On May 26, 2014, two Los Angeles County deputies killed 23-year old Noel Aguilar. A video has since surfaced of the incident. TTAG reader RB sent this analysis:

When I first watched this video I thought that the cop shot the kid in retaliation for being shot himself. But after viewing it more closely, this video seems far worse that that. Both cops didn’t murder Aguilar, they EXECUTED HIM to cover up their screwup . . .

At the 0:20 mark you see officer 1 smacking the fist of Aguilar and at 0:25 he puts a small pistol in his belt at the appendix position (a good way to shoot your junk if you ask me, unless you KNOW it isn’t loaded), officer 2 has his service pistol out and gets pushed over slamming his hand “with pistol”onto the ground at 0:48 almost drops it and ends up shooting his partner.

A t 1:10 Officer 2 repeatedly asks Aguilar “where’s the gun?”. The suspect starts freaking out obviously and says he didn’t shoot nobody. Right after officer 2 shoots his partner you can see that his pistol has malfunctioned and is out of battery.

Look CAREFULLY at the 1:30 mark and WATCH officer 1 pull a small pistol out of his waistband to plant it on the scene, that’s the one that he had placed in his belt at the beginning of the vid, so he knows it wasn’t that one. He places it on the scene again and even fiddles with it on the ground a couple times.

At 0:45 officer 2 tries to shoot Aguilar but his pistol is malfunctioned from the previous shot, Aguilar asks “Why you pulling a gun on me?”

At 0:48 he racks the slide and immediately after the malfunction is cleared, shoots Aguilar in the chest (the malfunction gave him a chance to change his mind, but it was already made up). Officer 1 calmly unholsters and follows up with 3 contact shots to Aguilars back to finish him off then reholsters. Officer 2 continues to kneel on Aquilar while he’s bleeding out to make sure he doesn’t survive to give any testimony.

At 3:25 you see officer 1 place the pistol with the stainless slide (that he earlier pulled out of his front belt) in the back of his belt.
What is clear from this video is that all shots were fired by the officers, all shots to Aguilar were deliberate and not in defense in any way, shape or form. In fact I would say that once officer 2 decided that Aguilar needed to die, they both worked together as a team to accomplish that task

A couple of things that aren’t 100% clear in the vid I might deduce, Are we sure that the small pistol with stainless slide was Aguilars? If so, when officer 1 is beating Aguilars hand at the beginning at 0:20, you can clearly see there is no pistol in his hand, yet at 0:23 he reaches way forward and picks up the pistol he tucks in his belt at the appendix position. Was that pistol on his partner?

WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU PLACE AN UNKNOWN PISTOL IN YOUR BELT IN THE APPENDIX POSITION WITHOUT A HOLSTER? Anyone with even mediocre understanding of pistols (especially a cop) knows that’s how you shoot off your junk or your femoral artery. The only way I would do that is if i KNEW it wasn’t loaded. If you are struggling with someone wouldn’t it be safest to slide it away and retrieve it later?

At 0:34 officer 2 glances back at the camera/people in the building, he doesn’t at any other time look down the alley or anywhere else for situational awareness. They know they’re being watched/recorded, not damning in itself but if you were trying to wrestle a dangerous person you should be focused on the task at hand.

We’ve seen other videos where they will repeatedly say “stop resisting!” to an unconscious/dead person for the benefit of cameras/bystanders. Could that be maybe why they kept asking where the gun was? It appears that officer 1, after pulling the smaller pistol out of his belt and placing it on the ground, fiddled with it several times, perhaps to make sure it was visible to bystanders?

I’ve known LEO acquaintances and relatives that have admitted that they knew a good amount of officers would keep throwaway pistols on them to plant if they needed to.

Something to think about, next time you see on the news someones face with the word “TERRORIST” or “GANG MEMBER” underneath it think about who gave them the info. People tend to believe the words underneath the screen because it seems official.

122 Responses to The Truth About LA Deputy Shooting of Noel Aguilar?

  1. Hey now. They had to get home safe dontcha know. Friends and families and stuff. We all know the people they kill don’t have families or friends or homes to worry themselves about getting back safely to.

    • I can’t tell whether those cops executed the guy or massively screwed up, but Shaun King at the NYDN wouldn’t be happy till we are all disarmed and then gang raped weekly by the friends of that thug.

      • did you even watch the video?

        Just because someone is Latino, has a shaved head and speaks with a Spanish accent doesn’t mean they’re a thug.

        I’d say the thugs are the ones that placed false evidence, fired 4 contact rounds into a handcuffed, defenseless man’s chest/ back and proceeded to squeeze the life out of him while ignoring his pleas for help.

      • Is it even safe for them now? We all know the rest of that police force is going to harass the hell out of the witnesses.

    • Contrary to popular opinion from Law and Order, a video can be introduced into evidence without the person who recorded it. It’s done all the time with non-monitored footage from static cameras. For chain of custody purposes you will need the person who secured it, even if it was off the internet, and describe the purpose. The defense can try to bring in an expert to argue that the video is doctored, but that’s about on the level of trying to claim the insanity defense.

  2. This looks bad. Having been shot, cop1 obviously wasn’t thinking clearly. He probably thought that Aguilar was doing the shooting. Being behind him, he wouldn’t have a view.

    • Even in that state, shooting a guy 3 times in the back is murder. I don’t blame the people who live under the thumb of those cops for hating them.

    • Ya, I agree but they both conspired to frame the detainee when Cop1, after having taken the friendly fire, plants the gun under the man; with that knowledge, the episode changes from tragic accident to tragic accident + cover-up and execution-style murder.

  3. While there’s still some mystery as to the origins of gun #3, I’d also like to clear up the mystery as to who the heck the dead guy was.

    Initially, he was a ‘known gang member’ then he was a ‘transient’, which sort of implies ‘unknown to the cops’.

  4. Most disgusting thing I’ve seen in a long time… Those officers should be brought up on murder charges immediately. The sad part is that in my city (Albuquerque) this happens regularly. People who don’t have legal and financial means are beaten and left for dead by the police. Often they are shot and killed. Our police department has been the subject of a DOJ investigation for the last few years. They concluded that there is a culture of violence, aggression and covering each others messes. Our police can no longer carry nice custome 1911’s; they have to carry glocks. This was all the DOJ could to to reign them in…

  5. I don’t think this is an execution at all. The officer number two was negligent, but Aguilar was resisting arrest. So, legally, Aguilar was responsible for officer number one being shot. It doesn’t look like officer number one was thinking when he put the gun in his belt (the gun definitely came from Aguilar, when officer was hitting Aguilar’s hand with a baton, you could hear the metal on metal contact, so he had the gun in his hand). I’m guessing he pulled the gun out of there to make sure he didn’t just shoot himself with it.

    The shooting of Aguilar seems to come down to insufficient communication between the officers. Officer number one retrieved the gun, but officer number two is still searching for it. Officer number two has a negligent discharge, hits officer number one but probably didn’t know that. He hears officer number one is hit, probably assumes that Aguilar still has the gun they were looking for, decides it is time to end the struggle as quickly as possible, so he shoots. Yes, the gun had malfunctioned, but the situation didn’t change between officer number two finding the malfunction and clearing it.

    Once officer number two had shot Aguilar, it is probably a case of sympathetic fire. Aguilar is still resisting and officer number one pulls out his gun and shoots too. Officer number one has the best case here as he doesn’t know who shot him and he definitely knows his partner just fired, so it is reasonable for him to shoot the suspect that is still struggling.

    As for them sitting on him to make him bleed out, he is still struggling. As far as both officers know, there is still a missing gun (officer two was looking for the original gun, officer one was looking for a second gun), so they need to continue to control the situation and keep Aguilar pinned to the ground.

    So no, I don’t think this was murder. Maybe negligent homicide (for officer number two, but he has a pretty good defense), but not murder.

    • Wow! Officer Two shoots his partner, and the suspect. Officer One shoots the suspect and appears to plant a throw-away. The suspect is on his stomach and appears to have his hands behind him with Officer Two sitting on him and you think he shot Officer One? I come from a police family and remember the days of the “Spanish .25”. This looked like that to me. I’m not saying Aguilar was a choirboy but this looks like at least second-degree to me.

      • I see (and hear) good evidence that Aguilar had the third pistol at the beginning of the video. I think you are assuming that the officers had information at the time that I don’t think they had. This is adrenaline and lack of information leading to a very sad, but expected, conclusion.

        • Hey, Scott. I didn’t see any gun in the detainee’s hand when it was being hit by the baton and what you describe as a “metal-on-metal sound” could easily be metal-on-asphault (i.e. baton on ground).

          I agree that the detainee began resisting arrest while the officers attempted to get the bracelet on his right wrist but resisting arrest does not warrant deadly force–that’s what you have less-than-lethal interventions for; the officers’ lives were not in danger. Though it seems natural to fault Mr. Aguilar for resisting arrest, perhaps his 6th sense was kicking in and he realized this was a life-or-death matter and he needed to escape…or maybe it was him committing a felony that served to escalate the situation. Again, he didn’t need to be shot 4 times in vital places in order to be made more compliant.

          I also agree that the first shot was an accident but the whole scenario changes for me when Officer1 plants the third gun on the victim after fhe first shot–this makes the event framing followed by a ruthless execution.

          These cops are damn-good actors; I truly can’t imagine what it must be like to be a person of color in this society. This was a no-win situation for Mr. Aguilar as soon as he took his bike out for a ride.

    • I agree. Aquilar had a gun and was fighting the cops.
      Looks like two good guys with guns stopped one bad guy with a gun.
      Contact shots are necessary in close quarters for the safety of yourself and bystanders.
      Lethal force justified.
      Is TTAG joining the ranks of BLM?

        • yeah, thats what I was wondering. Either way this is a colossal screw up.

          In cases like this, you have a guy very actively resisting arrest, just charge his batteries with a taser until he stops or slows down enough to cuff him up. People who are in law enforcement have my deepest sympathies because they have to deal with these types of a-holes. He is down on the ground, armed, grappling with 2 armed officers. Thats dangerous as hell, and no matter what happens the officers will get blamed because it was 2 on 1.

          As someone defending my person or property, I will just shoot the bastard as long as they are a threat to my life.

        • He wasn’t in possession of the third pistol when they were shooting him. The cop who was shot had it. Ergo, he was unarmed. The cop whose gun went off had to know that his gun had just gone off in his hand, even if it was cause by Aguilar reaching for the gun. However, he retained control of his gun after that — uses it to shoot Aguilar, in fact, so Aguilar was unarmed at the time he was shot, and not representing a threat to anyone’s life.

      • I think officer two knew he had a ND, but connecting that to his partner getting shot in the middle of a struggle, that I can see him not doing. Officer two was probably operating under the assumption that Aguilar had the gun still and was still resisting. Stressful situation, he probably didn’t connect his discharge to his partner getting shot and instead jumped to the next logical conclusion, Aguilar shot his partner. He was already focused in that area, so his brain will be biased towards those conclusions. As an outside observer in the comfort of your chair, it is easy to see what is going on, but officer two had limited knowledge and his higher brain functions were probably not all there (yes, this is an argument for better training). Got to put yourself in that situation and see if his actions were reasonable. I tend to think they were, but the video isn’t really enough to know for sure.

        • Are higher brain functions required to plant a weapon on an innocent man? Because that’s what was done here.

    • Wow Scott….you have been trained well!

      Thank you for following and maintaining order as a respectable citizen of such a great nation. Your government is proud of you.

    • >So, legally, Aguilar was responsible for officer number one being shot

      So, the man squirms when a cop shoves a gun into his back, therefore he is “resisting” and is responsible when said cop negligently shoots the other cop.

      When that Georgia SWAT team mutilated a baby with a flashbang grenade, can you believe the DA tried to sic attempted murder charges on the alleged “drug dealer” who was not even in the house at the time?

  6. I’ll go against the grain and say it’s NOT murder.

    There is not one shred of evidence that he did not have a firearm on him, just conjecture (shit, the video even started after the altercation had been going on). The deputy thought he was shot by the criminal (he WAS shot, and he WAS fighting a criminal) He continued to resist. They shot him because he had “already attempted” to shoot them. Hindsight is 20/20, and that’s why you have to go by with what they know and believe at the time.

    “The suspect starts freaking out obviously and says he didn’t shoot nobody” EVERY damn criminal that shot someone says that.

    • What crime had the citizen been convicted of? He was not a criminal, he was a citizen. This is just more evidence that citizens should be armed and government employees should be barred the use of weapons.

      • What crime? He was a known gangbanger who was just released from an 8 month term in jail. At MINIMUM, he was a criminal for that.

        And until the “planted gun” conspiracy is actually proven, he was found to have a firearm on him.

        • Maybe this right here is why the cops executed him; if he’s dead the burden of proof shifts from having to prove guilt to having to prove innocence.

          His “crime” BTW was riding a bicycle while wearing headphones. No kidding.

  7. Even though it isn’t my job to decide assign guilt, if I was going to decide for my own personal beliefs who was to blame, I would need a video that is free of editorization to decide. Whoever posted the video clearly already believes that the cops are to blame, as is evident by calling the cops “gunmen” and assigning the “Mr” honorific to the suspect. I am not in any way saying that the cops are innocent, but the deserve to present their case fairly. And before any assholes comes on here and says the suspect didn’t get a chance to present his case, realize that is not justification for mob judgment.
    Ultimatly, the community could have done a lot better of a job too, someone should have gotten on the phone to call 911 as soon as they heard gunshots. And don’t start yelling at the cops, that has never in any way solved any problem.
    The way I see this, it is a fail for everybody involved.

    • Editorization isn’t a word and no amount of editing can change the fact that the 3rd weapon was planted as soon as Cop1 realized he was shot by his partner.

  8. The “perp” didn’t have the angle to shoot the cop, even if he had a gun. I have to agree with the author that this guy was executed to cover a co-worker shooting his partner.

      • You are ridiculous!! Everyone can clearly see his left arm was hand-cuffed and right arm was holding onto the fence pretty much the whole time. That cop who was shot, planted the gun. He pulled the gun from his partner’s boot or had it the whole time. What cop ever places a gun in their waistband unless you know it is empty? He was fighting and so the gun could go off automatically. Just because you resist arrest doesn’t mean you deserve to be shot. They should have tased the guy, but every cop automatically goes to deadly force instead of just making the person comply. At that time, they had no reason to arrest him beside he supposedly ran…so what, just cause a cop tells me to come and talk to them or stop, doesn’t mean I have to. Legally, if I haven’t committed a crime or your can’t prove I am suspected of one, even if I was a gang banger, you can’t search me nor detain me.

        The proof is in the video. He knows he shot his partner and wants to cover it up by shooting the guy in the chest. Then his partner prob figured it out or was confused and shot the guy in the back three times. In the beginning the cop said if he moves he would shoot him dead…so how is that not shown to be premeditated murder?

        Bet they get a nice paid vacation and return to their jobs with a pat on the back in a few weeks smh!!

  9. Seems fairly cut-and-dry to me, hopefully the policemen don’t escape justice on the basis of many peoples’ automatic worship of police and the justice system’s bias towards them.

  10. I have a problem with the use of the word “execute”. It implies some sort of due process. A legal state sanctioned action.

    This may or may not have been a murder. But it was not an execution.

    And speaking of due process. The cops, being American citizens are due just that. Or are we at ttag as bad as we alledge them to be?

    • Notice how nobody on TTAG is calling for the murder of these cops (as they did to Mr Aguilar) but here you are weeping about the supposed lack of due process.

      Stating one’s belief in their guilt is not denying due process. Don’t you understand that? Do you ever tire of licking government jackboots?

  11. Even though I love placing blame nefarious planning is hard when your obviously incompetent and a danger to general public just be leaving the precinct

  12. “There were many opportunities I suppose for Officer Powell to avoid the risk and the threat to his own personal safety that was occasioned by incident that these officers confronted that night. But he determined to stand his ground. He determined to take the necessary steps to do his duty. And as a result of those choices that he made that night on March 3, 1991, early in the morning, he is sitting here, as a defendant, before this jury. It’s not Rodney Glen King that’s sitting here but Officer Lawrence Powell, Sgt. Stacy Koon, Officer Ted Briseno and Officer Tim Wind. What do we, ladies and gentlemen, as members of the community, expect from our police? What is it that we want them to do? These officers, these defendants do not get paid to lose street fights. They don’t get paid to roll around in the dirt with the likes of Rodney Glen King. These are not Robo Cops, ladies and gentlemen, they hurt, they feel pain, they bleed and they die just like everyone else. And we leave it to them to take care of the mean streets. So that we can safely enjoy our lives. I decline the challenge to play the video again. You can play the video all you want. Backwards, forwards, slow motion–it’ll be available for you as a piece of evidence. I’ve seen it enough and I think you have too.” – Michael Stone, Esq.

    • I hope this is satire because, yes, police feel pain, but, on the night of the Rodney King Beating, Rodney was the one in pain, not those beating him.

  13. Time for a bunch of keyboard warriors, who would be too timid to tell the waiter they were given the wrong entree, to analyze a lethal force scenario. With the benefit of watching a video which pauses, cuts to slow motion, and has handy arrows and titles to keep track of the action.

    • Cops work for us, the citizens. We have every right to judge every action they take and to hold them accountable. PERIOD.

  14. 1:10 The officer was not asking Aguilar where the gun was; he was asking his partner, who had retrieved the gun and placed it in his wasteband.

    1:30 The other officer had again asked the officer who was shot “where’s the gun?” The officer who was shot then retrieves the gun from his waistband, while the the other one repeats the question. The officer who was shot mumbles something that I believe was “I got it in my waistband…” while he is grunting in pain. I believe he is merely removing the gun from his waistband because it is extremely uncomfortable as he has just been SHOT IN THE STOMACH.

    0:45 in THIS video shows the moment the suspect nearly got to his feet. I’m not quite sure this is the same video the OP is referencing. During this time, the suspect can clearly be seen reaching his hand around the back of officer 2. This is important because the witnesses claim the suspect was handcuffed, while officer 2 in his official statement claimed he felt the suspect’s hand around his waistband and believed he was trying to retrieve a weapon. It is not unreasonable to think officer 2 felt the suspect would succeed in breaking loose, and intended to kill him with his first shot to prevent him from retrieving one of the pistols from officer 1 (one of which was unsecured.)

    A couple of things here; 1, the officer’s are not talking to Aguilar when they are asking where the gun is, they are talking to each other. They were trying to secure the location of Aguilar’s gun, not intimidating the suspect.

    2, officer 1 was not aware that it was officer 2 who shot him; in fact, officer 2 claims that the suspect had his hand on the barrel of his gun and was attempting to wrest control of it from him when the ND occurred, and apparently GSR analysis confirms this. The gun likely malfunctioned because of this intervention from the suspect, which means he WAS responsible for shooting officer 1, according to the felony assault rules.

    3, the 2nd shot from officer 2 @1:50 (the one when he is laying on the suspect’s chest) did not actually strike the suspect; the M.E. found no entry wounds on the front side of the cadaver. That shot was an ND, caused by the suspect’s continued resistance. Officer 1, who again was SHOT IN THE STOMACH, reacted to that gunshot with the “execution,” 4 shots in the back which also caused 2 ancillary wounds to the extremities according to the M.E. It is not unreasonable to assume that officer 1 felt the suspect had either gained control of officer 2’s gun or had yet another weapon, and reacted by using deadly force.

    The :20 second mark, it’s not clear at all that there isn’t a gun in that hand. In fact there is an audible “clank” that seems to coincide with the final blow, and then the officer reaches underneath the suspect to retrieve the firearm; are we saying the cops put that loaded gun under there where this resisting offender could possibly get it just so they could pretend to smack his empty hand just in case somebody was filming it? Let’s try to think about this, guys, that is absurd.

    “WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU PLACE AN UNKNOWN PISTOL IN YOUR BELT IN THE APPENDIX POSITION WITHOUT A HOLSTER?” Are we ignoring the fact that at that point (00:30) the officer believed the suspect was under control, and had begun to reach for his cuffs, fully expecting to place the suspect in custody without further incident? It almost seems like you purposely jump around through unrelated scenes to purposely muddle the timeline.

    At 0:34, the officer glances quickly over to the right, and then quickly reengages the suspect. Not sure how you are seeing that as lack of SA, as the people filming were, in fact, the only other people on the scene, and the officer seemed to identify them just fine. And with that you’ve also proved that the officer’s knew there were witnesses filming BEFORE they made the decision to use lethal force. Kind of makes the whole “planter gun” conspiracy fall apart, if you ask me.

    I think there is a disturbing trend to assume police are simply executing these suspect’s, without any appreciation of the reality of what is actually happening in the films in question. These cops were originally not charged, and I’m convinced that was the right call.

    I can make a video to lay out my arguments in detail, if you all would like. Or not, whatever.

        • How is this a “mindblow”? Looks more like low production value FUD with awful understanding of geometry and angles.

        • MDS;

          Great, then I’m sure you will be able to offer a number of well reasoned arguments as to how I’m wrong. /sarc

        • You’re not wrong, you’re just a gullible bootlicker. The video is wrong:

          1. Everything leading up to the shooting is conjecture and allegations, attempting to taint the circumstances of the actual alleged crime (the unjustified shooting). Nothing that occurred before has any relevance to the charge, therefore it is pure emotional baiting for the pigsuckers (he deserved it, yadda yadda).

          2. The video disputes the claim that the victim was “moving towards the fence”. Basic geometry dictates that, since the fence is parallel to the road, unless the victim was walking along the double yellow line or to the left, he was “moving towards the fence”. A desperate grasp at straws.

          3. The most egregious claim is that the victim was somehow swinging his knife and rushing the cop when he was shot, when the video shows absolutely no attempt by the victim to swing or rush the pig. The ragdoll animation claims the simple winging of the arms while walking is a “swing of the knife”. Laughable. In essence the video argues that being merely within 10 feet of a cop while holding a knife is a death sentence. I have no doubt cops believe this, but that just proves they are murderous scum.

          4. The rest of the video is just rambling about lack of cameras before the shooting, so it’s just irrelevant drivel as per #1.

        • I said “well reasoned,” not “devoid of all common sense.” He WAS walking along the yellow line at the moment of the first shot. Your “basic geometry” would apply to the fact that the suspect started 30 feet from the officer, and ended up with 10 feet of him; he “moved closer,” by all objective mathematical standards. He did swing the knife from behind his back to the front right before he was shot, that and the veer leftward are clear right there on the video. The officer actually held his fire for 10 feet TOO LONG, gave the suspect every chance to drop the knife and surrender, to the point of endangering himself and his partner. I guess you are dismissing the death of Pablo in the appendix and assuming all knives are made of rubber and can’t harm a cop. I would remind you that the suspect in the Mexico incident was not on any drugs, he was simply a determined criminal; still he managed to stab 6 officers, killing 1, while being shot 4 times.

          Not that any evidence from the real world would convince you the BLM movement is the scam it is; I’m not THAT stupid…

        • Moving the goalposts, I see? I am only talking about the victim’s relative movement with regards to a fence, not the pig. Why are you changing the subject?

          Let’s talk distances. You claim 30 feet and closing to 10 feet. That is absurd. 10 feet is a little over 3 yards, much less than the length of a cop car, and in the video you can clear see the victim was at least a car length away from any person or object. And of course, he made no indication of lunging or attacking anyone… but that’s a well-established point.

          So you claim the pig actually held fire for too long? There were over a dozen cops on the scene and they all managed to hold fire, so what’s the deal here? CPD is either mostly incompetent, or this one cop is a murderer. Pick one.

          Does your common sense always involve emotional baiting with events that are entirely irrelevant to the shooting? How hard is it for you to understand that his alleged crimes are inconsequential to what happened on video? Your attitude confirms yet again that pigs are simply looking for an excuse to murder people they dislike.

        • I AM talking about the suspect. You are really insisting that he didn’t clearly veer to the left?

          The 10 feet measurement is taken from the indictment itself. When the defendant exited the vehicle he was at least 30 feet away (2 cop cars) and when he was shot, as per the indictment, he was 10 feet away.

          The defendant was the only officer in a position to safely shoot the suspect; his partner was almost directly behind him and none of the other officers had yet disembarked from their vehicles. Where do you get the fantasy that there were 6 officers standing in a circle with their guns drawn?

          He absolutely made every indication he was going to advance toward police as he had been for nearly the entire pursuit, every event of which is absolutely relevant to the justification for lethal force as per GrahamVConnor. “Totality of the circumstances.”

          You are terrible at this.

        • The victim didn’t veer, he turned because he was shot. As the DA put it, he jerked and spun upon being hit. Veer implies he changed his direction of movement towards the killer, that clearly did not happen. By the way, the indictment said he was 12 to 15 feet away, not 10 feet.

          If you look at the video there were multiple cops already out of their vehicles. Nowhere did I say, standing in a circle, or “6 cops”.

          >He absolutely made every indication he was going to advance toward police as he had been for nearly the entire pursuit

          You just made this up to bait the bootlicker crowd. If he actually did attack police earlier, as you claim, he would have been dead before this. Your “totality of circumstances” defense rests on made-up bootlicker gossip, nothing more.

        • Apparently “gossip” is enough to make someone who is clearly veering to the left look like he is strolling toward a fence with his hands up. I don’t know what to tell you, I even play it backward and forward over and over again so you can see the pivot in all it’s glory.

          In your factless, emotion ridden rant you actually implied their were 12 police on scene who could have shot, I was being generous. And even if that were true, I’m right that there was only one who could have SAFELY shot the suspect; think “rule 4.”

          If it is so important to you to crap on American policing can you please finally pick a legitimate incident of police abuse to go on about?

        • >clearly veering to the left

          He was walking straight. Even that lame bootlicking video admits this. So where do you get this?

          >hands up

          Nobody ever said that, you’re just making stuff up again.

          >safely shot the suspect

          The fact that this man walked past numerous other cops who held fire means your statement is pure make-belief. Moreover, all the cops were to the victim’s left hand side. If this shoot was done “safety” as you say, then all the other cops *could* have also shot safely, but chose not to.

          >If it is so important to you to crap on American policing can you please finally pick a legitimate incident of police abuse to go on about?

          No need, found one right here. But don’t worry, there will be plenty more after this one. American pigs are ruthless gangsters, after all.

    • >officer 1 was not aware that it was officer 2 who shot him; in fact, officer 2 claims that the suspect had his hand on the barrel of his gun and was attempting to wrest control of it from him when the ND occurred, and apparently GSR analysis confirms this

      Shockingly, gunshot residue will be deposited on the hands of a person that was shot in the back when his hands were handcuffed behind his back.

      No doubt you will consider this ineffectual, panicky squirming in response to having a gun shoved in his back to be a “felony assault”.

      By the way, do you realize that you cherry-pick the story of whichever cop suits your narrative at the time? The fact that the two cops cannot get their story straight should work against the cops, but never let that stop the bootlickers. 🙂

        • Really? How do you figure that? Because one cop said he believed so, contradicting the other cop? The video shows one cop applying the handcuffs, and the suspect’s hands were behind his back the entire time, so in spite of the obscured view of his wrists, all evidence shows the victim was handcuffed.

        • Indeed. This suspect is still dangerous.

          And a newsflash to those who’ve never actually fought anyone: a suspect can still be dangerous even if they are handcuffed. One of my partners at work got his arm broken by a handcuffed suspect while he was trying to drive him to jail.

        • So now he was handcuffed, but that doesn’t even matter even though the chance of a handcuffed suspect actually wrestling for a gun (i.e. the central point of the bootlicker league) is practically nil?

        • If you look closely at the 1 minute mark & just after, you can clearly see Aguilar’s hand on the cop’s back, then his forearm against the fence or gate or whatever it is. This is just before the first shot is fired. No question that Aguilar was not handcuffed at this point.

          Can’t say where Aguilar’s other hand was or what it was doing at the moment the first shot is fired. I can say this will be a polarizing video, as evidenced by the comments here. Glad I won’t be on the jury…

        • Then it’s even more clear cut. Aguilar’s right hand was nowhere near any gun. And confirm the cop on the right is lying through his teeth about fearing about losing control of his gun, as that gun was clearly in his right hand and nowhere near Aguilar’s hands.

    • ^THIS

      I’d “gift wrap” the thugs body in used toilet paper and drop it on his family’s taxpayer-financed Section 8 doorstep with a note that reads “Feliz Navidad”

    • By that, do you mean give the cops a 48 hour cooling off period to spin their story, hire a PR firm, slander the victim, then hire a cop-friendly DA to manipulate a grand jury into refusing to file charges?

      Waiting for the “good cops” to condemn this in 3…2…1…

        • Translation: the government is free to extra-judicially execute anyone they dislike without due process.

          America, land of the free. 😉

  15. I Used to follow this site i am now deleting it from my favorites tab. The guy had a gun and continued to fight with the police after one was shot. You really think “mr. aguilar” wouldn’t have snatched the life of these cops given the chance? Good bye Nick i will miss your review

    • Jeff I agree 100%.. One thing is cop bashing, (which goes on a lot here) another thing is defending some POS gangster who wouldn’t think twice killing those two cops or anyone else. F this place. I’m done

      • “Goood let the hate flow through you” If you cant have a reasonable conversation about you and your buddies “thin blue line” the gtfoh. You’re not here protecting and serving citizens but rather detaining and sending em to the gulag or they meet the ballistic threat of a handgun. Yes there are dangerous people on the streets, but they have drilled a mindset into your ranks that we are citizens and you are soldiers, you’re not soldiers, you’re supposed to be “peace officers” . Alot of you are good guys, but there will always be a couple to dismay the ranks, instead of protecting someone who is obviously corrupt, call em out and show the people you really do have their backs.

    • Yeah, this blog is dead. Except for the keyboard fantasy anti-LE trolls. Pro-criminal. Holder likes reading this stuff.

    • I don’t know why you feel the need to slam ttag for posting the info, I wrote it as a ttag reader. Feel free to disagree with me, it won’t hurt my feelings.
      One thing to note is that aguilar was changed from “known gang member” to “transient”.
      Just because someone in a position of authority labels a person in a certain manner does not make it true
      Remember the founders of this country were labeled “terrorists”, “traitors”, and “rebels” no doubt

    • It’s pretty sad that you seem to actually believe that someone simply labeling someone as a gang banger means the law enforcement gets to kill that person at will.
      Oddly, when you get labeled as the gang banger, for belonging to the NRA or other pro-gun organization, your tune will suddenly change.
      Membership is groups, even illegal and criminal groups, such as criminal gangs, is not license for law enforcement to execute those members.

    • When you are being attacked by two steroid addled armed thugs fighting back is the course of action by a reasonable man.

      • Shoot em in the face 400yd out with reduced likelihood of being caught. Just joking. But if the incident really is cold blood murder by cops, somebody better remind them that they need to keep within their lines to deserve our tax money and how much we’ve been told to rely on them

  16. i LOVE these kind of Forensic Analysis of a Criminal incident. How many times have we seen a video of a small part of an incident from one angle? How many times have you watched a football game and seen a call overturned because ONE of the multitude of camera saw the ball come loose, touch the ground or cross the plane of the end-zone?

    Want to talk about an officer involved shooting where the perp was shot and killed while laying on the ground? MURDER everyone cried. But ONE photo showed the individual laying on his stomach with a gun in his hand pointed in the direction of the officers.

    So quit playing “Jump to Conclusions” until you know all the facts. As Mark Twain said “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”

  17. According to the OC Register, LASD has identified the stainless slide pistol (which looks like a Taurus POS Millenium) as belonging to Aguilar, the perp. Not sure if that is verified through Internal Affairs or not, but it does appear Aguilar was armed. However the stainless gun was not fired and the round that hit Cop 1 was fired by Cop 2. Not sure if Cop 1 knew where the round came from, he might have supposed it came from the perps gun (assuming it was not a plant gun and was in Agulars waistband the whole time.)

    Another big payout from the taxpayers to the dead gang bangers family. Both cops would have been better off stepping back and TASING that gang punk. But they lost their tempers, which is why fighting with cops up close and personal is always a bad idea.

    • Was that stainless gun purchased at a gun store by Agilar? If not then how could they possibly verify this?
      I don’t trust a definitive answer to that question unless they have a 4473 with Aguilars name and that pistols serial number. Otherwise it could have been sourced from anywhere and there’s no way to PROVE that it was in his possession, unless you 100% believe the officers conflicting stories..

  18. Constitution Warrior and others makes some good points. This was a snippet of video which did not show the entire incident, and only from one angle. The suspect that they are struggling with had a gun initially. At least as far as we know.

    I’m not going to struggle with a suspect armed with a handgun for long. That’s someone who very well might get shot in the back. It’s easily to vilify the officer for the negligent discharge. Consider that the deputy was struggling with the suspect while he had the gun in his hand. The suspect may very well be guilty of shooting Officer #1.

    There’s more to this story, especially when the initial contact is concerned. What was the probable cause, if any, for contacting Aguilar? How did Aguilar end up on the ground? What kind of resistance, if any, did Aguilar offer? Did the police know about Aguilar’s gun, if it was actually his, prior to wrestling with him? Do we have any other angles of the incident?

  19. I’m not commenting except to say I’ve seen far worse this year-selling baby body parts for one. Oh yeah-the po-leece ain’t your friend. But please don’t celebrate criminals as heroes…

  20. The FIRST questions that should be answered BEFORE anyone comments on the officers actions is “what was Aguilar’s ‘immigration status'”? Is he an “illegal alien”? One of Emperor Obama’s “DREAMERs” perhaps? Was he a member of El Norte/MS-13 etc? Was he a “convicted felon” who should’ve been deported that “possessed a firearm” illegally but was allowed to stay in the USA?

    I will reserve MY judgement on the officers actions until ALL the aforementioned questions are answered because if he was just one of the above I say “GOOD RIDDANCE” to the border-jumping piece of crap.

    • How is that the first thing that needs to be answered? Best or worst case, it would change nothing. The only thing that matters is what happened in this confrontation.

      • Uh, it changes EVERYTHING! If this POS was “known to police” and had a history of committing violent crime while in the USA “illegally” I would rule what the cops did a “public service” and award them an extra week of paid vacation.

  21. That’s a lot of speculation, none of it factual. The suspect was continuously fighting, even after the deputies warned him not to fight or he would be shot. The fact is he was illegally resisting arrest and was armed. He could have surrendered peacefully, but he didn’t. He continued to fight the whole time. This was a justified shooting. As in all cases, the suspect, the thug, was in control of what will happen at all times. He just made the wrong decision to fight the police when the police know you are armed. Darwin Award Winner to be sure.

    You make much of placing an unknown gun or what you think is an unknown gun in a waistband, but that is irrelevant as to whether the use of deadly force was justified. An armed combative subject resisting arrest is sufficient justification for use of deadly force.

  22. It is also readily apparent that there was no planting of the gun on the suspect. Yes, the suspect’s gun was moved a couple of times, but clearly not maliciously. After being shot, he secures it, he then removes it, then places it again in his belt, this time in back, then it falls out again. Saying this is “planting” it or moving it is dishonest. Let’s see you be shot and fighting to subdue a suspect and check if you do everything perfect.

    There is no case here and you make yourself the fool for saying so. You give the People of the Gun a bad name.

    • Not all cops are scumbags, how do I know? In the late 90’s I put one in prison and I’m not law enforcement of any kind. The POS targeted me (but I was a lot smarter than he was & always a step ahead of him), he was a supervisory officer, second in command of his department, sure he had a few cronies (3 of them) but the rest of the department was competent, honest, and dedicated to the community. Who do I blame for the few crooked cops in every department? The unions, the elected politicians, the city/town attorneys, labor lawyers and the administrative law judges (that hear employment cases) of course, those who settle cases rather than litigate them like when a department tries to terminate an officer and is stymied at every turn. In my case the department tried to fire the POS twice before but were forced by the courts to take him back, both times he got a monetary settlement (paid for with MY property taxes) and immediately pissed it away on booze and drugs (sadly his scheme involved using his Vietnam veteran’s “status” to scam the system).

  23. Here in IL the cops could have just demanded to know if the suspect is armed. Since NRA contract lobbyist Donald Todd Vandermyde put Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties of 6 MONTHS or 1 YEAR in jail in hick Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 carry bill, then you must answer or face arrest. Then the cops can lie and say you “resisted” when they “attempted to place you under arrest.”

    Case closed. Legalized murder with legal cover in IL’s “NRA backed” carry bill thanks to NRA’s pet rat Vandermyde. Have Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA-ILA done a resume check on Vandermyde for criminal associations? His former boss William Dugan at the Intl. Union of Operating Engineers local 150 was convicted by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in 2010. Wonder if that’s where Vandermyde cozied up to the police unions?

  24. Wow. What a deranged interpretation of that video. Yet more proof that Robert and a lot of the regular commenters on this blog are anti-police degenerates.

    By the way, I want to thank Robert’s fellow tribesmen for making America look more and more like Mexico.

  25. Hmm.. very hard to tell what happened here. I’d like to point out that the metal clanging heard when the officers were striking Aguilar’s hand may have been made by the baton itself. It was the collapsible style of baton, and we could very well be hearing the telescoping portions banging together, or even the butt of it striking the pavement. I also find it a bit hard to believe that the officer who shot his partner didn’t realize it. Even with adrenaline pumping, I’m pretty sure you’d feel the recoil, and .40 cal isn’t a pussycat round; it’s got some thump. I also find it a bit on the ridiculous side that they asked for the address over and over, and over and over bystanders told them before they radioed it in, almost as if they weren’t calling in the location on purpose.

    I’m not a cop, I don’t have to deal with the struggles they face on a daily basis, but in my opinion, mistakes were most definitely made. Unfortunately, it cost this young man his life. No he shouldn’t have struggled against the cops, but he remained (mostly) calm, and told them he didn’t have a gun and that he didn’t shoot that officer. I don’t know what to think, honestly. The only thing I can think is that I’m glad I don’t live in LA, and I will continue harboring a healthy mistrust of police.

  26. I reckon Mr. Aguilar shouldn’t have been resisting arrest. After all the second guessing the basic facts are that he was armed, he was resisting arrest, and he got dead as a result.

    • Bingo. All true–known gang member with long arrest record at ripe old age of 23 (OC Register), armed, resisting, and got dead. Bottom line. Read no further, that says it all.

  27. Among fawning cop defenders here, we see the traitor baby boomer element within the concealed carry movement that got us Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 carry bill in 2013, thanks to his sidekick NRA contract lobbyist Donald Todd Vandermyde, pet rat of Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA-ILA.

    In order to be an ignorant hick who thinks that people deserve to get executed in the street without trial, similar to the operation of the south American death squads of the 1970’s, several traits are generally pre-requisites:

    Be a white baby boomer born before 1964
    Live in a mostly white small town
    Believe that the police are your friends, because you went to high school with them
    Possess a deep seated sense of insecurity, combined with a chip on your shoulder against every one and everything around you
    Have a belief in Klan law versus real law (example: Duty to Inform won’t be a problem for me, all the cops know me around here, and I’m one of the good guys)
    Have a need to look down on others, combined with a childlike ignorant belief that all persons who hold any sort of public position from librarian to cop are smarter than you

    In short, be like Richard Pearson of ISRA, a Good Old Boy with a Masonic ring, one of the “men” who sold out Otis McDonald and all the gun owners in IL, including his own membership.

  28. I learned the Noel Aguilar had a long criminal record and was a gangbanger, a violent one. As far as I’m concerned, good riddance.

    Cost of keeping felon in prison: $41000/yr
    Price of 3 9×19 rounds: ~1.00

Leave a Reply

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