Champommier Trial -- Day One
Champommier's case, like that of DJ Henry, Joey Pinasco, and several others, involves the car-as-deadly-weapon scenario, as one of the fundamental issues involved in justification for the use of deadly force.
The day began with eye and ear-witness testimony as to the general congestion of the area on that Thursday evening, June 24, 2010 at 9:30 PM, the general number of shots heard, the fear felt by passersby by the actions of the shooters, all in plainclothes and without discernible identifying information as law enforcement agents. A picture of chaos in the public parking lot where Champommier was killed emerged. The issue of policies and procedures utilized by the "multi-jurisdictional task force" was also scrutinized by plaintiffs' attorneys.
The plaintiffs called their forensic accident reconstruction expert who testified to the broken glass pattern and the skid marks. His opinion was to conclude that Champommier had hit the brakes, most likely to avoid injuring the deputy that ran into the path of Zac's car and that the shot that killed Champommier, which followed shortly after, was rendered while Champommier's car was in a position of being either at a full stop or, at a maximum, going no more than 5 miles an hour. Forensic evidence put on by the plaintiffs showed that Champommier's car then sped away after he had been fatally shot through his driver's side window, when he succumbed to that gunshot wound a short distance later.
Stay Tuned
The plaintiffs' forensic expert also disputed the official account (see LA County Sheriffs Log 160, dated June 25, 2010) which described the sheriffs deputy that Champommier allegedly "rammed" as having been essentially tossed into the air by the impact and landing on the hood as "impossible" since there was no physical evidence that an over 240 lbs. man had damaged the hood of Champommier's car in any way. Not a dent, not a palm or finger print, not one bit of evidence that a 240 lbs. man had made contact with Champommier's car, one the apparent bases for use of deadly force against Champommier (i.e., defense of others).
The plaintiffs' forensic expert also alleged that evidence had been tampered with. Pictures of the shattered driver's side window glass taken both the evening of the shooting and the following day showed that a rivet that had allegedly been dislodged when Champommier's car finally crashed after he lost consciousness had been "placed" among the shattered glass of the driver's side window. The rivet was not seen among the glass on the pictures taken in the evening but was seen in the photos taken the following morning.
Lastly, the DEA agent responsible for Champommier's killing was called to the stand. He had to pass in front of Champommier's mom, Carol, on the way to the witness stand. This writer will not attempt to describe the scene since there are no words.
Champommier's killer will be first on the stand tomorrow. Not only will the car-as-deadly-weapon scenario be scrutinized as a legal justification for using deadly force, but Champommier's killer will likely be scrutinized as to whether or not he acted as a reasonable officer under the circumstances in using deadly force.
No comments:
Post a Comment