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

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

The Ruling

Media surrounds Carol Champommier outside the U.S. Courthouse.

The Honorable Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald issued his ruling at 11:00 a.m. today.

His judgement was in favor of plaintiff Carol Champommier in her wrongful death suit against the United States. 

We hope to link to or post his ruling in its entirety as soon as it is available.


Mother of teen fatally shot by DEA calls for policy changes - LAT

Band Geeks: 1  United States of America: 0 - Valley of the Doll

Judge awards $3 million in death of Granada Hills teen shot by DEA agent - DN

What Was it Like When Zac Had His Day in Court - StudioCityPatch

Justice for Zac Champommier - Joseph Mailander


Anonymous said...

Yes, ole Mrs. C received a judgement but remember, The Magistrate stated that the Authorities were NOT negligent in their actions. I'm sure the Mahistrate felt sorry for Mom which is understandable.

Anonymous said...

To Comment #1:
You need to remember that Judge Fitzgerald found against the defendant on the civil tort of battery - for this he awarded damages of $3 million to plaintiff.

The judge also found the defendants were not responsible for the civil tort of negligence.

This may sound favorable to the defendants - it is; and it is not.

Judge Fitzgerald found that the act of undercover officers meeting in a public parking lot with unmarked vehicles containing confiscated weapons, drugs and money and not providing any visible notice or warning to the public was not, in and of itself, an act of negligence responsible for the battery committed upon Zac Champommier.

Judge Fitzgerald's ruling has significantly narrowed down the area of focus in determining responsibility for the shooting and death of Champommier.

The spotlight is now focused on the men who discharged their weapons at Champommier. The ruling specifies their claim of self-defense does not meet the qualification to avoid responsibility for damages on the civil tort of battery.

You need to remember that it was not the job of this trial to make determinations on anything but the civil claims.

The ruling specifically clears out the territory of confusion surrounding the events and delivers a stand-alone case for criminal charges against the shooter(s).

When Judge Fitzgerald used the term "mistake", he did not mean that the defendants are without any criminal culpability for the death of Champommier.

In fact, the ruling tells us that the shooters do not meet the qualifications for acting in "self-defense" which earns zero criminal culpability for them. And the ruling tells us that they should not be charged with the highest degree of criminal culpability, for example Homicide 1st degree.

Therefore, the ruling has carved out the area from the "lowest degree of criminal culpability resulting in death" to the "2nd highest degree of criminal culpability resulting in death" as the "coat rack" for a criminal prosecution to search for the "best fit suit" of charges to levy against the shooter(s) and attempt prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers.

Remember also, that although Fitzgerald has only recently taken on the role of Federal Judge, one should not assume that he is fuzzy in dealing with the specifics or the nuances of determining degrees of criminality resulting in death. He spent some time serving in the same U.S. Attorney's Office which defended this case, and which devotes the bulk of its efforts to criminal prosecutions.