Police Shooting in Anaheim, California Leads to Violent Clash

The man was shot in front of an apartment complex around 4 p.m. following a foot chase, Anaheim Sgt. Bob Dunn said. He died three hours later at a hospital.

Apparently he was also armed.  Did he pull his weapon on the police?

As officers were investigating what happened at the scene, Dunn said an angry group of people began yelling and throwing bottles at them. He said that as officers detained several people, the crowd advanced on officers so they fired tear gas and beanbag rounds at them.

I'm not sure what to make of this - basically, you should have the common sense not to provoke the cops by throwing bottles and then advancing on them as a group.  I am not standing by the police action, however this behavior on the part of the crowd was reckless.

“I'm not sure what to make of this - basically, you should have the common sense not to provoke the cops by throwing bottles and then advancing on them as a group.  I am not standing by the police action, however this behavior on the part of the crowd was reckless.”

Your observation is understandable, but I am from Los Angeles, I was an L.A. cop, and I know Anaheim well. It has a large Vietnamese community and a Hispanic community. This incident happened in the latter.

Anaheim is part of the Los Angeles metro area, and like the rest of the city, it suffers from the current economic depression. Everyone is being foreclosed on, is unemployed, and is under pressure.

On 21 July 2012 the cops approached Manuel Angel Diaz, 25, and two others who, the cops claim, were “acting suspiciously.” Diaz ran, so the cops shot him to death at the front of an apartment complex, even though Diaz was unarmed. When residents of the apartment complex asked what was happening, the cops went berserk on them. Normally this would make people scatter, but police brutality was directed at women and children, which terrorized and infuriated the crowd. 

In this case I totally blame the fucking cops, who laughably claim that “gang members” incited the crowd.

If you gun down unarmed people in a neighborhood, and you fire tear gas and rubber bullets at kids, and loose dogs on them, then you must expect that the victims’ families will not be happy. 

Your version leaves out some details:

Two patrol officers tried to approach three men in an alley in the 600 block of North Anna Drive around 4 p.m on Saturday.

The officers saw a man -- identified as Diaz -- leaning against a vehicle talking to two men and considered the activity "suspicious," the Orange County Register reported.

The officers approached the vehicle, which drove off.

Police then chased Diaz on foot, and he reportedly began throwing objects at them as he ran.

One of the officers shot Diaz, who died at an area hospital around 7 p.m.

The circumstances that prompted the officer to open fire remain unclear.

As police were investigating the shooting, they were encircled by a crowd estimated to contain as many as 100 people.

The crowd pushed a dumpster holding burning trash toward police.

Some of those assembled also threw rocks and bottles at officers, who responded by firing pepper spray and rubber bullets to control the crowd.

A police dog accidentally got free from an officer's car and charged at several people. At least one person was bitten by the dog.

Five people were arrested, mostly for minor violations, with the exception of a known gang member who was taken into custody for a gang-related murder in May.

Tempers flared again on Sunday as Anaheim police held a news conference about the shooting.

Demonstrators chanting "no justice, no peace," took over the plaza and front lobby at the Anaheim police station.

Police Chief John Welter and Mayor Tom Tait promised a full investigation into the shooting.

The two officers involved have been placed on paid administrative leave.

"We're not hiding anything,'' Welter said, adding that the shooting is being investigated by the Orange County district attorney's office.

Tait said he would also ask the state attorney general's office to assist.

Residents say they're frustrated after a series of officer-involved shootings.

Last month, city officials announced that an independent review would be conducted into what were described as "major police incidents," the Register reported.

The inquiry came on the heels of weekly protests outside the police station, led by relatives of those killed in officer-involved shootings.

Before Saturday's incident, the most two recent fatal shootings involving Anaheim police were in January.

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-anaheim-police-shooting,0,219890...

You say my “version” leaves out details. I was already aware of the superfluous blather you added, but I chose to focus only on the most relevant information, such as the fact that the victim, Diaz, was unarmed. You, however, presume he was indeed armed, so that you can defend the cops. But if the victim had been armed, then the cops would have noted it. Cops use any excuse to legitimize their arrogance and brutality.

If you seek to invalidate my points, you’ll have to do much better than that. 

On a different note, I am always amazed at police cowardice. Despite being heavily armed, with body armor, helicopters, limitless backup, and so on, the police soil their pants and start blasting away whenever people gather to see what’s happening. If rubber bullets hit little children in the eye, well too bad. The children are hoodlums anyway. And what were the cops doing with police dogs on the scene?

I saw shit like this repeatedly when I was an L.A. cop. It sickened me. I also saw how cops work for the rich, at the expense of regular people. It’s why I resigned, and then moved out of California.

But you go ahead and stay in your dreamland in which you fantasize that it's you and the brave cops one one side, and everyone else on the other.

superfluous blather you added

Oh, come on.  This is from another news source.  You don't like it, so you call it blather.  And frankly, you can say anything about yourself here, I don't know if you were a cop or not. "But you go ahead and stay in your dreamland in which you fantasize that it's you and the brave cops one one side, and everyone else on the other."  Huh?  Wanting to get a couple of facts straight does not imply choosing sides.  What is wrong with facts, Mr. So called ex cop? 

100 agitated people throwing bottles while surrounding police while they are investigating a scene to see if a crime was committed (and considering the circumstances, it appears that the police were indeed at fault here) is a provocation, as well as the act of lighting a dumpster on fire and pushing it toward them.  It's just stupid.   If you don't expect the police to react badly to that, you're a moron.  These actions put one on the losing side, whether one is correct in being angry or not. 

Fight the cops in court. Sue the city.  Have a vigil, call the media.  Use your brain.  Is it that hard to do?

"I wouldn't believe it just because it came from an established news source. In fact, I'm less likely to believe what comes from mainstream news sources than from citizen journalists."

Did you post something from a citizen journalist?  All I've seen is from local media.

Were the police there to investigate if a crime had been committed or to cover up a crime they know had been committed?

Can you tell by looking?  What if it were the former?

I don't think the people involved cared terribly much how the police were going to react

So why did they act surprised when the cops went full throttle on them?

those involved don't see the situation in terms of winning and losing sides.

More evidence of bad judgement, also known as "suicide by cop". 

Talking to the media is like trying to carry water in a sieve, an exercise in futility

It really depends on whom you're talking to in the media.  Not all media in an area is MSM, and some alternative media gets fairly large readership, including the Spanish language media.  I've had experience with this myself.  There are a lot of reporters out there, some investigative ones can be quite good and can get things resolved.  It's not as hopeless as you're making it out to be.

I understand the issue with the cops.  For example, the Rodney King fiasco did some good in the long run:

Rodney King, dead at 47 from the (likely) intersection of too much booze and a swimming pool, was indirectly responsible for 53 deaths, 2,373 injuries and nearly $1 billion in property damage resulting from the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Oddly, for all of his faults and without giving undo credit (although a few days after the riots began he made an impassioned plea, “Can we all get along?”), he may have done some good. An independent commission created in the wake of his beating issued a scathing report on the culture of the LAPD, helping to remake the force over the following decades into one that racial minorities can trust (at least more than before). While King changed many lives for the worse—those who were killed, their family and friends, those who were injured or had their homes or businesses destroyed or property stolen—his misbehaviors likely drove positive change for future generations of Los Angelinos. Nevertheless, as I often remark about even the most productive addicts, The world would be a better place without their positive contributions if, in exchange, we could avoid the extraordinary harm they inflict.

In early 1991, King drove from police at speeds of up to 115 mph because he was on probation from a previous robbery conviction and was under the influence. He knew he’d go back to jail if stopped—so, with drug-addled brain and confabulated thinking, he tried to escape. When the car was finally cornered, his two passengers were taken without incident; King, on the other hand, fought with the officers for some time before the infamous videotape and beating began (see this page for the amazing description). This resulted in an “apparent” over-reaction by police—“apparent” because police are all, by the nature of their jobs, codependents (which, because they are dealing with insanity, can make any rational person do crazy things). In a radio interview shortly before he died King claimed he’d had only a few drinks before being pulled over that night. However, five hours later his blood alcohol level was nearly .08 per cent. He obviously didn’t have just “a few drinks,” unless you count as a “few” three 28-ounce Long Island iced teas; his BAL had to have been at least .16 per cent at the time of the incident, which requires 11 drinks, the equivalent of more than 16 ounces of 80-proof liquor over the course of four hours for a 200-pound person. The radio interview demonstrates he was still doing what addicts do: lying.

In another interview, he said he didn’t buy the notion that addicts can’t drink and be sober. “All addicts are different,” he said. “And I’m different. I’ve learned that I’m one of those who can manage it.” As he dabbed peanut butter between his teeth at 9:30 a.m., he explained to a journalist that it was an old drinker’s trick to mask the smell of alcohol. His drinking was just “a sip here, a sip there. It was never out of control.” The journalist never saw the pre-drinking, which we know occurred because no addict can “sip” unless the blood alcohol level is where he wants it, something well north of .12 per cent.

King got sober for periods of time, including during his stints on “Celebrity Rehab” and “Sober House.” He was a nice guy when sober. Hell, he was often a nice guy when he was drunk. The problem was those darned addiction-induced unpredictable misbehaviors. In his case, those misbehaviors wreaked havoc, even though the worst of it was indirect and committed by other addicts. At least, among the ironies that encompass addiction, he may have inadvertently done some good.  http://preventragedy.com/pages/addictionreport.php

Like the LA and Watts riots, the Anaheim issue is again another situation started by the collision of an addict (aka gang member) with the local police.  

With spiraling unemployment, little hope of finding work and the increasing levels of grinding poverty...

I've been through periods like that myself, maybe I've got a different pov.  For whatever reason, I've not had a problem finding work (and I have done many of the jobs the Hispanics have).  The neighborhood they are in is a gang area.  I'm not sure if it's lack of work or a lack of interest in a low paying job (aka "chump change") vs. better money in gang membership / drug sales.  These are the kinds of areas where you see kids with $200 sneakers and $100 t-shirts, but no food in the house.  No brakes on the car, but it has a new set of $1000 rims (that by the way, is a true story).  The economics of these areas is more complicated than you know.

America is not Europe - the US has always had a bigger job market.  I see plenty of immigrants getting ahead here - what is the problem in this neighborhood?  Has it just become a place where gangs rule?  Are the cops right to go after these people?  Is the entire neighborhood enabling gang culture (aka substance abusers and drug dealers who operate in groups)?  Is the result of rioting going to be any different from a reult obtained by more peaceful means? 

Was ML King right when he stated "‘What did Watts accomplish but the death of thirty-four Negroes and injury to thousands more? What did it profit the Negro to burn down the stores and factories in which he sought employment? The way of riots is not a way of progress, but a blind ally of death and destruction which wrecks its havoc hardest against the rioters themselves’’ (King, 12 March 1966). ?