Remember when LA’s finest went a tad trigger happy in pursuit of cop killer Christopher Dorner? For a while there it was pretty much open season on any vehicle remotely matching the description of the fugitive’s car. Two of the unlucky motorists on the receiving end of the 5-0 lead were Emma Hernandez and her daughter, Margie Carranzahad, who were out early delivering newspapers. They had the flow-thru ventilation in their Toyota Tacoma enhanced by 102 rounds of po-po ammo. Two of which went through Hernandez’s neck. Feeling bad about the mixup, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck and a local Ford dealer promised to replace the vehicle for the ladies. Except there were a couple of strings attached . . .

As reported by nbclosangeles.com, Hernandez and Carranzahad have an attorney, Glen Jonas, representing them.

According to Jonas, LAPD and Galpin Ford wanted his clients to pose for a photo opportunity and pay income tax on the truck. The women no longer want the truck after they were told they needed to fill out a 1099 form for the donation, Jonas said Monday.

“You tried to murder the woman, now you’re telling her she can’t have a four-wheel drive, you’re telling her she can’t sell it and you’ve got to be taxed on it?” Jonas said. “How would anyone react to that?”

So instead of covering the costs the two women incurred because of the cops’ jumpy negligence, Jonas is now preparing a “government claim” which is the first step before filing a big ass suit against the city. He says that Ms. Hernandez “is still recovering from two bullet wounds to her neck, which are giving her life-threatening complications.” It’s probably nothing a $20 or $30 million jury award won’t take care of.

Recommended For You

83 Responses to Shooting Victims to LAPD: Keep Your Truck and FOAD

  1. I don’t understand why the cops who pulled the trigger aren’t in jail for attempted murder or something of that nature…

    It’s absolutely absurd that there aren’t any reports of disciplinary actions. Then again, this may serve to prove that we need the highest capacity possible magazines we can have, 102+bullets and 2 hits? From “trained professionals” no less..

      • You are correct.

        Also, the rest of the unit would be at the range later that week until stress shooting and target identification was second nature.

      • Yep. Waving bye-bye. It unfortunately seems the LAPD is going to have to be sued out of existence, and start over again. And be VERY careful hiring any former LAPD officers, because you might get sued into oblivion again.

    • > I don’t understand why the cops who pulled the trigger
      > aren’t in jail for attempted murder or something of that nature…

      For the same reason that David Gregory isn’t in jail for violating gun control laws.

      There are classes of people in America who are immune to the law.

      And then there are others who will be mercilessly persecuted for the slightest infraction.

    • Most states have laws protecting police from charges while performing their duties. There are reasons for these laws but occasionally, yes, cops get away with murder. It happened in Seattle where a cop by the name of Ian Birk killed a man in a crosswalk for carrying a folded pocket knife. This happened in downtown Seattle during rush hour. Birk opened up on the man, Williams, discharging four rounds hitting him three of those times. The fourth bullet went God knows where in a crowded city. It is fortunate there wasn’t another victim.

      Birk could not be prosecuted for murder and in fact could not be prosecuted for any crime. He was terminated by the Seattle Police Department. That was the worst that could be done to him. Of course the taxpayers had to pay the family of the man killed.

      • When they commit crimes or go beyond what is lawful in their position they can even be sued as individuals- which is clearly possible in this case. They can also be subject to the full weight of the law- it is up to prosecutors in that instance but with civil suits it’s up to the plaintiff’s attorneys to make the right calls and extremely beneficial to society… imagine rolling the dice and getting into your car in Los Angeles– or deciding to open up a business or move to LA– it is extremely risky now as the police and prosecutors have stated it is lawful to shoot massive amounts of bullets into cars merely for unfounded suspicion.

    • Not to be a jerk but if you have any idea why Donner did what he did, you would understand why they arent behind bars. The LAPD is bullshit, and Beck-Baca are scumbags.

    • That’s the thing that had me lol when the Dorner thing was going on. Every time i heard the chief or other talked, they would say the LAPD would find him because they are highly trained, etc.

      102 round and two hits. I could turn stevie wonder in the right direction and he could probably get 3 or 4 hits.

      I’m just surprised the cops didn’t take out a family dog or two during the search.

      • Being a former USAF SP, I took special notice of an incident a number of years back. A psycho went on a shooting spree through a military hospital. The first SP to reach the scene took the guy out with two shots. About the same time, a Portland Police Officer chased a suspect through a crowded neighborhood shooting something like 48 rounds along the way missing every time. At the time, I remember thinking to myself that the PPD officer should have at least hit the suspect once even if on accident. Civilian police officers really have a completely backward thought process when it comes to armed confrontation that really defies any sense of reason.

    • 102 or more shots? How many mag changes? How many rounds per mag? If this isn’t proof that mag bans/limits don’t work in every sense of that concept then I don’t know what does.

      Probably the only known case where some one said “whew, I wish I had less ammo at the end of that.”

      There is some snark and twisted logic peppered in there. Puns intended.

    • 102 shots?

      To answer the question, “how many bullets are enough?”, I would respond, “MORE than 102.”

      Probably the first time in history someone said “whew, I ‘m glad I had fewer bullets.”

  2. They fired 102 times? How are these women not dead?

    Maybe police officers shouldn’t have more firearms training. Their ineptitude saves lives.

    • I read it as 102 hit the truck, which make them being alive all the more amazing.

      If that is true, there was another hundred downrange too.

    • This is the first time I noticed that they hit the vehicle with 102 rounds. That is simply astounding. Even in Iraq in 2005, we generally only shot a couple rounds into the engine block to stop a car, and only then into the driver. I don’t ever remember any of our guys wasting that many bullets.

    • The 102 rounds does not take into account for the rounds hitting houses and other vehicles in the background. There were many.

    • The one thing we DO NOT WANT are policeman with firearm training. These idiots, and the others like them we read about every day have no business in a uniform. If they could hit what they aim at, lots of innocent people dead.

      It is increasingly clear that this country has a serious problem in how policeman are hired, trained, supervised, and monitored for illegal acts.

      Most importantly, not held liable for their actions. It is now commonplace for the police to be immune from any crimes or irresponsible acts they commit.

    • Or maybe it’s the training itself that’s having a negative effect on them.

      Probably, rather, is that they fall to pieces under the least stressful of conditions, and can’t hit a brick with the broad side of a barn.

  3. I still struggle to understand the mindset that would not trust a neighbor with an AR-15, but will trust a stranger with both the rifle and the legal leeway to pull crap like this and walk away with handcuffs on their belt instead of around their wrists, because that stranger wears a badge.

    • Because the person with that mindset wasn’t the one shot (at)? “It can’t happen to me because … .”

  4. > It’s probably nothing a $20 or $30 million jury award won’t take care of.

    And yet Republicans and Libertarians want to limit the right of people to sue, because the 7th Amendment is inconvenient for some special interests.

    • And democrats think this lawsuit reward will come out of the police budget, or perhaps magical money tree land… or that the officers will be punished for this. When in fact, they’ll get a slap on the wrist, and the people paying the bill are those of us working.

    • I am an attorney. Any money paid in judgment against a governmental entity is paid by that entity. They, in turn, have to pay that judgment out of the money for other services. Where do you think that money will come from? It will come from increased taxes and assessments on the citizens of LA. She is entitled to recovery, and a substantial one. But saying Republicans and Libertarians want to limit tort damages, and that Democrats want to ensure people are made while shows a complete lack of understanding of how the system works.

      And God forbid you ever get sued for a large amount of money, but will you still have a problem with certain groups seeking tort reform then or will you stipulate on the record that the plaintiff is entitled to whatever amount he/she seeks?

      • > But saying…that Democrats want to ensure
        > people are made while [sic]

        I never said that Donkeyrats “want to ensure that people are made whole”. I don’t believe that for one second.

        But the Republican/Libertarian war on the 7th Amendment goes a lot farther than merely limiting tort damages. And those who parrot crap like “the 2nd Amendment protects all others” are more than willing — along with liberals like the ACLU — to trash the other amendments they claim to be protecting.

      • Any money paid in judgment against a governmental entity is paid by that entity. They, in turn, have to pay that judgment out of the money for other services.
        Not always. In Chicago, the city’s insurance policy covers part of it. And instead of reducing services, they issue more debt.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/chicago-police-abuse-sett_n_2497837.html
        In settling the cases, the city will pay $15 million of the Eilman settlement with city insurance paying the rest. But the city will have to pay the entire settlement in the Logan case, meaning that the two cases nearly exhaust the entire $27 million set aside for 2013. But the mayor’s office explained that, as it has done in the past and as was expected this year, bond funds will be used to cover settlements and that no city services will be affected.

        And God forbid you ever get sued for a large amount of money, but will you still have a problem with certain groups seeking tort reform then or will you stipulate on the record that the plaintiff is entitled to whatever amount he/she seeks?
        I was sued for 1.5+ million a couple years ago in a wrongful death suit and due to financial difficulties had to represent myself. I’m against tort reform. I’m also against lawyers being able to routinely charge absurd amounts for their services.

    • No, because turning jury trials into lotteries is driving up the costs of healthcare and pushing doctors out of high-risk fields like obstetrics.

      If someone is hurt due to negligence or some other tortious action, then they should be able to sue for all compensatory damages – if they are confined to a wheelchair for life and need constant nursing, those compensatory damages could be over $10mm, and that’s fine. It’s not fine to tack on another $20mm of punitive damages (a huge chunk of which will go to plaintiff’s lawyer), when that cost just ends up jacking up medical costs for everyone. If the actions of a doctor (or a cop) were really that eggregious, then bring criminal charges and throw them in jail.

      Also, no way is a Found On Road Dead fair compensation for a lost Toyota.

    • The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

      “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

      I don’t know how Supreme Court rulings may have expanded its reach, but the text of the Seventh Amendment does not seem to place any limits on Congress’ ability to limit tort awards. It only places limits the judicial branch, and does not seem to place any limitation on the legislative or executive branches of government.

      I don’t really see how limiting the amount of civil awards infringes on the right of trial by jury for suits exceeding twenty dollars. The Seventh Amendment does not seem to ensure that civil suit AWARDS can be determined by jury; it only protects the right to trial by jury to determine a VERDICT. The verdict may be decided by jury and they may recommend an award, but in many jurisdictions the judge still has final determination on the award amount.

      So I guess what I’m saying is just that I don’t see how tort limits infringe on the Seventh Amendment. Maybe they infringe on some other part of the Constitution, but I’m not seeing any Seventh Amendment connection here. Can someone please explain it to me?

      • I don’t see how tort limits infringe on the Seventh Amendment.

        Good — because they don’t. However, tort reform does infringe on the power of the ABA, and we can’t have that. Can we?

    • If Libertarians would just change their name to Fortuntarians, I’d be cool with the entire deal. HONESTY. Best policy and all that.

  5. Neil commented above, “I don’t understand why the cops who pulled the trigger aren’t in jail for attempted murder or something of that nature…”

    I agree 1000%. What these police officers did was absolutely and totally inexcusable. The officers knew before hand the make, model, color, and even license plate of the suspect’s truck and neither truck came close to matching any of those descriptions. (Officers shot-up two different trucks in two different incidents!) The officers who shot-up the trucks simply did not care if they were wrong. If a citizen did that, they would still be in jail waiting for trial.

    Someone in California needs to push the prosecutors really hard starting locally and working their way up through the state. If the prosecutors appear to be unwilling to fervently prosecute the police officers who shot up the two trucks, then “We the People” must deliver an ultimatum to the prosecutors: prosecute them or “We the People” will form a Grand Jury, indict the officers, and try them ourselves.

    (Note: I clicked on the “reply” button under Neil’s comment but my reply went to the bottom of the stack for unknown reasons.)

    • It says $40k. Which aside from not being nearly enough to cover the bills from getting shot in the neck, is also oddly near the price of a pick-up truck…

  6. “You tried to murder the woman, now you’re telling her she can’t have a four-wheel drive, you’re telling her she can’t sell it and you’ve got to be taxed on it?” Jonas said. “How would anyone react to that?”

    A four wheel drive? Nobody needs a vehicle like that. Probably wants a black one with a seatbelt thing that goes up.
    I’d be asking for an APC.

    • The 4 Wheel Drive has to do with getting a replacement truck that was equitable to what they had. The truck that was fired upon was 4 wheel drive.

        • …no doubt it was an “assault 4WD”….made to look all scary while delivering newspapers….idiots ….impeach all law enforcement in LA..charge them with treason, conspiracy and criminal fraud…then convict them and start hanging the police leadership ….

          Regards,

          RJ O’Guillory
          Author-
          Webster Groves-The Life of an Insane Family

  7. Ok…I’m not saying the cops are right in what they did. But, we need to be careful how much responsibility we want falling on the shoulders of our law enforcement. I was living overseas for 13 years, for the most part in Italy and I can tell you that when you start placing more responsibility on Officers, they tend to react on a long lead time when they are called to service. That translates very poorly in situations like Newton or Bank Robberies for simple citizens like us….more reason for us to be armed though!

    • Government employees should face the exact same responsibility as citizens do. If they don’t want to do their jobs in some situations, fire them.

    • I agree 100%. We would not want them reacting so slowly to Newtown, or Columbine, or Nickle Mines, or the Petit house. Good thing they have immunity or they might have waited until after all those kids kids were dead and/or raped.

    • When did a 20 minute response time for a active shooter call 2 miles away from the police station start qualifying as a prompt response? Did the cops jog there?

    • Alex:…”.We need to be careful how much responsibility we want falling on the shoulders of our law enforcement”. With all due respect Alex, if you as a civilian, use your firearm for self-defense the ENTIRE responsibility falls on your shoulders. Explain to us why police officers should be held to a different standard. In any part of the country today a cop has to have SOME type of certification which goes far beyond the training provided for concealed carry. If you got trained-you need to live up to what you were taught….I doubt any police academy teaches officers to shoot beyond what is necessary to terminate a situation. Say what you will but 100 plus rounds towards the wrong vehicle in all senses of the word-make, color, tag, occupants expected-is overkill, particularly when there is no shooting from that vehicle towards the officers involved. The officers in question should have the book thrown at them, as it is obvious that they are unprofessional. The fact that a person holds a badge should create an expectation that their actions in time of crisis rise above the rest, not be a get out of jail free card……

  8. they wanted the picture to use in the enventual civil suit for their injuries (“see, they weren’t hurt so badly!”), which is coming. This only would deal with their personal property damaged., not their injuries, which makes it more amazing. Why not just do a friggin’ tax gross-up for them? Yes, it would have cost the city a bit more, but the goodwill is priceless

  9. A lot of the unjustified shootings by police comes from the lack of training. I was once a LEO and was involved in training, I had previously worked as a firearms instructor at a couple of well known training facilities. I was absolutely shocked to learn that police firearms “qualification” means everyone gets qualified whatever it takes to do that. If one officer doesn’t pass you run him thru until he does, whatever it takes so he is “qualified”. It was the opposite of what I expected, I naively believed the purpose of qualifying was a test to prove the officer met a standard of performance. Instead the instructors job was to get the box checked, “qualified”. I hope I’m making this clear. Everyone qualified by the end of the day regardless of their level of competence. I pushed for higher standards but met strong opposition with excuses like, the officers job was on the line, he has family to feed, he was nervous because of that, he usually shoots a lot better. The standards were low, the level of competence to pass was low but some couldn’t even do that.

    It’s not an easy problem to fix. A lot, maybe the majority, of police are not that interested in shooting. I offered free ammo and a free class and got practically no takers. If you ask an individual officer why he doesn’t practice the excuses you hear are, I can’t afford the ammo, I’m not spending my money and off time for training the dept. should provide, you don’t have to be a gunslinger to hit someone at 3 feet away, if the time comes I will come thru (somehow wearing the badge gives superpowers), I’ve never had to use my gun in 15 years, on and on mostly excuses that just avoid the problem.

    It’s not all negative, there are many officers who take firearm (and all other) training seriously, that train on their own time and keep their skill level high. These are not the officers who shoot up cars full of unarmed people without justification. What I saw was the officers who were not competent with their weapons were tended to be the ones likely to use inappropriate force, my opinions based on my observations are that officers who are not proficient lack confidence and are more likely to act inappropriately. I believe that applies not only to weapons but also to physical confrontations and even situations requiring full knowledge of current statutes and laws.

    • If they had been trained better those women would be dead. And training has nothing to do with it, any regular joe without training knows you shouldn’t shoot up any random pickup truck you see. Those officers were hell bent on murdering a suspected cop killer, and saw cop killers everywhere they looked. Hell they intentionally attempted to burn him alive when they did actually find him. This isnt some nuance with company policy, it is do not shoot up a car which does not match the description of the suspect. And if it does match, don’t shoot it up either, take the suspect alive with a minimal amount of force. If they don’t know that before they take the job, no amount of training is going to help.

      And regarding training, when did it become the tax payers responsibility to ensure their employees are properly trained. Out here in the private sector, you don’t get the job if you aren’t properly trained, unless you’re working at McDonalds or in a intern/apprenaticeship.

    • Actually, it would be a reasonably easy problem to fix.

      Require higher IQ’s and more functional and judgement competence in the entry exams for LEO’s and the problem should fix itself pretty quickly.

      And before LEO’s get all bent out of joint about that comment, allow me to remind everyone of this court case:

      http://www.aele.org/apa/jordan-newlondon.html

      PD’s and law enforcement organizations don’t like hiring from the higher-than-average IQ range… and they’d certainly never want someone with an IQ two or more standard deviations above average.

      • Smarter cops aren’t necessarily better cops. Ted Bundy was smart. The problem with Bundy and way too many cops is their need for power and control — when they can’t even control themselves.

        • Smarter cops could, potentially, understand the case law that now defines civil rights.

          I’ve personally had it up to “here” with the “respect ma authoratah” mindset that’s trained into cops. Plato long ago discussed by “appeal to authority” isn’t a winning debate tactic.

        • I see Ralph’s point – which I think was pretty well proven to be immutable human nature with the Stanford Prison Experiment. All nice, smart, well raised, well adjusted kids…

          I also have to agree with DG, at least a smarter cop has some chance of understanding the bigger picture, and actually understanding the laws he’s tasked with enforcing.

          I’ll stand in the middle.

  10. Blue Toyota pickup – grey Nissan Titan – same thing right?

    What did the department tell their officers? Shoot at any Japanese pickup truck driven by a minority?

    Some attorney is going to have a field day with this.

  11. Donner murdered two corrupt cops and should have been brought to justice just like every other murderer. LAPD killed more people trying to get Donner, then when they did catch him, they burned him alive instead of trying to take him into custody. They didn’t want Donner talking, that much is obvious, why they shot first then asked who was in the truck.

    • Donner did not murder any corrupt cops. He murdered the daughter and future son in law of the guy who defended him when he was fired. Then he murdered two Riverside cops and a San Bernadino Sheriff’s Deputy. The man deserved to die…after being captured and tried by a jury of peers, not an extra judicial killing by a SWAT team.

  12. The cops involved were given 2 weeks vacation, remedial firearms training and a raise if they kept quiet…..Hey, just like the Justice Department!

  13. The cops that shot these women need to be arrested ASAP and thrown in jail for attempted murder.

    The fact that charges won’t be filed blows my mind!

  14. Remove law enforcement and prosecutorial immunity, and make their public unions illegal. This would greatly change the face of the justice system. It would certainly place more responsibility for safety and public order back on the citizen, but ultimately it rests their anyway. I am disturbed by the militarization of our police, and the general lack of accountability across the system. It needs to change soon, before the whole thing is better suited for a fascist dictatorship then a republic.

  15. The awards should come out of the cops pay and property. A lawsuit against the LAPD will only mean the taxpayers will be the losers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *