Napa Police reported a fatal officer-involved shooting at about 5 p.m. Friday in the Alta Heights neighborhood as the department’s Special Enforcement Unit was preparing to serve a search warrant.
Police said officers contacted a 41-year-old Latino male, the subject of the warrant, “and a shooting ensued.”
“Officers located a handgun at the scene of the shooting,” police reported in a Nixle alert.
The wounded man was taken by ambulance to Queen of the Valley Medical Center. Napa Police Chief Steve Potter said at 9:40 p.m. the man died from his injuries. His name has not been released pending notification of next of kin.
The shooting occurred in a residential area at the intersection of Spring Street and Hill Avenue. Streets were blocked off in all four directions.
This was the second police-involved police shooting to stun the Alta Heights neighborhood in less than five years. In November, 2010, a police officer shot and killed Richard Poccia on Meek Avenue, not far from Friday evening’s incident.
Police and medical personnel converged on Spring Street following Friday’s shooting. Several neighbors reported hearing three shots.
Medical personnel were seen performing CPR on the wounded man in a front lawn, while a motorcycle lay on the pavement at the intersection.
Police said Napa County’s Major Crimes Task Force will be conducting an investigation, with the Sheriff’s Office the lead investigating agency.
Potter came to the shooting scene. He said more information about the incident would be released soon
“What we’re trying to do is get facts for the people,” Potter said.
The name of the officer who fired the shots will be released within 48 hours, police said.
Several Bay Area TV stations sent news helicopters that hovered over the residential neighborhood.
Paul Reed, who lives on Spring, said he was in his backyard playing with his dog with he heard shots from the street. There was no mistaking the sound of gunfire, he said. “I knew what it was.”
Daniel Barragan, 17, who was visiting the area, surveyed the hectic scene of converging law enforcement. “It’s crazy,” he said.
Cathy Hart, a neighborhood resident, said she could hardly believe the scene before her. “This is a great neighborhood,” she said. “This is weird.”
Police set up lights so they could work in the area after darkness fell.
District Attorney Gary Lieberstein visited the scene shortly before 5:30 p.m.
Spring at Hill was blocked to all but family members.
The officer involved in the shooting was a member of the Police Department’s Special Enforcement Unit that is responsible for quality-of-life and gang investigations, police said.
Several neighbors said the motorcycle believed associated with the wounded man had been seen often in the area.
Sheriff’s deputies were seen guarding a house on the 1400 block of East Avenue, a block from the shooting.
The Poccia shooting in 2010 occurred while police were checking on the 60-year-old registered nurse who had been reported to be armed, emotionally disturbed and making threats. He was determined to be unarmed when he was shot, but officers said they thought Poccia was reaching for a weapon.
Poccia’s family later filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the city that was settled in January, with city agreeing to pay the family $700,000.
Sheriff and district attorney investigations absolved the officer of criminal wrongdoing in the Poccia case. Police settled the lawsuit without admitting liability.
(69) comments
alucawanza- well I never said anything about a trick shot or anything other than dead center, but i see that does not stop you from pretending I did. intention. I
It is interesting to me that you, Bystander, think my comment was directed to you. Here is an interesting article for you on police training. The most important fact is that a policeman has less than a second to decide how to react. It also emphasizes the importance of watching the hands.
BTW I never play pretend...
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/aug/23/police-deadly-force-training-academy-ferguson/
Police are trained to shoot center mass of the target. Most cops aren't trickshots; they don't aim for the kneecaps, and they won't shoot a gun or knife out of the hand of a delirious daytime psycho. They aim center mass for one simple reason - with a pistol, it's easy to miss
If my son were a cop, and in a situation like this, I would hope he would completely incapacitate the guy reaching for a gun in his waistband. The guy reaching for a gun means to kill. I don't know why there is argument about this.
NapaMark15 I assume you as are pretty uncomfortable with a discussion on the options of less than useful force since your latest couple of posts have introduced the idea that an officer drawing a gun 'is' lethal force. We are of course talking about the mindset of the officer alone at this point are we not? You seem to fantasize that this some game-ender to the conversation. Not at all, since I both dispute your claims about 'the way it is,' And I dispute the ideas and analysis that legitimates the notion that an officer be required, or allowed, to have the intention to only shoot to kill. So let me know if you are capable of a discussion on this issue or are more interested in creating imaginary roadblocks to it
I think less than lethal alternatives are wonderful, but not in a situation where a suspect has introduced lethal intent. When a suspect escalated force (i.e. just running, to reaching for a handgun), a cop will escalate in force (i.e. pull out his firearm, not his taser).
Drawing a handgun isn't lethal force and you're taking this out of context: "If an officer has his firearm drawn and intends to use it, that is lethal force. No "non-lethal" shots to the stomach."
What I'm saying is if he draws his hand gun and either intends to use it or does use it, it is with lethal force. Not shooting to wound, but shooting to neutralize a suspect.
Because you seem wildly confused, here is the definition for lethal force: "An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person."
Your wanting cops to shoot suspects in the stomach to wound them is lethal force 100% of the time.
Tautology central. Pretty good way to defeat an argument I suppose. Someone asks if it is possible to use less than lethal force and the answer comes back that it is somehow automatic that if an officer draws a gun it is lethal force. Says who? Why? I am sure we will not hear answers to that question since anyone who makes such a ridiculous statement is not likely to be able to defend it. What would lethal intent even mean. Why not empty the chamber at least if your claim of lethal intent is really accurate. People survive multiple shots often, so if your sadistic claim is true that it is the intention of the officer to murder people every time they draw there gun then why stop shooting at all? Can you post some information that backs up your claim that it is policy that an officer shoot to kill?
It is possible to use less than lethal force, but not in this situation. Using a firearm against a suspect IS lethal force, but lethal force doesn't always end in death.
In this situation, a suspect acted with lethal intent by reaching for a firearm and an officer responded by using lethal force, not unlike the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center use of force continuum teaches.
Yes, if a cop draws a gun in a situation like this, it is with with lethal force in mind. It means he is willing to fire his weapon at a threat to neutralize the threat, which may include killing them. Despite its name, it doesn't inherently mean the cop's objective is to kill him (or that it will kill him), just to neutralize it .. which is different from your fairytale world of shooting once to stomach to wound them …. which IS lethal force and has a high probability of killing them.
Quoting me accurately would be a nice touch. I clearly stated that i was suggesting it was only appropriate when a subject is not holding a gun, so that eliminates two thirds of what you wrote. Why is it you believe lethal force is somehow the definitive term since it only says an officer may use. It is is not mandated
Were not at war here, the rules are not the same.
If an officer has his firearm drawn and intends to use it, that is lethal force. No "non-lethal" shots to the stomach. No trick shots of shooting a tire out or shooting the laces off his shoes so he trips as he runs.
So if a cop is using his firearm, it is with lethal intent. This is followed by every department across the country.
Since a handgun was positively identified, a firearm is the only reasonable course of action for a cop, which, again, is lethal force. No tazers, no pepper spray, no bean bag rounds.
Shoot to wound? Police are taught to shoot at the largest area, the T spot, shoulder to shoulder, neck to stomach. Shoot to wound? How much outrage would there be if an officer shot at the arm to stop a suspect and the bullet went into a home killing a child? No repercussion. When an officer say put up your hands you do it, end of story. The debatable procedure then can be handled, with everyone alive. Get a grip people, right or wrong do what a police person says, then get your lawyer. This is once again a tragedy for all!
OK fire one shot in the mid section and close in quickly. And in terms of getting a grip, I suggest you do the same . No one has said the guy would not have better off complying with what were surely lawful orders, why do you think otherwise? However expecting perfect behavior of criminals is not really the question here in case you had not noticed. The question is solely about the police behavior in response to the given unlawful behavior
Again, shooting to the stomach isn't shooting to wound (not that "shooting to wound" is a real thing to begin with).
Tamir Rice … the boy shot by police in a Cleveland park was shot just once, using your newfound "shoot in the stomach to wound" technique. We'll just call this the Bystander 1 technique from now on (it's REALLY cutting edge…).
"Tamir suffered a single gunshot into the left side of his abdomen, near his navel. The bullet traveled through his intestines and lodged into the right side of his pelvis, causing hemorrhaging, according to the autopsy report."
Sounds like a great plan, Bystander. People wouldn't be upset about the Bystander 1 technique at all.
Well they might like it better than the NapaMark15 technique which insists that multiple shots are mandated through both physiology and a better sense of personal security
Lethal force is lethal force.
The keyword here is "lethal," but enjoy living in your fantasy world.
In your fantasy world where a cop shoots a person once who is holding a gun, who can still be holding the gun and able to use it while you propose the cops "close in quickly."
That sounds like a terrible idea. I'm not a cop, but I've seen first hand the effects of guns used on people, and I've used them on people myself having served in the military overseas. We had multiple enemies shot multiple times who were still perfectly capable of using their weapon. Similarly, we had multiple friendlies who were shot and still able to use their weapon.
Sorry all of this hurts your feelings, but this is reality.
Lets not forget that there was a lost life, who had a family regarless of why chose to run he was a human being and his family deserves sympathy, a comunity is in chock and they too deserve to try to leave some of this horrible happening behind and may his family find peace and answers, prayers to all who where involve in this tragedy!!!!
The negative comments that have no knowledge of law enforcement procedures are, well discusting,,,,,,
Amen rocketman
We do have knowledge of procedure and since the cops work for US we have every right to question them.
I have to say that as a mostly life long Napan, I am very disappointed in the lack of trust in law enforcement. I encourage you naysayers to NEVER CALL the police when you are in trouble.
So what were the police doing crawling through yards at 11:00 pm on Summit ave. last night, shining flashlights in windows and doors?
Their job?
Pretty sure that is a violation of their job description
I just knew some armchair quarterback would ask why they didn't "shoot to wound". Why dont you put your life at risk and try shooting someone in the arm or leg under extreme stress and make the decision in a split second while the CRIMINAL reaches for a pistol. They're taught to shoot center mass till the threat is nutralized for a reason.
Wow! What are the chances. Alta Heights, cops, 2 dead people. Should have bought a lottery tickets.
Whatever happened to "shoot to wound"?
They shoot to stop
Nothing ..... Because the only place that exists is in Hollywood. If an officer is using his/her firearm, it is with lethal intent. End of story.
Please step away from your favorite cop drama on TV and join the rest of us in the real world.
I see no reason for that position especially if a gun is not even drawn. One shot to the stomach is a virtual can't miss from close range. Fire once in the middle of the trunk and approach quickly with gun remaining pointed at the suspect to see if additional shots will be necessary. Hardly a fancy Hollywood trick. And in advance please save the comments from whomever that I need to be a cop to understand this. We as society make decisions as such and the claim that you need to be a cop to have a say in critiquing them simply feeds the insiders club routine that many Americans are growing increasingly wary of. I am not saying you NapaMark15, would necessarily make this argument, but I know it is typical of what i have heard here in the past
He had a gun on him and he was reaching for a gun. They cops told him to put his hands up repeatedly, and he didn't.
As such, as he reached for his gun, he was shot. This is a pretty standard outcome.
Firing once in the stomach/torso isn't exactly "shooting to wound," it's shoot into the cavity that contains nearly every vital organ. A fatality wouldn't be unlikely and there would be more cries for "shoot to wound!"
Furthermore, they aren't taught to just shoot once. If there is a threat they're eliminating, they're going to shoot in pairs in the event one round misses. Keep in mind this all takes place in less than half a second, and studies show it happens faster than the eyes can see the threat, the mind can process it, a cop can shoot a few times, and the information can be seen and relayed back to the brain to get relayed back to the fingers to signal them to stop pulling the trigger. It's a blink of an eye, some of which simply comes down to how our bodies operate.
I am not sure why questions always seem to stir many of you to simply repeat all the facts of the case. The question is simply about the abstract possibility of choosing to, or instituting policy if necessary, to shot once and to closely follow up with a possibility of more shots. As for your criticism that the person might die That is true, but one of the reasons I present it is the fact that you had already dismissed the idea of shooting at overly specific targets.. So the proposition was more about appeasing your overly strict criteria and still coming up with something short of the necessity of multiple shots which you seem to be insisting upon
As for the physiological stuff. I would suggest you are mixing two different phenomena. One is how quickly we can react to new input and the other is the initial intention of the officer. I assume you are not suggesting that an officer intention at the moment he 'begins to fire' is not prompted by his general attitude of using force?
"it is with lethal intent"
Otherwise known as a summary execution. I don't have a problem with the first shot to center mass. The person shot may or may not survive that first shot.
(Disclaimer: we don't know yet how may shots were fired by LEO in this case.) The problem I have is that LEO's are trained (in general) to empty their weapons into "the target" thereby doing everything they can to ensure the person does not survive. This is known euphemistically as "eliminating the threat". It also conveniently eliminates a witness, meaning that the public has only the LEO's version of the story.
BTW, it's true that even trained cops miss from time to time in the heat of the moment. This was a crowded residential area. Emptying the weapon at "the target" ensures the maximum number of stray rounds. If an innocent bystander had been hit this would be a rather different discussion.
That's a very difficult shot to make and while you are trying to "wound" a suspect he/she may be aiming to kill you. Once someone draws on a police officer their training today is to shoot at the central body/torso - bigger target.
The other side of this is the more we make guns available in this society, there will be more use of guns, it will become more violent, there will be more shootings of police officers and of unarmed or innocent civilians. The NRA and Republicans consistently try to kill any common sense gun legislation.
"Whatever happened to shoot to wound? "
There never was a shoot to wound by police, that's why you don't reach for a gun when they say hands up.
Gee and I thought you just needed to be out of danger
Police investigating the police. I wonder what the result will be.
CHANNEL 7 News reports that the Sheriff Dept. Took over the investigation 5 AM Saturday ? at what point I ask? The Sheriff Department stood idly by on the outside of the Crime Scene till I left around 7PM… So from what I could see along with the other Napa Alta Heights residents viewing the same, , Napa Sheriffs investigates, No…they were only standing on the OUTSIDE, this is while the police were all over the shooting scene. Think NOT!!!
You sounds lost and confused. This happened in NPD's jurisdiction. They're going to secure the crime scene, take statements, make measurements, etc.
This isn't the investigation, but securing the scene. The investigation will take months be done by the sheriff's office.
What are the facts first! Its amazing how many psychic's live here, knowing the answers, situation, and blame before all the info in available. Bringing back the witch hunts people? Innocent people get convicted from gossip, and assumptions. What are the complete facts first!
Napan1989.. So you're telling me Napa Pd investigates their own officer involved shootings? Hmm.. cops investigating cops. That'll work. I can already see how this will pan out.. officer paid leave, Napa DA will clear officer from shooting and a promotion for the officer will follow.
No, you totally missed the point of my comment. The LOCATION of the initial incident happened within the City limits, which means it happened within the City of Napa POLICE Department's law enforcement JURISDICTION. (Any online dictionary will provide you the meaning of that word.) How, if I may "quote" you yet again, does this lead you to thinking ... "I take it the Napa Sheriff was the party involved in the dead suspect"?
With respect to the family of the man who died, I need more information before I pass judgement on the situation, from both sides, was the man a fugitive, violent, suspected of harming someone, someone's child? Was he afraid of going to prison or back to prison, to many what ifs to decide until more facts are in, I will not jump on the wagon to assume that it was the PD who is at fault,
Eam, Napa S.O. and the Napa D.A. are "outside agencies" and past investigation have held officers responsible when errors or missjudgements have been made. The simple fact is that the investigating bodies understand something called THE LAW! The are privy to DEPARTMENT POLICY and training issues such as USE OF FORCE. Just because you or others do not understand or accept the outcome of an investigation does not mean it is a cover up or flawed. It most often means you or others did not have all the facts and knowledge of the laws. If you think our local agencies are so corrupt, next time you need help, call a crack head!
No we aren't privy but because we have all seen "investigating bodies" misuse and bend the law all over this nation and because officer related shootings are not too common, it underscores the usefulness of an outside, neutral and unrelated investigative body to look into these cases rather than the police themselves and the grand jury system. Better for everyone in these life/death situations.
Trucker I would suggest you do not understandable the fundamental spirit of the LAW. The public makes the LAW, and Jefferson and many others always stressed that the LAW is created by those that it serves. We choose who will investigate whom. You can have your opinion that the existing agencies are separate, or outside, and the rest of us have the right to see it differently. Also most of us are smart enough not to call in only in the direst of circumstances, and since we pay your salaries that seems reasonable. II would hate to think you folks are such babies in terms of criticism that you would suggest that those who have criticized you are less deserving of the service they pay for
Without making any prejudgements as to what occurred, these investigations should be handled by the CA Department of Justice. There is a built in prejudice when the investigation is handled by a sister agency and the local DA. If the shooting is justified, as it may have been, then there should be no opposition to an open and transparent investigation. Shootings by police have become more common place in recent years. The increased us of military weapons by police has possibly resulted in reliance on weapons as the first option. Cops have a tough job, but also a lot of power. The community therefore should hold them to a high standard when use of force in involved.
Don't even start with the "military weapons" blah blah blah stuff.
Police use a handgun, a shotgun, and a rifle. All very standard weapons and ones that the public can own as well.
Police are not reliant on weapons as the first options. Every situation is different and often times police don't have the luxury of switching from one weapon to a less lethal options, or vice versa, depending on the situation.
What is clear, however, is that if a suspect has a gun, or even a knife, a cop will respond with equal or typically greater force. That is common sense and police procedure.
I feel it in the air…looking for a negative response to a police action is becoming the norm. It reminds me of when our military men came home from Vietnam, it became the norm to criticize them for the jobs they had to do. I have to respect all concerned until proven otherwise.
One simple question please........... Where is the camera footage?
Is Marshal law coming to Napa finally? Did this poor Latino man deserve to die?? Few law enforcement agencies allegedly do cover their own butts, most especially in a situation where the facts can be sometimes conveniently be twisted around to make the subject the fall guy. This cannot and must not become a common place situation here in our local home communities. Back east where police shoot allegedly innocent and unarmed black folks, can twist here and turn into the Alamo with the whites against the Latinos if we aren't careful in situations like this where fatal shootings do occur. Where is Santa Ana when we need him? And I'm completely serious too! My utmost and deeply heartfelt sympathies to the family of this man who lost his life are expressed. Marvin Gaye sand that song that was a hit in the late 1960s, "What's Goin On?" Well with all due respect to our local police, What is goin on? and will it become a shaky uncertainty if this type of situation arises again in our town?
"Did this poor Latino man deserve to die??"
Is it sad that he died? Of course. Did he deserve it? Possibly, it's hard to say at this point as little information has been released.
Race, by the way, has nothing to do with this, and you have ZERO clue what actually happened, so stop jumping to conclusions.
I know the man fatally shot by police @flkeys1998 "good job Napa PD" Are you serious? Shooting and killing someone is reason to be commended in your eyes? Whats wrong with people in this town? Apparently you can sit in judgemwnt of others because you know all the facts? Well, how about the fact that theres a mother sisters nephews nieces and multiple friends who are grieving the loss of a good man? Not a suspect -a man... have a little human compassion, show a little respect and keep your personal opinions to yourself!
A good man you say? Tell us more.
Amazing how so many people want to jump on the PD. I think they do a great job. Obviously this person did something to provoke this type of response, some of you sound like you think the PD should just let these situations go away on their own. I vote for strong action against armed criminals, rapists, bully's and other types of violent and argumentative people. No cop should have to risk their lives just to always get second guessed by a bunch of armchair quarterbacks.
Good man? Let's recap.... A warrant.... Meth.... And a gun.... Yep, that adds up...
@imsomizunderstoof, Regardless of what happened or who was or was not at fault, I am sorry for your loss.
If the Napa PD has any sensitivity whatsoever to public perception and to the family of the deceased, they will request that an outside agency investigate this officer involved shooting. We do not need the Napa Sheriff's department investing Napa PD AGAIN with the DA determining that everything was proper and the community wondering if there was ever a chance for a fair investigation.
My thoughts as well. I've come to favor the idea that all police shootings that end in a fatality be investigated at the State level that is totally free of any possible perception of a conflict of interest. Locals investigating locals with a ruling by the local D.A. is not the way to go any more.
Keep up the good work Napa PD. Thanks for keeping our community safe. I can't even imagine the stress these guys endure while serving warrants. Stay safe!
Do not voice your opinion before you know the facts.we don't need a Ferguson people.
Poccia shooting has nothing to do with this one. Please stop bringing it up NVR. 2 completely different police actions years apart. Don't add fuel to the fire so to speak for the cop haters.
Well "said"! Focus on what's going on NOW and not the past! Unless this latest incident involves a habitual quick-draw police officer, leave the past actions of other NPD officers out of the story until ALL the facts are in.
Please strop telling me what to bring up and what is relevant. Police departments are organizations with protocols which the public supposedly has a say in. Who are you to tell me I have no business looking at the overall history of the department ? Maybe you could stop people names for no apparent reason
Dead suspect? Where did you gather info that the suspect is dead.....have respect for all parties involved....jeeze
As of 6:52 PM All Police and Sheriff Transmission has been silenced, and as I could tell all helicopters were to stay away from the crime scene above…..
Just left the shooting on Spring, and the Napa Police are all over the crime scene, so I take it the Napa Sheriff was the party involved in the dead suspect.
Um, Napa Police were "all over the crime scene" because the location is NPD's JURISDICTION! So you "took it" wrong.
Register-Maybe we can have the real story this time?
As an Alta Heights resident I will be eager to learn every detail of this officer involved shooting. This one better be justified boys or the stink will raise to heaven for sure.
Valid: I think the source of what I read is in one of the Nixle reports, but it will be printed also in the Register I am sure. The man had a long history of crime and more crime. When you do read it, you will see that the outcome would probably end the way it did. And I also read he was reaching for a gun in his waistband. All this will come to light soon.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.