money only having to pay for one.


Posted by DKHSK
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Feb 18, 2016 at 5:33 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

"WHAT BACK UP?"

From the updated PW article on 7/10/15 Web Link

"Police Lieutenant Jeff Bretzing said officers at the scene told Deming to leave the business, but he ignored their commands and jumped from car to car, screaming. He then jumped off a car and ran to the back of the business, where officers couldn't see him."

I'll make it really easy for you Lou, "officers" is plural. There was backup at the scene AND Livermore PD was on their way.

Have you read ANYTHING that was given to you, Lou?

You'll also note, Lou, that the article was basically the Pleasanton PD's attempt at a press release as it goes into a great deal of detail regarding the event. So while you SCREECH(!) about the Geragos PR, you are conveniently forgetting the the PD engaged in the same sort of PR.

Inconvenient isn't it, Lou?

Your insisting on everyone towing the police line is getting a little tiresome as you really don't have an opinion other than to squawk about peoples intelligence. You've been given links to autopsy reports, firearm science, and various other links, yet you continue to insist that we wait on some official to SPOON FEED us the details. As if we aren't allowed to make comments?!

Who the H3ll are you to tell anyone that they can't comment?! You haven't one informative thing to say and yet you want everyone else to keep quiet? Who do you think you are, a cop? :)

I don't think anyone is convicting the Pleasanton PD of any wrong doing, but there sure as heck are important questions and inconsistencies in what we've read so far and it is EVERYONES right to discuss those. YOU are not the gate-keeper my friend.

You keep talking about police procedures, yet the police have spoken in the article I linked and there are obvious inconsistencies between what they said and the autopsy reports. Do you have a opinion other than to say "shut up"?

I'm betting you do, but it won't have an ounce of thought or intelligence. Just more of you're tiresome faux-tough guy talk with little substance other than "hey idiots, let's wait for our betters to spoon feed us!".

Go ahead genius, regal us with your knowledge of life and all things police-related.

Dan


Posted by EBurke
a resident of Bordeaux Estates
on Feb 18, 2016 at 6:11 pm

EBurke is a registered user.

What Dan said, Lou.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 18, 2016 at 7:49 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

From this evening's NewsHour: Web Link

"CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think in that experience is replicable or has any kind of application today?

KEVIN MURPHY: I think law enforcement needs to get to work.

And I think that one of the biggest challenges that we face in this new century is our response to what I would call a critical event, where you have a citizen who’s become violent, a citizen who’s under the influence of drugs or perhaps they are suffering from some type of mental health issue.

And what I have seen with a lot of these encounters that end very badly, with the death of an unarmed citizen, is a fear on the part of the officer. And we all experience it in this uniform. It’s nothing to be ashamed of, but you have to be able to manage that fear. And I believe, sometimes, when fear steps in, poor decisions are made. And I think that the use of deadly force falls into that category."

This was one part of the interview.


Posted by Lou Stuhle
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Feb 18, 2016 at 8:21 pm

Lou Stuhle is a registered user.

DKHSKDSG,
[removed ] of course there were officers (plural) on scene. the team of officers that actually went into the business, i would imagine would be 3-5 officers along with the K9. if the whole shift totaled 5-6 officers, how many does that leave to watch the exterior? let me do the math for you. 1 or 2. now if the perp runs out before the interior team gets to him, what happens? that's right. one of those officers now has to confront the perp. there is no "backup" immediately available should that situation play out in that manner.

link to the autopsy report? no conclusions by any expert were drawn. simply an absence of powder burns. i read that link that KR provided and there are other articles i read that said over 30", stippling, tattooing, powder burns, may or may not be present dependent on many factors. i would hope the DA's report addresses this because i'm not an expert, unlike you or kathy.

when did i say people couldn't comment? again, keeping in mind that reading comprehension isn't your strength, i actually said "everyone is entitled to their opinion". i only take exception to the finality in which people express their opinion to the point they try and declare it as fact when the reality is that there isn't enough info for us lay people to intelligently conclude what did or did not happen.

i'm still waiting to hear what the inconsistencies are between the police statement and the autopsy.


Posted by DKHSK
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Feb 18, 2016 at 9:47 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

Ok Lou, off we go!

(removed)

" i would imagine would be 3-5 officers along with the K9...there is no "backup" immediately available should that situation play out in that manner."

In this entire paragraph you seem to be indicating that either 1.) the police force is understaffed in the early morning hours or 2.) the police somehow did not follow procedure and WAIT for MORE backup. Which is it?

In any event, you are actually AGREEING with others on this thread by indicating that the police were not properly staffed for this particular event, yet they proceeded anyway and now there is a dead perp and lots of questions.

You get that, right? You can't have it both ways, Lou.

"no conclusions by any expert were drawn. simply an absence of powder burns."

Exactly! No one had indicated otherwise. So?

"i read that link that KR provided and there are other articles i read that said over 30", stippling, tattooing, powder burns, may or may not be present dependent on many factors."

Again, from the article:

"According to Bretzing, Deming climbed ON TOP of Kunkel and kept hitting him in the face and head. The officer felt like he was going to lose consciousness, Bretzing said, and he fired at Deming with his Taser again.

"As the Taser deployment once again failed to stop Deming's attack, Officer Kunkel, in fear for his life, drew his pistol from his holster and fired one round into Deming's torso area," Bretzing said. "Deming continued to strike the officer who then fired two additional rounds, striking Deming at least once in the face."

For your edification I capitalized "ON TOP" to show you that JD - according to the PD - appeared to be well WITHIN 30". Is it unreasonable to assume that powder burns would show up on JD's head if he was indeed ON TOP of Kunkel? And remember, JD was ON TOP of KUNKEL and he not only fired his taser, but two gun shots. Was there something left out of the article or the police report?

"when did i say people couldn't comment? again, keeping in mind that reading comprehension isn't your strength, i actually said "everyone is entitled to their opinion".

You forgot the last part when you said "everyone is entitled to their opinion but i have no problem illustrating for everyone how ill-informed yours is."

Thats effectively saying: shut up, you know-nothings.

"i only take exception to the finality in which people express their opinion to the point they try and declare it as fact when the reality is that there isn't enough info for us lay people to intelligently conclude what did or did not happen."

I haven't seen anyone effectively declare anything a fact, unless somewhere in the deep recesses of your addled brain you believe pointing out inconsistencies and conflicting events when it involves a government department to be, somehow, off-limits? What next Lou, do we find these heretics and burn them at the stake?

And God-forbid someone exhibit a sanctity-of-life approach to the all-knowing Lou.

Your turn, genius. I can't wait!

Dan





Posted by Lou Stuhle
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Feb 18, 2016 at 11:03 pm

Lou Stuhle is a registered user.

i'm the other side of the coin dan-o. the yin to your yang. you seem to be anti-police, anti-government and i choose to look at each situation like this individually and in this case, there hasn't been a release of an independent analysis save for the autopsy, which AGAIN, makes no conclusions or analysis. i choose to believe the DA's report will be the authority on this case and i do believe they are an independent party in this matter. the alameda county DA's office has prosecuted plenty of cops, so if there is any criminal wrong-doing here, they will bring it forward.

the sure sign you're on the losing end of an argument is when you try and put words into your opponent's mouth (which you've done several times). i don't agree that they were understaffed for an event like this. i choose to judge that with the standard that the supreme court has mandated we judge police use of force: "the "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." you have to judge their actions and not the outcome. 99/100 times, someone breaking into a business can be handled with the personnel on-duty. does that mean we should pay enough taxes to staff for the 1/100 time? i don't think so. maybe you can set up a gofundme page and ask for residents of pleasanton to contribute enough money to bring our police staffing up to oakland's level even though we have 1/5 the population and 5% of the crime oakland has. that way we'll be ready for anything.

no matter how many times you cover your ears and stomp your feet, it won't change the fact that right now, there are ZERO inconsistencies between the autopsy and the police department's account of the incident. you are injecting your own bias when reading that second hand, paraphrased account of the encounter. yes, it says deming climbed on top of him and began beating him. it doesn't say he was still on top of him when the officer shot him. maybe he was standing over the officer at that point. it would be pretty silly to shoot someone in the torso while they're ON TOP of you wouldn't you say? a little too close for comfort.

this has crossed over into the silly realm. have your fun. pull that foil hat firmly over your head. i'll wait for the DA's report.

dan, kathy, i respect your opinions and that you choose to be inquisitive in such an important matter. in fact, it's critical for a free society. i just object to declarative statements such as calling this "unnecessary use of force" especially when right now, there are more questions than answers.

LOU OUT...


Posted by DKHSK
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Feb 19, 2016 at 9:16 am

DKHSK is a registered user.

Lou,

It's very telling that you didn't respond to a single question other than by hurling insults and redirection...again.


Have a nice day, Louie.

Dan


Posted by mooseturd
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Feb 19, 2016 at 9:44 am

mooseturd is a registered user.

Night Night Dan.

Moosturd Out


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 19, 2016 at 10:10 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Lou, there are more questions than answers . . . nearly eight months later.

A man, with a knife is surrounded by officers and attempts to walk away (apparently under the influence). The officers can't let him leave, so they *all* shoot? The man had 20 bullets in his body, mostly in his back. (San Francisco)

A teenager (16) is walking kitty corner across the street and appears to be taunting the officers standing by their squad car, but he is not going near them. He is shot 16 times. (Chicago)

A disoriented and erratic young man, noted as a possible 5150, is shot dead at the scene of a break in. (Pleasanton)

Did we do our best in these and many other cases? I think it is likely we didn't. But, for me, this isn't about placing blame. What do our officers need to be safe, to protect us, and to resolve conflicts in a non-lethal manner? Maybe it's as simple as training; maybe it's something more. I am concerned about the culture of fear being created as SWAT teams and armored vehicles and terrorist training are part of even small communities like ours--one you already pointed out does not have crime levels like Oakland. I will accept that PPD believes there is a need for those tools, but maybe we need more officers at 2 a.m. or they can tell us what else is necessary to avoid loss of life, be they officer, citizen, or a perpetrator who should make it to his/her day in court (see Chief Kevin Murphy interview).


Posted by DKHSK
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Feb 19, 2016 at 10:23 am

DKHSK is a registered user.

Kathleen,

Here was an alarming article in the Washington post about the Chicago PD use of cameras: Web Link

When you have 80% malfunction or misuse rate then there is something very, very wrong.

Clearly Chicago has big-time issues with both crime and crime fighters. I sympathize with the cops because day in a day out they deal with the dregs of society and I know that it must affect their world-view, but to intentionally misuse cameras is NOT the way to deal with the issue.

This is what causes normal supporters to take a step back and question what is happening in ALL police departments.

Of course, people like Lou automatically get reflexive and think you are attacking the police...sigh.

Dan


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 19, 2016 at 3:52 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@no name,

You said,

"You are both ill-informed and more wrong than you could ever know. It would be nice to have no knowledge of human trash like this, that is not the case. ...".

But you offer no proof at all that you know anything about this person. Anyone could do that. It is meaningless. Someone could say that the officer who did the shooting was "human trash" or that he had some special knowledge about the officer, but none of us would have any way of knowing.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from PleasantonWeekly.com sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

How we eat away at our open space, even in Palo Alto
By Sherry Listgarten | 5 comments | 6,460 views

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 6 comments | 3,203 views

Applying for Dental School
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 1,112 views

Dallas vs. San Francisco Sunday sparks plenty of memories
By Tim Hunt | 6 comments | 899 views

Now we're cooking with gas
By Monith Ilavarasan | 4 comments | 590 views