Trial Update Day Three

All updates taken from the United Citizens Against Police Violence page on Facebook.

Champommier Trial – Day Three

Testimony by Deputy: Deputy claims to have been struck by Champommier’s car in the public parking lot on the evening in question (i.e., June 24, 2010, the claimed impetus for use of deadly force on Champommier) when, while crossing a parking lot traffic lane, he had drawn and trained his weapon in the direction of his colleagues who were in the process of detaining Citizen. Testimony put Deputy’s weight at approximately 240 pounds at the time of the encounter. 

(Previous testimony had been given by Plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert who gave the opinion that it would be “impossible” for a man the size/weight of Deputy to not have caused some damage to the vehicle’s hood if what law enforcement reported to have happened in fact happened. Testimony also showed that there were no finger or palm prints on the area of the hood that Deputy claimed to occupy) 

Deputy described himself as ending up in a seated position on the car’s hood but was not specific as to whether he got off the hood before or after shots were fired by Agent. Plaintiffs’ counsel examined Deputy, who was presented with the information regarding the alleged injuries suffered from the contact with Champommier’s car. Deputy was apparently placed in the position by Plaintiffs’ counsel of having to admit that medical treatment rendered shortly after the event failed to detect injuries that would be anticipated when one is “rammed” by an automobile- No bruising; no contusions; no lacerations; no broken bones.

Testimony by Agent-Supervisor, described as the supervisor of the “multi-jurisdictional task force”: Agent-Supervisor testified that he has personally attended approximately 50 debriefings held in public parking facilities since Champommier’s killing, indicating that the practice continues to this day. (It would appear to this writer that the public should want this practice abolished or limited to disasters or instances public necessity)

Plaintiffs call expert in law enforcement policies and procedures to testify as to whether the conduct of law enforcement on the night in question aligned with the actual policies and procedures. Witness testified that there was a series of critical and ultimately fatal mistakes made by law enforcement that resulted in Champommier's death. When counsel for the United States asked this witness what action should have been taken when Deputy was struck, policy expert stated that since it was apparent that Deputy was uninjured Champommier’s license plate should have been reported to Los Angeles Police who would have then investigated the matter versus ‘self help’ by undercover agents who would have then been deviating from their mission in order to deal with Champommier.

Stay tuned…..