Nothing less than the fullest legal disclosure of details should
be acceptable to San Benito County citizens relating to the death
of an unarmed Hollister man.
Nothing less than the fullest legal disclosure of details should be acceptable to San Benito County citizens relating to the death of an unarmed Hollister man.
The man is suspected of furiously battling sheriff’s deputies during a confrontation Sunday on Highway 156 before he died after being shot with Tasers and a pistol.
It’s crucial that the San Benito County Sheriff’s Office answer several pertinent questions as expediently as possible.
But it’s understandable that several related investigations also must be handled with utmost care to ensure fairness to the involved officers, the man’s family and an undoubtedly concerned public. Further complicating the case is the yet-to-be-explained presence at the scene of an 11-year-old daughter of the deputy who ultimately shot Israel Guerrero, whom officials suspect was under the influence of methamphetamine.
What we know from sheriff’s officials is this:
The shooting deputy, a 25-year veteran of the department, pulled over his patrol car intending to check on the suspect to ensure he hadn’t been involved in a minor crash earlier in the day on eastbound Highway 156. A seemingly simple check on the man escalated to a confrontation that eventually demanded backup from other officers because officials say Guerrero was maniacally belligerent toward the responding deputy.
Sheriff’s officials said Guerrero failed to follow directions and continually fought back forceful attempts to subdue him before his ultimate demise.
Although Sheriff Curtis Hill told the Free Lance the deputies followed proper procedures when confronted – and there’s no reason at this point to doubt that was, indeed, the case – a more concrete, detailed explanation to several questions should be expected.
Most important, and the question the district attorney must answer in determining justification, is what level of violence toward the officers did an unarmed Guerrero take prompting the deputy to feel threatened enough to use deadly force?
Second, why was the deputy’s daughter in the vehicle – and ultimately, in the presence of horror – when he was forced to subdue and possibly kill the man?
Third, did the deputy violate a policy by merely allowing the 11-year-old in the vehicle, as the department policy for a “ride-along” specifically states nobody under age 13 can be part of one?
And fourth, what level of care, if any, will the county take to limit the amount of trauma caused to an innocent girl left to potentially witness such a hysteria-ridden event?
Nothing less than a detailed explanation of all four questions will allow citizens to make sense of this tragedy and feel confident our public servants acted appropriately while protecting their own welfare.
