It’s understandable and expected that authorities acted
meticulously in deciding whether Sgt. Mike Rodrigues was justified
in shooting Israel Guerrero during a confrontation with sheriff’s
deputies.
It’s understandable and expected that authorities acted meticulously in deciding whether Sgt. Mike Rodrigues was justified in shooting Israel Guerrero during a confrontation with sheriff’s deputies.
But aftermath of the June 10 confrontation between Guerrero and sheriff’s deputies serves as a playbook on how to not communicate to an anxious, curious and bewildered public. The event also shed light on the safety level of ride-alongs – Rodrigues’ daughter was in his patrol car during the incident – and whether a minor’s presence, in this case the deputy’s daughter, could skew a responding officer’s judgment.
We accept that Rodrigues acted appropriately when faced with an aggressive, advancing suspect within reach of his firearm. It was District Attorney Candice Hooper’s ruling to make, and we trust she scrutinized incident reports and investigative documents and made the right decision.
Our top two elected law enforcement officials, however, both mishandled their communication roles and left an aftertaste soured by insensitivity.
Hill came out in his deputy’s defense before the investigation’s completion. How often do law enforcement officials pronounce indisputable innocence for normal citizens under investigation before a probe’s conclusion? It was unfair to a family waiting to here whether someone justly shot one of their own.
Hooper faced her first major test in deciding the shooting’s justification. After nearly four weeks, she expressed a tone of confidence in a brief statement announcing the probe was thorough and Rodrigues was justified.
She explained nothing more, though, and she had every right – and obligation – to do so. Why not at least describe the reports already made public – at least the shooting aspect of them – and why she made her most sound legal judgment? Why not at least explain how she interpreted the reports, how other agencies were involved, how much painstaking work she did on it, why it was thorough, something?
An unarmed man died. Granted, he was drugged, agitated, combative. Justification for firing that weapon, however, deserves a more detailed explanation. Not just a simple yes or no response – and that’s what what we got.
What authorities can fix about this situation immediately is a sheriff’s department policy allowing ride-alongs for residents if they’re at least age 13.
The June 10 confrontation shows deputies face a potential for escalating danger at any instance. The county should examine the policy and raise the restriction to at least age 16, if not adulthood.
