It has been described by some as an execution.
Others have referred to it as “LAPD cop shoots an unarmed man”. And yet others remember the officer-involved shooting in April where the suspect, Daniel Hernandez, was shot in the head while he was lying on the ground.
The one truth in all of this is that Hernandez was killed on April 22, 2020.
But that’s where the truth ends.
What they all seem to conveniently forget is that Daniel Hernandez was reported by several witnesses to have been cutting himself, he was wielding a knife, he was acting psychotic, he continued walking towards a uniformed Los Angeles Police Officer while she gave him numerous verbal commands to stop.
All of this, while aiming her weapon at him.
He refused to communicate with the officer or anyone. He only stopped when he fell to the ground from being double-tapped by the officer’s firearm, then tried to jump back up to continue advancing.
What appears to have been a suicide by cop, some are now trying to profit from.
A chance encounter turns deadly
According to the Los Angeles Police Department, uniformed patrol officers assigned to Newton Division were responding to an unrelated call on April 22, when they came upon a multiple-vehicle traffic collision at the intersection of San Pedro Street and 32nd Street.
Prior to arrival, LA Dispatch received a call that the man who caused the crash was still inside his truck killing himself. On arrival, officers received information from people at the scene that the suspect who had caused the accident was armed with a knife and was trying to “cut himself” with it.
A radio call was then broadcast that an Assault with Deadly Weapon (ADW) suspect was still present at the location and armed with a knife. Because of the number of vehicles and victims involved, and because of the ADW suspect, officers requested backup.
The officers did not immediately observe the suspect and one of the officers began rendering aid to a victim of the traffic collision. Officer Toni McBride observed Hernandez, armed with a knife.
The suspect ignored the commands to drop the knife and advanced toward the officer, resulting in the officer-involved shooting.
In the video, you can clearly hear McBride ask for less lethal, such as a beanbag gun. But in what world do we live in where she is expected to wait until it arrives? Hernandez had already made the decision to continue forward.
Had he stopped, he would still be alive.
Fake news or journalistic malpractice?
In a time where it’s popular to be anti-police, CBS decided to stoke the already intense flames and distribute a mass disinformation campaign suggesting an LAPD cover-up, when the available evidence clearly shows otherwise:
…officers immediately began to concoct a plausible, but false scenario conspiring to cover up McBride’s wrongful misconduct by asserting Hernandez posed a threat to the police and/or public because a knife was recovered from the scene.
According to the lawsuit, the allegedly fabricated scenario “was designed to give the false and fraudulent appearance of justification for the use of deadly force when McBride and [fellow officers] knew none existed.as reported by several outlets, including Los Angeles CBS2/KAL9
The Free Thought Project took a different approach to sensationalize and profit off of the death of Hernandez with their usual anti-anything police, choosing to title their story: WATCH: Cops Publicly Execute Shirtless Man for Walking at Them from 30 Feet Away
A female officer is heard yelling something before the shirtless man turns and begins walking toward her. He does not appear to be holding or presenting anything in his hands that is large enough to see in the video. In fact, as he walks toward the officers, he wipes the back of his head, clearly showing that hand is empty.as reported by The Free Thought Project
In the video, Hernandez does wipe the back of his head with his left hand.
What about the right hand? The hand that held the deadly weapon? Even the guy that was live-streaming said he had a knife in Spanish, twice, once when Hernandez first appears and once after the shooting.
Another article by local writer Kate Cagle omits the most important facts but instead focuses on the streaming video of the shooting, and the officer’s father.
In the article: Family of Man Shot by LAPD Demands Justice, Cagle makes no mention that the “streaming video” was taken by a bystander, no doubt causing many readers to believe it must have been aired on an episode of Live PD.
Starting out emphasizing that “there’s no good way to find out your brother is dead, but watching it stream on Facebook live might be the worst”, she focuses on several key talking points for the Hernandez family, but intentionally leaves out the most important parts that led up to the shooting.
This is why people have lost faith in news coverage.
Cagle ends the hit piece explaining that McBride’s father is the director of the LAPD Union, important only because Hernandez’s supporters have found it important.
The article was meant as a fluff piece, rather than anything informative.
A department with over 10,000 officers, constant media scrutiny, a coward for a mayor and an unbelievably bureaucratic review process will not cover up for a 23-year-old officer if it was a bad shoot, no matter how much the media and the family try to suggest.
In fact, the way our society is today, her father’s “status” could even hurt her chances of getting a fair review. While he is currently 1 out of the 5 Directors for the Los Angeles Police Protective League union, Jamie McBride has been by far the most outspoken lately and caused many a rift within the ranks of the LAPD within the last month alone, he also successfully sued the LAPD for retaliation several years ago.
His responsibilities include representing 3 divisions out of 27.
Still a probationary officer, the actions that this P2 pup took to protect the lives of everyone on-scene that day in April will be far more scrutinized than any other officer to try and make it seem like a fair investigation has been conducted.
While I certainly agree that every police department needs rigid and independent oversight, it’s dangerous and irresponsible to have a board that has never been faced with a life or death situation.
It doesn’t take much with today’s social unrest to “justify” corporal punishment for an officer doing her job and protecting life, especially if it took another life.
The 5-member civilian review board of the Los Angeles Police Department consists entirely of mayorial political favors and community activists that are more concerned about social justice than about true justice.
At the very least, if a city doesn’t require some past law enforcement experience, they should require each board member to receive yearly use of force simulator training. It’s easy to arm-chair quarterback what an officer should have done differently if you’ve never experienced it before.
As Tim Lyons, a reporter in Florida noted on police training for civilians in 2009:
What they did teach was how fast bad things can happen and how easy it is to totally underestimate the dangerous difficulty of trying to use non-lethal means on an armed and irrational attacker who has no such concern.
Without that key ingredient to the body of people that lead the LAPD (the feeling that all officers experience), no amount of common sense or good judgment will ever be enough.
As Lyons takes his reader on an imaginary scene where their police officer son or daughter is now a dozen feet away from the out-of-it and angry man who is raising two knives and advancing, he sarcastically interjects that everybody who watches TV knows that a good cop has no fear and usually gets the job done with one coolly fired, perfectly aimed shot.
“Happens almost every episode”, Lyons quirks. “In the old days, the good guys could even shoot a gun out of a bad guy’s hand. How about trying that?”
While Lyons doesn’t seem to want his sons to be cops unless it is on TV with scriptwriters calling the shots, he hopes if JR is ever in a spot with a deranged drunk advancing with a knife he remembers what trainers teach: Shoot for dead-center and keep shooting until the armed guy is down.
And, like all decent human beings, if his kids don’t become law officers, he’ll expect them not to threaten cops by coming at them with knives or guns.
Lyons thinks that’s a pretty good thing to remember.
Use of force considerations
In 2017, the LAPD added an amendment to its use of force policy that requires officers to try to use de-escalation tactics to avoid shooting suspects.
That new policy read in part:
Officers shall attempt to control an incident by using time, distance, communications and available resources in an effort to de-escalate the situation, whenever it is safe and reasonable to do so.
Of course, the ACLU wasn’t fully satisfied about the policy addition.
In an April 18, 2017 recommendation, the ACLU wanted the LAPD to revise the use of force policy to emphasize that deadly force shall only be exercised when reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or appear impracticable.
In February 2020, the department issued a Use of Force Policy that was more aligned to the ACLU recommendations.
Use of De-Escalation Techniques. It is the policy of this Department that, whenever practicable, officers shall use techniques and tools consistent with Department de-escalation training to reduce the intensity of any encounter with a suspect and enable an officer to have additional options to mitigate the need to use a higher level of force while maintaining control of the situation.
One of the buzz words this past month, aside from defund the police, has been de-escalation. It’s easy to say all officers should de-escalate, it’s even easier to say that an officer should have de-escalated more after the fact, but the practicality of it is mirky at best when dealing with someone who won’t comply.
It’s a great rally call for police critics to come together, but its not a catch-all technique that can be sanctioned for the sake of not hurting an aggressor. Sometimes, people must be hurt to neutralize a threat and protect the innocent.
Sometimes, neutralizing the threat means deadly force.
de-escalation tactics and techniques are those actions undertaken by an officer(s) to avoid physical confrontations, unless immediately necessary to protect someone or to stop dangerous behavior while minimizing the need to use force during an incident when the totality of the circumstances and time permit.
Continued de-escalation was not practical due to the number of innocent bystanders and the unresponsive aggression demonstrated by Hernandez.
Would critics of this shooting rather have someone’s mother die at the hands of Hernandez, whether intentional or not, instead of Hernandez being held accountable for his reckless actions and stopped before anyone could be injured?
One de-escalation technique encouraged by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) is putting space between the officer and suspect. Given the situation as it was presented, McBride still tried to de-escalate with command presence, hand signals and audible commands.
She also can be seen in the video starting to slowly back up, but then she stops because of the innocent people around. She tried to put space between her and Hernandez, until that space included innocent people.
De-escalation is a great concept, but at what cost must that be achieved? McBride orders him several times to show his hands and to drop the knife, but he refuses to even acknowledge her.
He just continues advancing toward her firearm.
She held her ground and Hernandez kept approaching. How long do people think de-escalation should last? Until the suspect is on top of the cop beating the shit out of her?
Maybe just one stab?
No amount of de-escalation would have worked, because it wasn’t her choice to not de-escalate. It was his choice to ignore what the officer was saying and refusal to comply with the orders like a rational human being.
It would have been great if McBride would have been able to successfully de-escalate the situation, but you know what would have been even greater? Hernandez not posing a threat.
That is what got him killed. Not some imaginary white privilege that Hernandez’s family harps on in their petition to the City of Los Angeles.
No amount of de-escalation is justified when there is a presumed madman ignoring all commands from uniformed officers in a public area, where the threat of injury to any of those innocent bystanders would be imminent, or where any of those innocent bystanders could be taken as a hostage at any moment.
If McBride continued to back up, Hernandez could have used that to his advantage.
I think if she had given any ground and tried to put any more space between her and Hernandez it would have ended worse than it did, with more people injured, because he had already decided that he wanted to die that day.
Just because a person has a mental illness, whether as a verified condition or because of a traumatic event such as a traffic crash minutes before, should never be a reason for an officer to hesitate.
A mentally ill person can take a life just the same as a sane person can – and it should be of no concern of the officer to try to determine if the person is having a mental breakdown when lives are at risk.
As far as I’m concerned, any person that wields a knife and continues to advance on someone aiming a firearm at them is at least temporarily mentally ill.
That doesn’t mean the officer should let the suspect get away with murder.
The courts have held that officers should have the objective of protecting the suicidal or disturbed person, but not at the expense of other members of the public if the suspect appears ready to threaten harm to them.
A knife can be more dangerous than a firearm
There is no need to reload and no weapon malfunctions with a box cutter. A cut from a knife only takes 0.25 seconds to accomplish, so even an incompetent knife wielder can attack his/her victim at least 4 times a second.
LAPD says that Hernandez had a knife. The video shows he had a knife. His family has tried to downplay their version of the knife as being “tiny” and not a reason to be shot.
No one seems to deny that he had an edged weapon.
A box cutter was used to take over planes on 9/11.
The hijackers who seized the airliners on September 11 had used box cutters to attack some of the crew and passengers, according to government officials and accounts from passengers in-flight who phoned relatives before their planes crashed. A CNN report also said box cutters were found on other flights that had been grounded.
Objective reasonableness is the use of force standard
Courts have long upheld that even the anticipation that an unstable individual may engage in conduct that could pose a serious risk of harm to others may be sufficient to use deadly force to stop the threat.
The issue is not necessarily whether the suspect subjectively intends to injure a family member, neighbor, friend, or officer, but whether his actions objectively appear to threaten harm.
In Long v. Slaton, an 11th Circuit case, a Lauderdale County Alabama deputy sheriff was found to have acted reasonably in shooting and killing a mentally unstable man who took possession of a marked sheriff‟s cruiser when he was informed that he was going to be arrested, and began backing away.
While this is obviously less of an immediate threat than brandishing a weapon as Hernandez did, the court ruled that the suspect could have used the car to injure or kill someone else, especially since it cloaked him with the “apparent authority of a police officer.”
The officer has only a few seconds to be able to assess the circumstance, apply their understanding of law and policy, and do what they need to do to defend themselves and others around them.
McBride couldn’t back up any further than she already had. She couldn’t retreat or find cover because of the other people around and they were innocent bystanders that could have been hurt.
It would take a pretty selfish cop to only be concerned with herself, to run away at the first sign of danger, simply because of the anti-cop rhetoric that has been permeating over the last few years.
How much time do you need to react?
In 1983, a firearms instructor with the Salt Lake City Police Department conducted an informal range experiment that has become more legend than policy in police departments around the country.
Even though it has been referred to as the “21-foot rule” since its inception, 21 feet was never intended to be a rigid distance, according to Lt. Dennis Tueller.
It was never meant as a license to kill either, and being within 21-feet of a knife is not a green light to use deadly force, but it serves as a reminder of just how quickly things can turn deadly for the officer, or a bystander.
It was merely a starting point for important situational awareness.
Tueller likens the distance to that of a moving vehicle and following too closely. What may be a safe distance at 30mph would not be a safe distance at 70mph and everything should be taken with the totality of circumstances.
Action will always be faster than reaction. Every time.
A suspect can, from a static standing position, close the gap of a 21-foot stretch in 1.5 seconds is really all the 21-foot rule was ever meant to convey. Not that a knife-wielding suspect had to be within 21-feet, and certainly not that anyone with an edged weapon was fair game if they crossed an imaginary threshold of 21-feet.
In Buchanan v. City of San Jose, a 9th Circuit case, officers responded to an emergency call that a man was threatening a family member with a knife. When officers arrived, they saw Phillip Watkins, armed with a knife, begin advancing toward them “in a threatening manner.”
Starting from a distance over 130 feet, Watkins first walked toward the officers and then accelerated into a “trot,” which was described as a “fast” and “rapid” pace.
Still armed with a knife, Watkins ignored repeated commands to stop.
When he reached approximately 55 feet from the officers, they opened fire. Watkins traveled another 37 feet toward the officers before falling, even after being shot.
In their ruling, the court held:
The 21-foot rule provides that a person at a distance of 21 feet or less may pose a threat to the safety of an officer. It does not follow from this rule, or any other, that armed suspects never pose a threat beyond 21 feet.
Had McBride not acted when she did, or chose another option, Hernandez could have very well either hurt another human, jacked a car, taken a hostage… or all 3.
Courts have determined that the law on use of force does not require second-guessing and should be implemented from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.
In other words, it is not necessary that the feared threat actually be imminent. It is only required that the feared threat be reasonably perceived as imminent. The law does not require officers to make perfect decisions, it requires them to make reasonable decisions.
The fact that Hernandez presented a knife and refused to drop it on McBride’s command presence and clear audible commands, while aiming her weapon at him, gave corroborating evidence to witness statements that he was cutting himself.
If someone will injure themselves, there is a really good chance they will injure others.
Because misery loves company.
Less lethal options
McBride does call for less-lethal before shooting, usually referring to a beanbag shotgun, but none is produced by the time she was required to act.
Tasers are also a great tool.
But, that’s all they are, a tool in a tool bag full of resources at the officer’s disposal.
Each tool has its use, and with the less-than-reliable history of the taser, it would probably not be a good idea to rely on the use of a taser when there are so many variables to consider like the number of bystanders that would be injured if the deployed taser didn’t work as intended.
Probably the most famous instance of a Taser being unsuccessful is Rodney King, but surely technological advances have made Tasers more effective than they were in 1991?
Two examples of non-functional Tasers that come to mind in recent history would be March 2015 and August 2019, where officers used a Taser that didn’t work.
On March 1, 2015, while responding to a robbery call in skidrow, LAPD officers approached Leundeu Keunang who was accused of using a bat to assault the victim.
The confrontation ended with Keunang being shot dead by officers.
The shooting attracted national attention over criticism that officers were too quick to use their guns during a routine disturbance call. What wasn’t as widely reported, was that officers had tried to restrain Keunang with a Taser…
On August 12, 2019, after a Los Angeles police officer was struck in the head with a metal pipe by Timothy Camon, they attempted to use a Taser and beanbag rounds numerous times unsuccessfully.
Looking at the way the officers reacted, this incident would probably still be going on today had Camon not generously just give up and surrender as he did.
The company that makes Taser, Axon, boasts an 80 to 95 percent effectiveness in the field. The high success rate by the manufacturer is because they also cite officers brandishing the less-lethal weapon as a deterrent, without actually firing.
Simply showing a Taser really wouldn’t have accomplished anything for an individual like Hernandez, particularly when he already had a firearm pointed at him.
Research conducted last year shows that Tasers are only effective 54.7% to 79.5% of the time, with LAPD reporting a success rate of only 57.1% in actual use studies.
Referring back to Buchanan v. City of San Jose, the court also supported the officer’s belief that a Taser would not have been an appropriate option under these circumstances against Watkins.
Citing Scott v. Henrich, another 9th Circuit case, the Buchanan court further stated:
officers “need not avail themselves of the least intrusive means of responding to an exigent situation; they need only act within that range of conduct we identify as reasonable”
If you were one of the innocent bystanders on-scene that day, would you want to take a 50% gamble that someone with a knife and displaying the aggressive body posture that Hernandez was, would be stopped?
Critics are demanding that McBride shoot Hernandez with a Taser that has a 50% success rate on a grown man who refuses to comply. If it didn’t work, her response time would be at least cut in half causing her to face certain injury from the blade that Hernandez wasn’t trying to hide.
Here comes the lawsuit
What’s a police shooting without someone trying to profit from it?
According to Narine Mkrtchyan, the attorney who filed a lawsuit on June 10, Hernandez was unsteady on his feet, “posing no threat to anyone,” when McBride fired.
You can clearly see that Daniel Hernandez gets out of a totaled car, walks shirtless, with hands to his sides, he’s not making any gestures that’s threatening to anyoneNarine Mkrtchyan, attorney
In actuality, Hernandez wasn’t “unsteady” on his feet.
He was walking with a purpose.
Anyone who has ever dealt with an aggressive person could see that he was confidently strutting towards the officer with his chest bowed out and his arms extended out in an attempt to be intimidating enough to be shot.
This is sometimes referred to as a pre-attack indicator.
Each step he took would shift his shoulders, left to right, in some kind of pumped up signal that he was a threat like a peacock does. The best way to accurately describe this in words would be to describe a cocky weightlifter exaggerating their muscles (known as the invisible lat syndrome, or ILS).
Given the totality of circumstances of the way Hernandez boldly moved toward McBride without stopping, coupled with witness reports that he was cutting himself before the officers arrived and the fact he did have a knife, Hernandez left McBride no other option than to shoot him to prevent anyone, including herself, from being harmed.
A cop with extracurricular hobbies
Mkrtchyan also told NBC LA McBride’s off-duty shooting photos were part of what led to the claim in the lawsuit that LAPD and the City of Los Angeles…
managed police officers unlawfully, by permitting, the use of unnecessary, unreasonable and deadly force by… assigning defendant McBride, among others, whom LAPD knew, or who reasonably should have known, to have reckless violent and homicidal propensities to duties which enable such deputies to continue to use unnecessary force.
So, basically, an attorney who claims to be pro-civil rights is attempting to shame a citizen of the United States for not only exercising her First Amendment right to display photos of what she does; but also admonish McBride for exercising her Second Amendment right in the course of perfecting her job skills and participating in a competitive sport?
“That was very shocking to me,” Mkrtchyan said. “I’ve never seen a police officer enjoying shooting to that degree and joking about it.” A very odd thing to say from an attorney who likens herself to Athena, the Goddess of War.
In a more likely scenario, the attorney is setting up a case she knows is baseless by interjecting false pretenses and fake outrage by attacking her prey with claims that she smiled while taking photos in her off time… so she must be a sociopath in her day job.
This is actually a common tactic by lawyers.
Mkrtchyan knows she has no case, so she diverts the attention to attack McBride personally because the shooting element of her case will fail. She also knows the City of Los Angeles will settle and she’ll get a payday with little work by making a lot of noise.
Don’t be surprised when McBride is portrayed as a white supremacist cop who only shot Hernandez because he was Latino. Nevermind about the razor in his hand.
This isn’t the first time Mkrtchyan has tried to ambush a case.
An attorney for Adon Howard, who successfully sued the City of Los Angeles in 2017 for his 2013 arrest, Mkrtchyan tried to ambush the case before it even started by asking the jury, do black lives matter?
It had nothing to do with the facts of the case, but the lawyer decided to put the racial and emotionally charged question in the jury’s mind before any evidence or testimony had been presented.
Sometimes, that’s all it takes.
Shooting targets is a lot different than shooting another human being.
I have scoured the internet for days and have yet to find Officer McBride enjoying shooting someone. I haven’t found any images of her posing with dead suspects or drinking from their skulls. I also have yet to find anything with her joking about shooting a person.
Perhaps Mkrtchyan would prefer all police officers to become lackadaisical retired on-duty cops, not doing anything but catching the bare minimum calls and dying on command?
She wouldn’t need to look very far, as there are plenty.
However, Toni McBride does not appear to be one of them.
Inexperienced, or just another diversion?
Mkrtchyan says it is significant that McBride was the only officer at the scene to fire a gun, and less-than-lethal options, like stun guns, were not employed.
Yes. There were officers on-scene that have been with the Los Angeles Police Department longer than McBride, but they arrived after the shooting. And it would have been reasonable for her to wait for those officers to arrive as back-up, had Hernandez even made an attempt to comply with her instructions.
However, only one other officer can be seen on video before the first shot is fired.
He appears to either have the same time-on-job or less, judging from the lack of patches on his shoulder and his passive demeanor. On arrival, McBride was essentially taking charge telling him to get cover and taking control of the scene like she could have even been senior.
Either way, the partner disappears until after the 5th shot was fired.
These are more experienced officers, probably, and they’re not resorting to deadly force.Narine Mkrtchyan, attorney
For all intents and purposes, there was no other officer on-scene, which is why no other officer resorted to deadly force. Even still, just because one officer does something that others don’t, that doesn’t make the lone officer inexperienced or hungry for murder.
In 2016, an 18-year-old McBride joined the LAPD Level III Reserve Academy (for unarmed officers) where she was selected to be the class leader. A year later, she continued forward to the Level II Reserve Academy, where she was named Top Shot of her class.
She then went on to the full 6-month academy, again being named Top Shot.
After the academy, while working patrol, she met Taran Butler who is arguably one of the best firearms instructors in the world and has been training and competing under his banner ever since.
While most departments only conduct firearms training once or twice a year, the courts have said that training should be conducted regularly and close enough to the incident in question so as to assist the officer in making proper deadly force decisions.
They have also said firearms training needs to be relevant and realistic.
Just because someone has more on-the-job experience, doesn’t mean they are more all-around experienced. Even with her 23rd birthday just 11 days prior, McBride was probably the most experienced officer on shift to handle that particular call.
While there were a number of innocent bystanders around, her experience in training at Taran Tactical made her uniquely confident in neutralizing the threat that was Daniel Hernandez.
Any other officer may have not taken action and would have been injured.
In her lawsuit, Mkrtchyan tries to explain that each of McBride’s deadly rounds lacked justification and recklessly endangered multiple bystanders.
The first 2 shots were intended for center-mass, which is the ideal place to aim because it’s generally the largest target on a person’s body. These shots are to neutralize the threat. Had Hernandez stayed down, there would have been no other shots.
But, he didn’t stay down.
The next 2 shots were fired because Hernandez tried to jump up and continue forward while making a grunting noise. The grunt was not a “pain grunt”, but more of an awkward angry monster grunt used to psych himself up for the next phase of his intentions.
The only thing missing was chest-beating that often accompany such a noise.
Because of the actions of Hernandez and his obvious determination to continue approaching the officer, McBride had no other alternative but to continue firing until the threat was over.
Hernandez had made it clear that nothing but death would stop him from reaching McBride.
There’s nothing in either video that a person with reasonable sensibilities (i.e. someone not trying to profit) would conclude that McBride had a lust for blood or was a trigger-happy cop that was out to kill people.
In fact, she tried to not shoot him until he created the situation to be shot.
Failure to render aid
In Zepeda v. City of Los Angeles, the court upheld that a police officer has no responsibility to come to the aid of another.
Our Supreme Court has made it clear that ‘[a] person does not, by becoming a police officer, insulate himself from any of the basic duties which everyone owes to other people, but neither does he assume any greater obligation to others individually. The only additional duty undertaken by accepting employment as a police officer is the duty owed to the public at large.’
It’s extremely difficult for a police officer to check on victims, render aid and do what needs to be done on an accident scene when there is an armed person in the area.
That was – and should have been – their first priority.
Not only to make sure the scene was safe, but to ensure Hernandez didn’t harm himself.
Rendering aid after being shot
The primary mission for any police department is to ensure the safety of those involved and those around. Once Hernandez was shot, he was still a threat until it was proven that he wasn’t.
The guy was uncooperative from the beginning.
Even after being shot twice, he attempted to jump up and continue forward.
It took 2 minutes, after the final shot, for the officers to handcuff Hernandez. Anyone that suggests they should have carelessly ran up to Hernandez immediately after the shooting, with no concern for safety, is just plain ignorant.
He still had control of the knife, whether he was alive or not.
McBride rightfully waited for backup to arrive to take control of the knife and Hernandez, while the officers held cover in case he tried to get up, again. If Hernandez would have stopped, when ordered to do so, McBride would have waited for backup to arrive so he could be taken into custody, alive.
A tragedy that shouldn’t have happened
The shooting was tragic. It was tragic for Hernandez’s family, obviously, but it was also tragic for McBride. No one goes in to work with hopes of shooting anyone.
Even a cop assigned to “Shootin Newton”.
Even a cop that shoots guns and takes pictures.
The family doesn’t see anything wrong with their brother acting like a madman or continuing to advance with a knife on an armed police officer, delaying the officer’s ability to render aid to the innocent victims of the traffic crash he caused.
It’s possible that Hernandez caused the accident, trying to kill himself.
It’s possible that Hernandez took his knife to try to kill himself, when the accident didn’t work.
It’s possible that Hernandez had the officer do what he was unable to do, when both had failed.
They want to railroad a young officer for doing what was needed to neutralize the threat of Daniel Hernandez. They want to squeeze any amount of dignity their brother still had, in the hopes of some kind of redemption that he doesn’t deserve.
I completely understand their grief, no one wants to bury a family member, but they should instead take their anger out on Daniel Hernandez, because Toni McBride did nothing wrong.
They don’t want justice. They want revenge.
While the checks and balances offered by the Force Investigation Division of Internal Affairs, the Office of the Inspector General, the Board of Police Commissioners and the Chief of Police are in place to administer non-political justice for Hernandez, as well as McBride on policy violations; the current social climate will no doubt prove to be challenging for any police officer to get any resemblance of fair and impartial judgment.
All the noise that’s being made could definitely have a damning effect on actual justice being served; especially with regards to the current Los Angeles District Attorney, Jackie Lacey, who is up for re-election this year.
As we see happening now in Atlanta, elected officials will do pretty much anything to stay in office and Lacey has already had 100 protestors at her home, most probably not even knowing why, demanding that she charge McBride and Officer Steven Ruiz.
Ruiz shot Alex Flores on November 19, 2019. Flores, just out of jail, ran at the officer holding a 7-inch kitchen knife. I believe a taser was deployed on Flores but failed to stop him.
People don’t want fair and they don’t want justice, unless it benefits them. They want all officers to be crucified if they happen to survive and their loved one didn’t.
That’s not justice.
What to do now?
- Be sure to share this on social media!
- Sign up for our email updates.