The fatal shooting of a 26-year-old man by Hemet police officers who believed he was holding a handgun — when in fact it was a pellet pistol — as they attempted to take him into custody was justified, state prosecutors confirmed Monday.
Jimmy Lopez of Hemet was killed during the confrontation with patrol personnel on July 4, 2024.
The shooting sparked criticism at the time, with critics contending that Lopez was sitting down, reportedly intoxicated, and was smoking, not threatening to harm the lawmen as they surrounded him.
“The California Department of Justice conducted a thorough investigation into this incident and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officers involved acted without the intent to defend themselves and others from what they reasonably believed to be the imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury,” according to a DOJ statement released Monday.
Prosecutors analyzed the shooting under the requirements of Assembly Bill 1506, which mandates that the state investigate all law enforcement fatal shootings when the parties killed were confirmed to have been unarmed.
According to the DOJ report, Lopez had been at a bar, and when he started out the door of the establishment shortly before 2 a.m., he dropped what appeared to be a firearm on the floor, then retrieved it and headed for the exit. A witness called 911, indicating Lopez was walking eastbound on East Florida Avenue with a gun.
Hemet police officers located him minutes later on the north sidewalk, sitting against a storefront wall in an otherwise vacant area. Officers had their body cameras running when they confronted him.
Lopez was taking drags on a vape pen, though it was unclear whether nicotine or other cartridges were loaded in the recreational device.
“The officers ordered Mr. Lopez to put his hands up,” the DOJ stated. “Lopez initially complied and raised his hands and placed them behind his head. He then reached down with his left hand and retrieved the vape pen from the ground next to him.
“As Mr. Lopez made these movements with his hands, multiple officers repeatedly told him `don’t reach, get on your stomach,’ and `keep your hands up.’ Mr. Lopez reached toward his back pocket and retrieved an item from the ground resembling a black handgun. He raised (it) with his right hand (and) pointed it in the direction of one of the officers.”
On seeing the upraised object, several officers opened fire, fatally wounding the man, prosecutors said.
“Later investigation revealed the apparent handgun pointed by Lopez to be an Airsoft gun that mimicked the weight, size and appearance of a Glock model 19 firearm,” the DOJ said.
Attorney General Rob Bonta said AB 1506 is a “critical transparency and accountability tool, and our hope is that this report provides understanding that advances towards a safer California for all.”
“Any loss of life is a tragedy, and we extend our condolences to Mr. Lopez’s family,” he said. “We will continue to work to foster a just and equitable legal system that not only protects the rights of individuals, but also promotes trust and accountability between law enforcement and our communities.”
The report issued findings that prosecutors hoped the police department would incorporate into policy, among which were: consider less-lethal means of subduing suspects before resorting to deadly force; rethink how patrol units are parked during a confrontation to reduce the risk of cross-fire; and consider enabling police personnel to render emergency medical aid immediately after a shooting, instead of waiting for paramedics.
The article title says unarmed. The article states he reached in his back pocket with his left hand and pointed it at officers with his right hand . Don’t you think that one of them could have tazed him in that amount of time instead of shooting him and killing him. Being intoxicated it would have taken him even longer to get it out of his pocket and switched hands. I think the cops have a shoot first policy and figure out what’s happening after the fact. He was shot over 100 times and the video that they released to the public was edited and doesn’t show him reaching or aiming a gun at all. So how can they justify doing that to him?
I believe that not only LEO’s but civilians as well when confronted with any type of situation at which they believe to be a life-threatening situation should be able to defend themselves. If the ability to subdue or de-escalate the situation is indeed available, then any other option should be used. In split second Life making decisions, whether trained or not trained, I believe the decision to kill is not the decision that is made at the time, I believe the decision to protect the public, yourself and your family if you’re a civilian. I believe in this case because an item replicating a weapon was held up by the individual that the LEO’s involved were indeed doing their jobs.