If you were a witness and/or have any information regarding the events of June 24th in the parking lot behind Chipotle Restaurant in Studio City (Laurel Canyon & Ventura Blvds), please contact us via email: justiceforzac@gmail.com

Monday, June 17, 2013

Summary of Closing Arguments

Seven days from now will mark the third anniversary of Zac Champommier's killing at the hands of plainclothes undercover law enforcement officers, as he drove through a public parking lot in Studio City. 

Below is an excellent summary provided by the growing-in-numbers activist group, United Citizens Against Police Violence.

The following is copied from the United Citizens Against Police Violence page on Facebook:

Champommier Trial Update: Closing Arguments (May 23, 2013)

The judge appeared to be looking at the events that transpired in the killing of Zachary Champommier by plainsclothes members of a multi-jurisdictional task in the light most favorable to Zac's killer. The standard set by Graham v. Conner essentially holds that Zac's killer had to have acted as a reasonable officer would have acted under similar circumstances.

In a nutshell, however, the judge appeared to be begging attorneys for the United States of America to highlight how the actions of Zac's killer could be deemed "reasonable":

1. The judge asked defense council to explain and support how Deputy's position was improved by the killing of the Champommier as he sat behind the steering wheel of his Toyota Corolla (Champommier was alleged to have struck Deputy intentionally, necessitating the use of deadly force. However, if Deputy was on Zac's hood when Agent shot at Zac, Deputy's position would arguably have been worsened by not only the risk of being shot but also by having the car turn into a runaway vehicle by the killing of the driver. If, however, Deputy was no longer on the hood when Zac was shot, wouldn't that be more akin to retaliation for having allegedly struck Deputy?)

2. Defense attorneys find themselves in the proverbial pickle as to the calculus of time taken for Agent (Zac's killer) to perceive the event, formulate the plan to use deadly force, draw his weapon, and execute his plan to use deadly force. If time is decreased, as was argued by defense when they claimed that Zac was traveling at a high rate of speed, Agent had less time to consider his actions. Here, less time equates with less reasonableness. If, however, the calculus of time is added to the notion that there was little or no risk presented to officers by Zac's car becomes more viable because that means Zac's car would have been stopped or nearly stopped for Zac's killer to have been able to shoot the first, and fatal shot while facing the driver's side door. Thus, the notion of retaliation for having struck Deputy becomes bolstered.

3. Judge stated that he had considered utilizing an "advisory jury" to aid in making some determinations in the case. (One may rightfully speculate that this move may be to get an objective understanding and determination of damages amounts)

Decision forthcoming. Stay tuned.


Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I am concerned about this tragic chain of events. Since I know some of the people involved that are under scrutiny for merely protecting the public, I have the right to post here. What if the kid had hit a civilian when fleeing the area after fearing his on-line antics were going to be exposed. How would this have been approached if the Policeman had been killed. Would the Champommiers have been sued for 10 million, no. This incident is very different from other wrongful death lawsuits. the kid endangered someone's life as opposed to an individual being unarmed and shot by Police etc. I have a lot of sympathy for the Mother, but hope she loses her lawsuit. Maybe she should have monitored her child's activity a bit more closely.

Anonymous said...

Oh dear. It seems 8:38 PM hasn't been following the case nor the evidence presented in court.

The evidence clearly showed Zac wasn't at fault.

Even Sheriff Lee Baca said so. "Zac did nothing wrong," is the direct quote.

I'm sorry your friends killed an innocent young man.

Peace be with us all.

Anonymous said...

If you had been injured or killed by Zac's recklessness, how would you feel. This Lawsuit will go nowhere and will break Mom's bank account.

Anonymous said...

Zac wasn't reckless, 8:53 PM

The overweight (240 lbs) officer lumbering through the public parking lot ran into Zac's car. He was reckless. The officer who shot at Zac while he was at a stop.... he was reckless.

The "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)"

Facts are stubborn things, 8:53 PM.

I'm so sorry. I know it must be painful dealing with the truth. It's hard reconciling people we care about, people we look up to, of being reckless and causing the death of an innocent young man. I'm sorry the shooter, and his friends and family will have to live with that truth the rest of their lives.

What a tragedy for everyone. :(

Anonymous said...

That's a great perspective from Mom's side of the bench. We'll see what happens. Once again, what if a family member of yours had been killed or hurt by Zac's recklessness. I'm sure you would feel different. His Mom obviously knew nothing about his secret lifestyle which contributed to this tragic chain of events. Now she wants to get rich off the Government. Greed is a horrible trait. I also lost a family member due to Police neglegance. After many round tables with my family, the answer was to protest but not sell out the memory of my Brother by making money off of his death. Nothing replaces life, especially money. Justice prevailed in a different way which we accepted.

Anonymous said...

Sure would be nice if these bloggers found someone else in which to tell their stories. They must be worried.

Anonymous said...

Facts are stubborn things. Hopefully the verdict will be based on facts. As to the poster who comments on Zac's lifestyle and his irresponsible behavior you are attempting, and poorly at that, to reframe this issue. The cops and feds out there are the people who endanger lives that evening, not this kid. Shame on you for suggesting otherwise, shame on you

Anonymous said...

Yet, if it was you Zac ran over, you would want justice. God bless the Policemen in this case. It is tragic but Zac had no business running over a cop because he was scared to be exposed. Sorry. Waiting for the verdict, hope it goes the Policeman's direction and then they counter-sue Champommier.

Anonymous said...

You would have to be hiding something to be "exposed". Unfortunately, 11:50 am, believed the story the sheriff's created...and still does. Zac's friends and family have never come forward and said Zac had "secrets". We loved him for who he was and he knew it. In addition, how can you use the words "run over" when there were no injuries to the policeman? The claims are invalid without evidence.