Zachary Champommier, 18

dam a white boy killed thats rare i must say

Zach Champommier was one of the best people of our time never did anything wrong only child and he taught me how to play the saxaphone allover because i had not played for a year and was not able to remember how he took me under his wing and took care of me and the rest of the saxaphone players all of the aligations of what happened and how he attaked the cops are compleatly un- true he would never do sucha thing and i belive those stupid cops should pay for taking his wonderful life from him i mean come on he just graduated 3 weeks ago and was on his way to college

Who was the man who was "combative" and ordered to the ground? How old was he? Did he even know Zachery? And why did the deputies assume the other man was about to break into a car? Aren't they supposed to wait until a crime occurs?

Hey Josh, just wondering,were you there when you wingman tried to run down the agents? That's what I thought; Relax.

Driving your car into a group of people is defiantly not a smart thing to do. Especially if they have weapons and the legal right to fire.

I bet the deceased was drunk or had drugs in his system. Hopefully the Times will report back what the coroners report says.

I have known Zac for 7 years. He was one of the most genuine people I have ever known. He has never been in trouble with the law or anyone else. He graduated with honors from high school three weeks to the night before his death. His death and how it alledgedly occured were a shock to all of us. Rest in piece, Zac. We love you.

How do you know he was a wingman 'just wondering'? Were you there? Nope, didn't think so.

The officers have played the only hand available: Blame the forever-silenced victim by claiming he used his vehicle as a weapon. It probably works most of the time. However, in this case, it will backfire terribly. The "multi-jurisdictional" agency has revealed their thought processes of the moment. There "debriefing" in a public parking lot, deviation from their stated purpose of "debriefing" their operation by confronting a person who was alleged to be "casing" cars (i.e., looking through the windows, allegedly for stuff to steal), and not having readily visible means of being identified as law enforcement officials cost this community one of the most amazing young men that it has seen.

I look forward to the intense scrutiny that the officers' actions will receive by a proper EXTERNAL agency.

Patty, why would you want the police to wait for crime to occur? There is a thing called being proactive!

Well, well. The "official" story unravels slowly but surely. Coroner's report. If these wounds are indeed the only wounds sustained, the decedent sustained wounds to his left arm and armpit. I'm not a rocket scientist, but those don't sound life threatening unless the shooter was perpendicular facing the driver's left-side profile (The trajectory would then continue into the vital organs). Sounds like the shooter wasn't in danger if he was facing the driver's door. Thus, the headline above "deputy fatally shoots driver who rammed him" cannot be accurate. Officers' story vaporized by the forensics. Just come clean.

Wow, what a very strange incident. I certainly don't think all these cops are lying about the officer who got rammed; that kind of conspiracy would never stick and they would not risk their careers in such a cover up. But what the heck was this all about? Maybe Mr. Champommier thought the officers were attacking the other guy and heroically tried to come to his aid? Very very strange.

Mike-

Apparently in your haste to stupidly condemn the officers you failed to accurately read the article.

"The deputy AND a task force member assigned to the DEA then opened fire"...i.e., the fatal shots could've been fired from the side by the task force member in protection of the deputy who was rammed, which is completely justified. Do you deny that the deceased rammed the deputy with his car?

Mike, so are you privy to the coroners report? Are you now an expert in ballistics and the property of projectiles as they pass through diferent materials?

What about the fact the deceased was driving at speed towards the group?

— TruthBTold ..... law enforcement can do a debriefing in a public place wherever they want, whenever they want.
They are also expected to uphold the law 24/7.

Care to also explain this; "The deputy was treated at a hospital for cuts and bruises after being struck by the Toyota sedan"

Dimcom3: Once again jumps to conclusions with entirely no evidence. He "bets" the kid was on drugs. He boasts about his expert knowledge of homicide yet runs rough-shod over the facts, waving his Jr. college report card and shouting "He deserved to die!"

Surely he can make one factual statement. We've just never seen it. He must gather his information from FOX News.

Josh Nyarko, unfortunately is typical when cops screw up they fabricate a story to cover their behinds. For the most part, they get away with murder. In the instance of Zach cops are going to scrutnize his past to come up with any dirt to try to used against him and to justify their killing. I hope justice is serve and the people responsible for killing Zach are sent to jail for their rest of their lives.

Jag, what was fabricated? Do you deny the kid struck the officer with his car? If not, do you deny that a car is a deadly weapon? Most importantly, please present some evidence that they "screwed up" and murdered this kid. There's no need to scrutinize his past; he hit a cop with a car. As a result the officers acted in self-defense and the kid lost his life. You have such a moronic axe to grind with cops that I get the feeling it would NEVER be justified for one to defend himself. Hopefully you need one someday and they are just a bit too late.

People who knew Zac state that he could not have harmed another. Why assume the officers' version is always right? They are, after all, human beings. Let's assume that the victim wouldn't hurt a fly. Now what? The officers' actions have to be scrutinized in the totality of the circumstances by an OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT AGENCY so that public may have confidence that the truth will be arrived at. That is how it should work. One doesn't ask the fox to investigate who killed the goose. The more that is known about Zac, his absolute optimism for the future and caring nature, the more deflated the "official version" becomes. It appears the "multi-jurisdictional task force" went into "cover-your-ass" mode a little too reflexively. Now it's their asses that will get the scrutiny they rightfully deserve. Hopefully, by an OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT AGENCY.

Jag, so are you saying that the deputy was not run over by the deceased?

— Roger, nothing wrong with speculation. Thats what "betting" is all about. As for my expertise in analyzing these homicides, obviously its far better than yours.

I feel there is more to this story. Zach was in the wrong place at the wrong time. What would you do if you saw a group of officers arresting someone in a parking lot you just turned into? Would you try to get away and leave, or would you freeze and accidentally keep going? Perhaps Zach got scared and tried to get out of the area and as a result lost control of his car and hit an officer. Whatever the case, I was in the Highlander band for 3 years, and I know none of those students would ever do something like this. I did not know him personally, but I have friends that knew him very well, and I do not believe that he intentionally rammed a police officer with is car, accidentally...sure, but certainly not intentionally.

Hey TruthBTold, how did you come to the conclusion as stated in your post that these officers didn't have "readily visible means of being identified as law enforcement officials"? If this is true it might be very relevant to determining the motive of Mr. Champommier for running this deputy down which I assume most reasonable people accept as fact given the cuts and bruises and multiple officers statements to that effect (of course I don't include the extremely biased jag as reasonable; it is clear he is not). Usually these DEA type search warrant services will have all officers wearing clearly identifiable clothing (says DEA or POLICE) so they don't end up accidentally shooting each other. Do you have information other than what's printed here? What's the story?

Chris, are you a cop? Apparently your tone and aggressiveness "Hopefully you need one someday and they are just a bit too late" makes you sound like one. Is that mentality of yours and cops that makes us abiden citizens question your competency.

TruthBTold- Unfortunately the circumstances and facts of this case don't match up with the above claims about the deceased. Someone that "wouldn't hurt a fly" doesn't drive a car into someone, sorry. Everyday on this blog there are friends and family that come on here claiming that such and such person was so good, would never do anything wrong, yada yada while the circumstances say something else entirely, so excuse me if I don't put much stock into those claims.

Syscom, do you think police are subject to bad decisions and rush to judgement actions? I understand their job is EXTREMELY difficult and I would not want to be in their position but why must the victim of a police shooting be "on drugs or drunk or a banger?" For once, take a step back and dont rely on you Criminology 101 class. This could very well be a case of rush to judgement. Now if the suspect did indeed charge the LEOs and harm them, I agree, force should be used. But lets find out the facts before betting on someone being drunk or on drugs. BTW take some upper division Criminology/Admin of Justice classes. Much more in depth and forces you to use your noggin...

TruthBTold, I couldn't agree more. It is unfortunate that there won't be an outside independent agency investigating this case. I'm just amazed on the number of people who are in denial about cops being dirty and being trigger happy murderers. It is most likely that Zac panicked and tried to get away not knowing these indivduals were cops and as always there's a super cop who probably jumped in front of Zac's truck trying to stop him but ended up getting hit by it. The cops hereoism cost Zac's life. Of course, a life not valued by cops.

I don't think many of you have been to the parking lot. There are skid marks, indicating that he attempted to use his brakes. Also, you don't know his car like I did. He drove a Toyota sedan, you know that, but did you know it was a stick? How unbelievable is it that because he had just pulled in, he was in the wrong gear and instead of downshifting to reverse to leave the lot, he kept going straight instead. He could have even hit the clutch instead of the brake.

The Zac that they describe here does not sound ANything like the Zachary we knew at school. He would never ever intentionally harm another human being and his death is a great tragedy and he is going to be missed so much. I had the great honor of playing right beside him in the viola section for orchestra and he always kept me entertained. He was so young and had such an amazing life ahead of him and DID NOT deserve this. We love you Zach, and we miss you, and my prayers are with your family. RIP Zacahry Champommier<3

It's my understanding that in criminal law one does the following to ascertain the nature of criminal acts: 1) STOP THE FILM, 2) What was he/she doing and what was he/she thinking while doing it?As to the allowable force to counter a physically violent crime, it must be lockstep with the level presented by the suspect. Thus, the relevant question is whether, at the time of the shooting, were the officers lives in danger of imminent threat of serious bodily injury from the car/driver? The report states that the car hit the deputy who was "thrown into the air, landed on the hood, hit the windshield, and was thrown back onto the ground. The deputy and DEA agent fearing for their lives, fired their duty weapons at the suspect vehicle." So, even if the deputy had been hit, as described, and miraculously got up and was able to shoot the victim (We'll suspend the laws of physics for the moment), should he have been reasonably placed in fear for his life AT THE MOMENT HE SHOT, such that it was justifiable self-defense in lockstep with the threat level presented? If there was no threat, there's no justification. Therein lies many, many problems.

I taught Zach. There is no way he charged at cops as described in the story. What bothers me is if this story is wrong, how often does this happen? I can guarantee the random reader Zach wouldn't attack anyone without cause.

I also will not make an equally unknowable assumption about the police and their motives. I know enough to know that so far, this is bull.

Why are some of you assuming the police were in uniform? The truth will come out in time, but I have it on good authority many of the law enforcement personell were not (I am a relative). If that is true, and Zachary Champommier pulled into that dark parking lot seeing his friend being held at gunpoint by a man or men, what was he to do? How much time did he have to react to the situation? How fast does a bullet travel? A car can be used as a deadly weapon- just as a gun can. And did Zach run the officer over or was it something technically- and dramatically different; Such as the officer stepping into the path of Zachary's moving car, thinking he could stop it? If that was the case, didn't he in effect participate in sustaining his own injuries only to blame the driver of the car by shooting him to death? And yes, the police can have a meeting anywhere they want, but how smart was this decision? Hopefully, the restaurant has security cameras and there is a recordng of this event. And if the LAPD is reading this, plese don't lose the tape as you have a habit of doing. You have earned our lack of respect, one incident at a time. Rest in Peace, Dear Zachary. With God's help, the truth will come clear and justice will prevail.

Incidentally, a prelude to the possible use of unjustifiable deadly force was the excessive force that appears to have occurred with the suspect who was allegedly "casing" unoccupied autos in the parking lot, allegedly including some of the officers' own unmarked vehicles. He was stopped and probably about to be frisked (all legally) but began to resist. He and the officer began to "struggle". STOP THE FILM. Force has been met with equal force in a lockstep fashion. Now, enter the deputy rendering assistance by drawing his gun and apparently pointing it in the direction of both the struggling officer and his adversary, the "casing" suspect an apparently unsafe move for both parties. If the suspect did not have the officer in a chokehold, or was holding a knife, or similar instrumentality that could create the reasonable fear of receiving serious bodily injury, the force level used by the gun wielding deputy EXCEEDED that which the situation required. One might rightfully ask, whatever happened to the good ol' days of "Don't taze me bro?"

This is a terrible tragedy. While impossible to know the full story, having not witnessed the event, it seems that the officers may have been justified in opening fire. Attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon certainly would merit a strong response from law enforcement. The identity of the suspect in custody and his relation to the deceased will certainly play a part in the investigation. If he had a relationship with the deceased and if the deceased was trying to protect or defend his friend, it's reasonable to assume he intended harm to the officers at the scene. His gunshot wound to the arm/armpit, wether inflicted from the front or side, could sever the brachial artery, causing death very rapidly. No reason to reach for conspiracy theories there. Nor is there any merit to criticizing the officers' actions when confronting the suspect who was looking in car windows. I would absolutely confront someone who was peeking through my car windows, and would defend myself to the best of my abilities if a second unknown person charged me in their car when I did so.
Conversely, If the officers stepped beyond the necessary course of action and took a teenager's life needlessly, I also hope they are dealt with as severely as possible.

A great many assumptions have occured on both sides... I am assuming that the cops and friends of the boy are telling the truth. Things to think about in my unprofessional opinion.

If the officer did indeed get struck by the vehicle and thrown up onto the winsheild, he could have rolled off and fired from the side, thereby striking the victim there.

There is NEVER a reason to ram someone with your car, ever, even if you think you are preventing some sort of crime. It was a hasty and unfortunate decision (if that is what it was) that got him killed.

It is entirely possible that the boy accidentally rammed the officer, either out of fear, confusion, lack of visibility, etc.

Ramming someone with a car(especially a cop) makes the car a deadly weapon, therefore making the shooting justified. If the boy did not mean to do it, that makes his death a tragedy but not murder.

Lastly, most cops will never, ever fire their service weapon while on duty, so to portray cops as trigger happy is just plain false.

I feel for the family, I can see how they would want answers, it is the best way to move through the stages of grief but I cant relate to the previous posters rush to villify the officers. It isnt easy being a cop.

no one really knows what happened except for zac, the police and the first suspect.

knowing zac, i know he did not mean to ram into the deputy. he'd probablly got nervous and accidently rammed into him. if you go to the parking lot, there are skid marks, showing that yes, he did not mean to, he tried to and yet he was shot and killed.

this is wrong. first of all i understand the cops took action, however, it is wrong to take a weapon out unless the suspect has a weapon and i can understand they considered the car a weapon however, that is still wrong to take out their weapon and use it in public like that.

i hope that the real investigation from the videos by the parkinglot can help. furthermore, i hope that the first suspect can really tell us what has happened.

RIP Zac, i will miss you. you were a great friend and i am sorry that your journey was cut short.

-lind.

With all of the violence in our society, a case like this is forgotten, or better yet buried much quicker then it should be "it should never be forgotten." In my opinion, the power of the police, as well as other security forces increases greatly during time of war. In a city like LA where gangs and thugs have actually entrenched themselves into the culture, police have even more power, because they are looked upon for protection much more than other cities. This torrentous cycle creates a system where the security forces are almost untouchable. Down here in Gainesville there was a police shooting not too long ago, and there were actual protests. Compare the situation to Russia and the beginning of the Second Chechen War. The new KGB basically took over the country, while disquising their activities under the veil of war, which a lot of Russians think they stirred up anyhow. I know its pretty drastic comparison between LA and Russia, but similarities in the increased power of security forces during time of war is there. I hope the people of Los Angeles not hope for a honest investigation, but demand and strive for it.

huh, so what happened to the original suspect, and why don't we hear that he didn't even know Zac? Hardly any media coverage...a plain clothed officer gets 'rammed' by a car, thrown onto the hood of another car, then falls to the ground, yet he manages to do all this in fractions of a second and amazingly rights himself to a standing position beside the driver's side door and shoots Zac under his arm, killing him. How is that even possible? Funny how after being 'rammed' into, the officer only has bumps and bruises. Is this cop bionic, or is this story fabricated?

UB is exactly right. Zac was brave enough to charge into this group men with guns. Because without badges out, and without uniforms, that's all they are. Men with guns, how else would he know? The officers may see it one way, because they see themselves as police in or out of uniform. The general public however, has no way of knowing, unless you are wearing it. And that applies ONLY if Zac hit him on purpose. Even so, deadly force was NOT the right choice. And the guy looking into the cars, might have just been looking for Zac, who knows? Or maybe they were unrelated. Still... I knew Zac well, I am telling you right now, I put my life on it, that there were no drugs in his system... he had only good intentions.

All right, I am not going to barge in here and assume anything. I do acknowledge that the officer was obviously hit by Zac's vehicle, but I also choose to acknowledge a couple of things which others seem to be counting out, with or without proof from any videos. Granted, a video would be nice so we know for sure what took place, or at least have a clearer idea of the events that unfolded at the scene. But there are several details made clear without the reassurance that would be provided by such a video. For example, the skid marks. Go to that parking lot where the incident occured. There are skid marks approaching the shattered glass. Zac obviously tried to stop before he hit the officer. Another example-- and I am not the first to say this-- apparently not all of the officers were in uniform. So there is obviously something missing to this story. From what I have heard, (and I don't know what the original source of this information was), he was meeting a friend there. So maybe... posssiblly... hypothetically... the guy looking in the windows of cars was a friend just looking for Zac, and not casing the area. I know, the question then is why they would choose to meet in the parking lot instead of inside the restaurant? I have no idea. I also have no idea why none of us knew he was going there or for what purpose. Maybe that Chipotle closes earlier than the one that I frequent, so they were going to meet and decide where else they could go. Yes, that seems unlikey, but I'm trying to keep all possibilities open. Also, I've been wondering something. I'm no expert on police protocol, but is it considered okay to shoot at the windshield of an approaching vehicle? I thought they were supposed to shoot the tires. I know, they say that the car was going at a high speed "towards the group." And I myself have found myself trying to defend Zac by saying that he must have gotten spooked and acted on instinct when he started trying to drive away. So maybe the officer who shot him did the same thing when he opened fire. But officers are supposed to be trained for situations like this. This is a gray area that needs to be cleared up. There are a lot of things we don't know. But here's what I want to know: WHAT WAS HE DOING THERE? I, for one, hope that the key information we need lies with the guy they have in custody. (Or at least I think they still do. I haven't heard an update regarding that.) I don't want to sound anything close to one-sided myself, but everything that alledgedly occured in this freak accident and the events leading up to it were a shock to me. All of this was very out of character for Zac. I, along with all of his friends and family, want to know what's missing. There's something we don't know. RIP, Zac. Regardless of what facts turn up in the long run, I won't forget the person I have known for 7 years. That person has left me with a plethora of wonderful memories, and nothing can replace that. I miss you already.

I hope the truth does come out.

Yes, cops can also be bad.

The people claiming that this young man would never do something like this sound like Joran VanDer Sloots mother.

They may be right, but they weren't there, and just saying it doesn't make it so!

Calm down you dung beetles!
No one but the Popo know the truth or the FACTS of the case. You only know what you read in the paper.
There will be a forensic inquest if there hasn't been already.
I must say that he looked like a dignified, intelligent dude.

I also taught Zac, so of course I'm biased--as we all are--to believe one side of the story versus another. The thing is, people are going to speculate and people are going to be offensive, it's what we do when we don't have all of the information or we don't understand the situation or we want to protect what we know to be "right."

The bottom line is that this situation reeks of something gone horribly wrong. Things don't seem to add up and I hope that there is at least a clear or truly reasonable explanation to everything in the end (but my gut tells me this isn't likely). I hope that those of us who knew Zac can find solace in something in the end.

Zac had, besides other qualities, a certain benevolence about him. Now that isn't to say he was a perfect human being, no one is. But, I have a hard time believing he would harm someone without justifiable reason.

My heart is broken for his family and is sad for those of you who never knew Zac--he really was destined for something great.

Jag-

No, not a cop but unlike you, I have lots of respect for those that put their lives on the line everyday to protect us, and have no respect for those like you who obviously don't value that and look for any excuse to continually bash them, call them murderers, and disrespect them at all costs. So yes, being a believer in karma, I tend to believe that those like you don't deserve their protection or assistance, but of course when you do need it you'll be seeking it.

Bringtruth-

Please read the account again.....

"The deputy AND a task force member assigned to the DEA then opened fire."

It's very possible the killing shots that hit the young man were fired by the OTHER agent in defense of the one that got hit by the car.

Lind-

Your point about a car being a deadly weapon but then saying a weapon shouldn't be used in public makes absolutely no sense. By your standards someone could brandish a weapon against an officer but since it's in public he shouldn't defend himself? Please explain.

Ok...he not only drove TOWARD the officers, but he hit one of them which threw him on the vehicle. How many people are gonna cry that the police should have used other means. I don't care how good of a guy he was, and how many people he helped, and how good of a family man he was, and blah blah blah. Zachary made a bad decision that day that cost him his life. End of story.

Yet another reason to get out of LA while you can....it's a jungle

IRRELEVANT POINTS:
1) Why was Zac there? Answer: Unless it is a restricted area/private property, we have a right to be anywhere. It is, after all, a "free country". Moreover, we cannot be deprived of life or liberty without due process. Since Zac's due process was in the form of a bullet, there should and hopefully will be INTENSE and INDEPENDENT scrutiny.
2) Why would Zac "ram" an officer (part I)? Answer: Since the only avenue for the justification of the use of deadly force is to ALLEGE that Zac used his car as a deadly weapon, that is the ONLY HAND THE AUTHORITIES HAVE TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS. And that is why it appears so clumsy and tenuous. Maybe some Hollywood Hero could have been "thrown into the air, land on the hood, hit the windshield, and thrown onto the ground" and get up and shoot, but THAT DEFIES THE LAWS OF TIME AND SPACE.
3) Was Zac a Good Samaritan? Answer: Zac was indeed a lovely guy and kind-hearted, would he have placed both the officer and the "casing" suspect in jeapardy by hurling a car at both? Not an effective Good Samaritan move. Besides, one has to have the innate inclination to do harm to use a vehicle for that purpose. Look at all of Zac's testimonials. It's overwhelmingly positive. He was an upbeat and happy person INSIDE AND OUT.
4) Why would Zac "ram" an officer (Part II)? Even if the officer with the Jackie Chan moves was "rammed", THE RELEVANT QUESTION is what was the immediate threat of immediate future harm that would justify the use of deadly force??? Answer: The car/driver no longer appeared to be a threat when the officer shot. Thus, the actions of the officer appear to have been an unjustifiable use of deadly force. (For example, let's say someone rapes a person. During the rape, the victim may be justified in using deadly force to repel the attacker because rapes can and do end in death. Now, the assailant runs away and the victim catches up, tackles the rapist, immobilizes the rapist using a taser. Now, what would it be if the victim takes a nearby brick and smashes the rapist's skull? Answer: Murder. The victim no longer had the threat posed that would justify the use of deadly force)

There had to have been many, many witnesses to this tragedy. Write down and diagram everything that you saw. The victim here could have been any of you trying to park your car AS YOU DID MOMENTS EARLIER who found yourself surrounded by armed men in plainclothes. You should consider yourselves fortunate to not have had Zac's poor timing.

Chris, since you are a believer of karma, then you should be careful what you wish for. Wishing for me to need assistance from murderers, i.e. cops, is going to happen to you. Cops for the most part don't protect anyone because they usually show after a crime has been commited. They don't prevent crime at all as far as I'm concern. Oh wait a minute, they are good for something and that is to give out traffic violation tickets. You know they need to generate funds for the excessive overtime they work.

I have to say these are some of the best posts I've seen here at HR for some time. Hats off to Mel and Sympathetic reader! It's nice to read coherent well expressed posts for a change. Soon I think we will know a lot more about what happened; I'll be standing by.

What a remarkably cruel way to consider the death of another human being. Perhaps you would be less cavalier if the person concerned was someone you knew well and in whom you had respect, comfort and support.

I knew Zachary; he was one of my students and nothing in his character would ever convince his peers, family and friends that he did something deliberately destructive or hurtful to another person. He would not have knowingly attacked law enforcement officers. It simply wasn't in his nature. You are relying on a short new bulletin to suggest that this death was justified. The best thing I can think to say of Zac is if he read this about one of his friends, he would be far more humane and...perhaps, yes, he would have cried. That is what people do when they learn of the loss of someone who was loved and respected in his community.

Do not reduce a human life to “blah, blah, blah.” Consider those people who have lost someone they loved in such an tragic way not the righteousness of your opinions..that is humanity.

The only apparent "bad decision" Zac made was getting out of bed. The point those who knew Zac are making is that he was incapable of intentionally hurting another. Since an intentional act would have been criminal, he should be entitled to be "innocent" until proven guilty (no longer possible since he was killed). A plainclothes officer being struck by a driver unaware of their presence or status as law enforcement would be no different than a pedestrian being struck. Do pedestrians have the right to use lethal/deadly force AFTER being hit by a car? NO! Deadly force would be allowed, however, prior to being hit, as if you were being chased around the parking lot and could be sure it was an intentional act.

The problem here is that nobody but the officers knew that they were officers of the law. This was a foreseeable procedural flaw, particularly in light of the fact that their "operation" was pretty much over and they were "debriefing". There should have been a way that these officers could have been readily identified as law enforcement. Do you think that the "casing" suspect would have dared look into one of their cars' windows if he knew they were law enforcement personnel? Thus, the problems ending in the fatal shooting a an innocent person started long before Zac pulled into that parking lot. Unless procedural changes are made, it can happen again

Do not be so low and insensitive to blame the victim. He appears to have been an outstanding young man.

Look I never met zach but i have known people who i thought could have never did what they have done. How well do we really know anybody. Did he go there to run down a cop I doubt it. What was he doing there?

What many of you don't realize is that these officers were apparently undercover so while they were debriefing they were not in uniform. And the "man looking inside parked cars" was Zac's friend glancing into cars simply looking for ZAC since they were supposed to be meeting there in that Chipotle parking lot.

After the police confronted and scared this kid who supposedly put up a fight, all Zac saw were a couple civilians with guns drawn about to shoot his friend- and in what I'm sure he thought was an act of bravery, tried to save this person's life. Instead, an 18 year old kid was shot and killed and they asked questions later. None of which are being answered publicly, of course- since they know they are wrong.

I understand the people that think the police should have the right to defend themselves- but they handled this poorly and that is a fact. Because even in a pretend-world where Zac is some thug criminal (and not a sweet, loving 18 year old that just graduated high school), they STILL should have shot out his tires- even injured him and arrested him. NOT both opened fire and kill him without question.

It's a tragedy and should be treated as such, for respect of this kid's parents and his memory. It's "still under investigation"- so no one will tell the truth while the police "investigate" themselves.

I'm so sorry to the parents, friends, family members and anyone whose loss this is. Your loved one is so highly spoken of and defended. His memory is being fought for and will forever be known to those who actually knew him and what happened in his final moments. But don't let any of this take away from his character- you know Zac. Remember him that way

Has I read about Zachary Champommier, I feel that thier is more to this story. Police men do not always tell the truth. I did not know this young man, but it seems as though he was a good kid. May he RIP. and his family seeks justice.

@FindtheTruth,

There is absolutely no corroborating evidence that Zac knew the "casing suspect". To suggest a link is reckless. Even if the "casing suspect" claimed to be Zac's friend, it would be suspect for the following reason:
While he would not be guilty of felony murder, the felony murder rule states that if a person dies during the commission of a statutorily determined felony (usually burglary, arson, rape, or robbery- since they have an inherent likelihood of serious bodily injury or death resulting), the person committing the felony will be held liable for the death.

Here, the authorities may possibly be threatening to levy a charge of felony murder against the "casing" suspect because of Zac's death unless the "casing" suspect "plays along". Don't forget, the officers who killed Zac are going to go to prison for a long tome if it can be shown that their acts were some form of retaliation for having "rammed" the officer, albeit unintentionally, or unjustified under the circumstances.

Of course, there's a whole other civil rights side to this case. For now, however, these officers are going to be trying to make the proverbial square peg fit into the round hole. The proper scrutiny will ensue. I hope that those at the local level do not facilitate a cover-up and, wherever it leads, conduct themselves with the notion that Zac was an innocent victim and not the person that was spun to the public in the press release by the sheriffs (see Log 160 LA County Sheriffs).

What's interesting here is that usually the "risky shift", as it's known, applies to teenagers. Here, it looks like these officers went well out of their way to accost someone who hadn't even committed a viable crime (i.e., the "casing" suspect) and took chances all along the way without concern for protocol.

man white people come deep when one of there own gets smoked by police. I wonder if this suspect was another race would there be so much questioning of police action. no one say umm maybe his guy was a undercover meth head or crack head out for a score????? i know am thinking that ...mr ws 1x7 street is gone

We've said good-bye. Shed our tears. The saddest of scenes. To the latest piper in the sky, we love you and will always keep you in our hearts.

For all the posters who can't see beyond the color of one's skin, the people mourning this young man this evening were of all colors but ONE HEART. Ours is a human family not based on melanin.

If you want to focus on color, realize this: Ours tears are all the same color.

In this case, the short answer to your question is NO. The people who question what happened do so because we knew the man who was shot and the actions described in this article do not in any way match the person we knew. This is not a question of race or ethnicity. It is a question of what really happened that day. If you wish to think that this is "white people" getting upset perhaps it would be best not to assume the ethnicity of the people who care enough to tell others that this young man was not a criminal or a violent drug addicted individual. We, non-white people, also lost a friend and a truly good person in a senseless way. If you are thinking Zach was a meth head based on this report then you are not thinking

to no one inparticular,

My name is Samantha, I am 39 years old I currently live in Laguna Beach, CA. About 20 years ago my brother was shot and killed by police. When this tragic event happend I went into fighting mode. I just knew my brother would never do anything that would put him in danger nor would he ever ever hurt anyone. He was a good kid, helpful, intelligent, kind, he had compassion for others. He volunteered at a retirment center and a dog kennel. He played high school football was a star on the team and even had several offers to college programs. Because of his death I made it my life at the time to find out the truth about his death and his life. I was three years older them him and in colleg but spent the majority of my time playing detective. His death became my passion. It took a couple of years to get down to the truth. To find out the truth isn't that hard it just takes time and a willingness to know the whole truth! What I found out about my brother was he was living a double life. As a sister I sit here and tell you he did not derserve to die they way he did. As s citizen of the city that he died in at the time I would say what he was doing finally caught up to him. I love my brother and because of wanting to know the truth his death has allowed my to carve out for myself a great living and a wonderful life. I now live in this great city. What I am trying to say is, we never really know anyone. There isn't a person alive that would have been able to tell me that my dear brother could have done anything like what I found out and could have been invloved with what he got himself involved in and there's no way anyone could have made me believe that he would have done half of what I found out. I still love and miss my brother and would give up my right arm for just one last moment with him even after all these years. And then my mind turns to what I would say to him and the question that comes up the most is WHY? Again it is not that difficult to find out they whys of this young mans life including why he died. You just have to want to know the truth. If I can help you find the truth about this young I will do or help you find out.

Zac was and is a wonderful person. While i did not know him on a more personal level, I know that he was a terrific friend, a charismatic person, bright, gifted... name all of the good qualities a human being could possibly have, and he definitely had them. And boy, did it shine! I am LUCKY just to have known such an amazing individual. I do not know the full detail behind his death, but I feel shocked to read some of these comments... on both sides. I will not make assumptions about the police or try to undermine the feelings of his other friends and family. I only hope to honor his memory and the wonderful life that he led by recalling his wonderful character, his loyalty to his friends and a tenacity for life unrivaled from anyone I have ever met. We all would love some more understanding on the circumstances surrounding his death; however, I hope and pray that all those who knew Zac could find some comfort in knowing who he was as a person and not as the media portrays him. I'm pretty confident that all those who knew him would stand and fight for his honor any day as he would do for us... and that is what matters. We know Zac, we love him and we miss him terribly. It is a shame that one's journey could be cut so short when it has just begun. I hope that we all can learn that life is terribly short and that it can end at any moment. From what I know, Zac was very much about embracing life to the fullest and accomplishing one's dreams. That is beyond wonderful, and I hope that I can emulate that. May we all try to do just so. We love you, Zac. Whatever the circumstances, we know who you are, and it is that person that will continue to live in our hearts. Thank you for being who you are- an inspiration to all mankind.

It won't matter what the real truth is-the police will make it to be in their favor. And people like syscom3 will believe whatever the media reports. There is somthing wrong with this picture-the officer that was hit and the young man driving the car that hit him-something went wrong and it will never come out to the public. For the people who loved Zac keep your head up and remember the good person he was, to his family try to cope with this very private issue with the public watching. The police are NOT always in the right-some times they make mistakes, they are human also.

— Lady Joker; do you have factual evidence about this incident that contradicts what actually happened?

Can I say this about you ..... "lady joker does not believe anything that's reported"

How do we know this wasn't just a traffic accident that led to over-reaction? I've walked through that parking lot hundreds of times and nearly been hit several times. Each time I got mad, but, I wasn't armed, so nobody wound up dead.

I've read a lot of Joseph Wambaugh cop novels, and "debriefing after serving a warrant" sounds like a euphemism for drinking to celebrate surviving a scary, adrenalizing incident. This whole story sounds like a drunken scuffle that turned tragic through over-reaction.

By the way, if anybody from the LAPD is reading this, are you happy about sheriff's deputies and DEA agents shooting somebody on your turf? Studio City is LAPD territory, not sheriff's deputy turf. Maybe LAPD should investigate what actually happened.

It is a wonderful thing that so many of Zac's teachers, friends, and acquaintances are speaking up for him. When a kid who is known for his happy and gentle disposition, avoidance of drugs, good grades, and many friends is shot as a crime suspect, some serious questions should be directed toward those who shot him.

The news articles I have seen so far say that the deputies were not in uniform. If that is true, it is extremely likely that Zac either hit the deputy by accident, or was trying to get out of there quickly because he saw what he thought was an assault on a man [the 'other' suspect] in the parking lot. Many of Zac's friends even believe he was brave and altruistic enough to try to save the other man, if he thought he was in danger. That alone should speak volumes about Zac's character.

The anger people are seeing here is a result of the hurt and frustration of Zac's friends at his untimely loss. They are good kids, too, just like Zac, and they are trying to make some kind of sense out of this tragedy.

I pay a lot of taxes to have the LAPD police Studio City rather than the cut-rate LA County Sheriff's Deputies who patrol those parts of the County who can't get their act together enough to have their own police department. As a Studio City taxpayer and voter, I am not at all happy about LA County Sheriff's Deputies and DEA agents coming onto LAPD turf and shooting a viola-playing honor student out behind a fashionable Studio City bar. I wonder if there is anybody in the LAPD who isn't happy about this case either and might care to investigate what actually happened that night before the Sheriff's Department and the DEA shove it down the memory hole?

Zac was totally innocent that evening in Studio City. He was there to meet a friend in the parking lot to see a movie. The DEA agents stopped this innocent person walking over to meet Zac waiting in his car. They used excessive force and incited panic surrounding and stopping in innocent person who was not charged with any crime for walking to meet young Zac. The unnecessary commotion started by these undercover DEA agents stopping an innocent person shook up Zac as he began to fled the scene. Unfortunately an agent got in between him and the exit. Should these agents have bullied an innnocent friend in the parking lot walking to meet Zac. NO. Should Zac be alive if these undercover agents should have followed proper procedure without inciting a deadly panic. YES

— TheTruth; I actually agree with you on this.

Syscom3....You can not possible know what I believe, you don't know me and I have not been commenting on the HR that long. I know that everything that is reported on the news is not always correct, sometimes the media jump the gun just to be the first to report something. I was not witness to this incident so my knowledge is limited to what the media reports. I am intelligent enough to know that we only have one side of the story and how bias would we be if we took it and made it the truth based on only half a story? I can see that more "truth" about what really happened needs to come out before we comment on who is right and who is wrong. The police are not always right Syscom3, just like doctors, lawyers, and other professionals; they are only human and they make mistakes and some are life altering and some result in death. The bottom line is a two police officers have used their weapons and killed a 18 year old young man and they have to live with it for the rest of their lives, justified or not they are going through a rough time right now. The family of this young man is going through hell and they lost someone who they loved and who was loved by many. This is not a "gang related murder" so I am surprised you even care-oh yea you think that all law enforcement officers are untouchable and never make mistakes. Let the true & complete story unfold before you rush to side with the police. Do some research and you will find plenty of cases of the police being found guilty of excessive force, of stealing and of abuse of autority, you will find lawyers and doctors who have done wrong. You always have something to say about "checking the facts" so you do some fact checking on that while you're defending the actions of the police. Just because I believe that the real truth will not come out does not mean I don't want to know the truth and then decide what I believe.

— Lady Joker; I prefer to let the DA and the grand juries to determine if shootings are justified or not.

The last people I believe to make that judgment are the friends and relatives of the deceased.

find the truth, now that makes sense. He did not know that they were undercover police and thought he was saving his friends. I can see that. If I saw someone pull a gun on my friends or family and I was driving all I could do is try to run them down. I can see it happening. There needs to be some kind of reform or this will happen again. In a world of walk-bys ride-bys on bicycles and robberies we need to know who is who.

Syscom, I know you are looking at this impartially, but in a way that is the difficulty people are having here. It's hard to be impartial when you know and admire someone as much Zac's friends and teachers knew and admired him.

But after reading the posts, you should give those people some credit. There is a huge amount of people who are attesting to his character.

I think the biggest bone people have to pick with the police is the statement that Zac "rammed" the officer. Think of one of the people you care for most, someone you admire and trust, and imagine if you woke up tomorrow morning and found out, to your shock and horror, that that person was shot and killed for ramming a police officer. Would you go to bat for that person, or assume that the police had to have reported it correctly? Would you defend the statement made by the police department, or would you worry about a cover-up?

Zac is not an unknown to these people as he is to you. To them, just that word "rammed" alone is inflammatory and contrary everything they know about him. You can be impartial. But I hope if it ever happens to that someone special in your life, you will take a stand.

Both of my kids know Zach since elementary school. Zach had never been in trouble in his life and would never hurt a fly. He was an honor school with a bright future ahead of him. All his teachers, school administrators and students at Granada can attest to that. Zach did not deserve to die in this manner. We hope justice would prevail and the truth be known. RIP Zach..God's law will prevail!!!

This story drew me back here. Again, finding the truth isn't that hard. It will however take time and the ability to follow the truth and let the truth speak for itself. If the family needs help finding the truth about that night and what everyone was up to that night. As for friends we don't know our friends as good as we might think. Most of us have a side to them that we keep from others. Going back to my brother, he was a perfectionist, he believed that the world revolved around him. He thought because of who he was and his intelligence that he could get away with just about anything. Again, finding the truth is not hard you can find it you just have to be willing to look for it without putting in your two cents.

@TheTruth: The man they stopped in the lot was by no means innocent.

Some people say that Zac misjudged the situation and thought that the cops were thugs. He simply wanted to help his friend. I think this is hilarious. Would you run over a thug robbing your friend at gunpoint? I wouldn't. Why make a situation that is already bad even worse? That's not brave at all but just plain stupid. You're putting yourself and your friend in much more danger. Not to mention that it’s not justifiable force to run somebody over because they are robbing your friend. If Zac had had a gun on him, would he have shot the other guy, Dirty Harry-style? That's exactly the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude so many people here criticize the police for. From everything I've learned in various comments made by friend and family here and elsewhere, Zac wasn't the kind of guy who would take matters into his own hands and act like a badass, running over random people (or cops for that matter) without hesitating. Then why didn't he just call the cops? That's what the good guys do right? He didn’t call the police because I don't think that this is what happened at all.
Then what happened?
I think there’s no denying that Zac was the good kid, the honor student, the great friend, the band guy that most people here remember him as. But the best kids aren’t prone to making bad decisions. Every parent knows this, teenagers aren’t perfect and do the weirdest things sometimes. In 99.9% of all cases these mistakes end relatively well. They learn from their mistakes. In Zac’s case, it ended in a tragedy. I think Zac knew exactly that he and his friend got busted by police, and panicked. Maybe his friend had drugs on him or was in the process of buying them. Whatever the case, he was up to no good. So Zac wanted to get away, unfortunately for him the place was crowded with cops and one of them was standing in the way. Whatever really happened that night, Zac made some really bad decisions. And don't tell me he was totally against drugs and an honor student....That doesn't mean that he didn't secretly do drugs. His friends aren't going to tell you, even if they knew, that's for sure…If he just wanted to see a movie, and did nothing wrong, he would have stayed in his car, and would have called the police. Don’t blame the cops. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. They try to arrest a guy that behaves suspiciously. The guy is not cooperative, to put it mildly. Next thing they see is another crazy maniac coming out of nowhere. He rams a fellow officer with his car. What else could possibly go wrong in a situation like this? Sounds like a worst case scenario to me. That’s not exactly a situation when de-escalation is an option. You want to gain control of the situation, as quickly as possible.

This may sound naïve, but if you want to blame anyone, blame the dealers and the drugs. Think about it: That’s why the cops were there in the first place. And that’s probably the reason why Zac and his friend were there, too.

Syscom3 goes from one extreme to another on this blog. Thank the lord he uses this blog to vent his biased, ignorant opinions! It could be worse! If he was a trigger happy gangster, or a police officer we'd have a lot more homicides on here. Thank goodness he's a harmless blogger. One day he'll learn to have enough emotional intelligence to be respectful. If not, hopefully he doesn't breed.
RIP Zachary

— Paul; I do not go from one extreme to the other. I change my opinion as events unfold.

Please also note that I am not a police officer. And its absurd to even consider I would be a gangster.

As for intelligence and respect; you need to be mature about these things. Respect is given to those who earned it. Intelligence is what I have and a lot of people don't.

I didn't know this young man, any of his friends, or family. I do know that he was loved by many people and had a positive effect on many. I also know I pray for strength and courage for the family to help them get through this loss.

I also know that police officers have a heck of a job to do in LA! They don't know who the good guy is, and who is the bad guy. They can only go on behavior, and the friend "casing" the cars was exhibiting suspect behavior. If Zach misinterpretted the police actions, or if he didn't know they were police, Zach's actions put him in harms way by moving toward the group of police with a vehicle that can be construed to be a lethal weapon if used in a dangerous manner. The fact that a man was hit with the vehicle, intentionally or not, is still a fact, and the ownership of that action belongs to Zach. Why he didn't keep his car stopped, and observe the activity with the person "casing", we'll never know. He could have chosen to leave the scene. Zach made a choice to inject himself into a situation, and paid for that with his life. The police had no way of knowing if he was a good guy or bad guy. They just knew someone was coming at them with a lethal weapon. The shooting was justified. Police can't be expected to assume they are not in harms way when a machine weighing a ton comes at them. And they have the right to protect themself. As far as Zach being shot AFTER the officer was hit, the shot could have been from another officer. But it could have been from the officer who took the car hit. They are taught how to roll out of situations and onto their feet, and all happens in a matter of less than a second.

That boy was just driving by minding his own business and dat bad popo just shot him for no reason. he was such a goot boy..

If the cops don't know if he's a good guy or a bad guy, they have no right to shoot. In this case, it appears the victim didn't know they were the police and tried to protect his friend. A poor decision but very understandable.

Intentionally hitting someone with your car is reason to get shot. It's just too bad he didn't realize who the cops were. Everybody knows that if you drive your car at LAPD they will shoot you.

May Zachary rest in peace.

Where is swinecom??? Same thing here. his family says the same things ...but yet when the victim is a minority....the families love and thoughts are code for gang lingo according to him and a few others. Let a white all person get killed and look....all these excuses.....I my self think it was a drug deal....yet no one is saying he was a gangster...gang member.....hey you don't know these about other families that you say these things about...but when its a white person..no words of that..Black people are killed everyday by police...yet you people make excuses...or just plain don't give a damn....now its a problem....we get killed...laying on the ground complying...this guy runs down a policeman...yet he is an angel...a smart man...you people are insane. Oscar Grant....did he run down a cop...no he was laying on the ground yet he was killed...now here comes people digging up dirt to justify what happened. Just read the stories of minorities that were killed by cops...look at what these guys write...now they come on here to glorify this guy because the color of his skin......He couldn't have done this..yet our mothers & brothers come on here to say the same things yet we are tortured by these people calling their family members monsters and killers when they don't even know these people...We been getting killed four years on end......Shawn Bale....killed on his wedding day by cops...did he run down a cop???

Preach CALI! Its the ultimate double standard. I sympathize with the family, but I sympathize with ALL the families of victims. NO ONE deserves to go out like this.

Any new info on this story? Who is the other "suspect". Is he still in custody? What did they charge him with? Resisting arrest? What was the original crime they charged him with?

I assume you are referring to Sean Bell, CALI, and it is ironic you would choose to highlight that case. Actually it's hilarious because you see in answer to your question about Mr Bell, "did he run down a cop???", well actually, yes he did. In an incident similar to this one, plain-clothed police officer Gescard Isnora (who incidentally is an African American) flashed his badge and ordered Mr. Bell (who incidentally was thoroughly intoxicated) to stop his vehicle. Instead Bell accelerated his car hitting officer Isnora and then a police minivan, whereupon all the shooting started. In that case, which has been looked at quite extensively, all the officers involved were cleared. And yet you along with that scam artist hustler Al Sharpton, are still attempting to use that case as an example of corrupt 'raaaaacist' police. Sorry Cali, you'll have to do better than that.

— CALI ... "swinecom" is here. Is there anything you want me to say about this other than to say that the deceased was not a gangster and for you to imply it, flies in the face of facts and statistics.

If this was a wrongful shooting, with an associated police conspiracy to cover it up--as theorized by so many commentators on this site--then that is exactly the type of sensational and explosive story that the media (LA Times, Weekly, TV news, etc.) would love nothing more than to pounce on. But it has been two weeks now, and I'm not seeing any coverage, any new info, or any momentum being gained by this tragic story. Does anybody have any substantial/credible evidence of police malfeasance in this matter?

Becarefull on how you use "wrongfull shooting".

That implies the officers went against training, procedures and policy.

This is more like an accidental shooting in which an unfortunate sequence of events occured that ended up with someone getting shot.

So, it's now almost two weeks after a fatal officer-involved shooting in the heart of Studio City and, as far as I can tell:

-- The names of the shooters have never been made public by the DEA or the LASD.

-- The name of the eyewitness has not been released, either.

Almost nothing has been made public. As a Studio City resident, I want to know what happened in my community.

Since the officer was somehow able to defy the laws of space and time by allegedly being struck and thrown about like a ragdoll, somehow getting to his feet to render a fatal side shot, how is it justifiable use of deadly force if Zac's car was no longer presenting an immediate threat?

The use of force to repel an unjustified use of physical force must be in lockstep with the threat present or reasonably perceived. Here, a reading of the incident log (Sheriffs Log #160) and the coroner's indications of the wounds suggest retalliation, or possibly some other unjustified use of deadly force.

Due to Zac's unblemished history and extended family, this apparently will be scrutinized at higher levels. All residents of Studio City should be in an uproar. It could have been anyone pulling into that parking lot and taken out by bullets from PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.

— Mike; ever consider that the officer discharged the gun as he was rolling on the ground?

Or maybe it was a different officer firing the fatal shots?

You privy to the police report?

I'm not sure if this LA Times comment section will allow links to be posted, but I'd like to try. This is a touching video for Zac that his friends put together. It was played at his memorial service on Friday. If the link doesn't come through, you can search Youtube for Zachary Nathan Champommier. Please watch, and remember him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg0uKAYK09U

Mike-

Either you didn't thoroughly read the account of the events or you're purposely leaving out a key fact to fit your theory-there was more than one agent firing at the driver. I.E.....it's very probably that Zac was killed by the OTHER agent firing from the side in defense of the agent struck.

"The deputy AND a task force member assigned to the DEA then opened fire"

"Champommier suffered a gunshot wound to the left arm and left armpit."

Seriously.

The relevant question is, and always will be, if the deputy survived the alleged "ramming" and SUBSEQUENTLY fired his weapon along with other agent(s), where was the immediate threat of FUTURE serous bodily harm to officers if Zac's car was not in a position to cause immediate future injury?

Even one of the 1996 North Hollywood shootout suspects was taken alive. He was armed with an AK-47, had shot several people, AND presented a CLEAR THREAT OF IMMEDIATE FUTURE serious bodily injury to both officers and the public. Why wasn't Zac afforded the similar treatment of being taken alive? How much more threatening is a Toyota sedan than a blazing AK-47???

It's my neighborhood and I don't want some undercover police officers to have their meetings there. I don't believe their theory of being attacked by poor Zac. If officers did not identified themselves, to poor boy , to you and me they will look like bunch of "rednecks" trying to pick up a fight. And to me it looks like they did exactly that. The only problem is that once again it was innocent life that they took. Will they ever learn think before pulling gun out? I don't think so. Their brain is not programmed to think ( at least it appears like it). I just hope that it will be a fair investigation and all officers that were involved will be punished and thrown out, so their guns will never take more innocent lives.

The full(er) story is out. Another Times article entitled "Witness to fatal shooting of honors student says teen wasn't speeding toward deputy" came out today. It's actually dated July 13, 2010, which is tomorrow's date. Please read it, all of you who have doubts:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teenager-killed-20100712,0,1476311.story?track=rss

Also, Zac's memorial was beautiful. There was a butterfly release and everything. Zac would have loved it. =)

We have a witness. The "casing" suspect has come forward and says that Zac was driving slowly and did not present a threat. Forensic and circumstantial evidence continues to point to poor judgment and possible officers misconduct.

The officers should just forget the facade and come clean.

The sheriffs have their big hypnosis wheel spinning. Their house of cards that is their untenable description of the events of June 24 is about to fall.

It may be poor odds, but I'm hoping that there was one decent person among that group of officers who will honor the notion that public safety should be a priority. I hope that person has the courage to honor his/her parents and all the important people in his/her life that would want the truth to be known by coming forward and telling the truth. "A Few Good Men" is going to be the movie of the month here.

With Baca's description of the car vs. pedestrian collision as an "aggressive action" it is clear that he grasping for straws on this one and trying the same old tactic of blaming the victim.

Shame. What a pathetic display. You have soiled the badges you wear with the blood of an innocent young man.

A Parent, I hope the cops responsible for taking Zack's life away look at his video in hopes that they feel remorseful. Although injustice prevails in the judicial system in particular for cops that kill innocent people, the conscience of these murderers will be there to remind them of what they did was wrong. Unfortunately, Zack is not the first nor will he be the last victim of killer cops. There needs to be a major shake down in the LAPD and LAC Sheriff and both Chiefs Lee Vaca and Charlie Beck are ought to be fired and the murderers, cops, should be sent to jail for the rest of their lives. Without a major shake down cops will continue killing people without given it a second thought.

It is clear that a criminal investigation of the officers involved is warranted. This CANNOT be conducted by the agencies involved. There must be a light shone from above on this matter. The public must demand accountability and transparency. Any "code of silence" is bound to vaporize when any of the officers involved watch that video that portrays who Zac really was.

So then Mike and Jag, with our witness verifying that Zack ran his car into the cop and the cop ends up on his hood and then back down to the ground, (I hope by now we accept that, right?) how do you explain his action if it wasn't hostile? Sounds like Zack was attempting to leave despite the cop standing right in front of him. Apparently, according to the witness, he wasn't going terribly fast but then that means he had enough time to stop but chose to proceed through the officer anyway. That sounds pretty aggressive/hostile to me. But not to you guys right?

Exactly how does one know a armed officers in plainclothes are "cops"?

Exactly how would one be able to survey a frantic landscape and react when a couple places himself in front of your vehicle by running or jumping in front of it once you decide that you need to "get out as quickly as you can"?

Such superhuman thought processes and speed should have been displayed by those with their fingers on the trigger not an innocent young man who had no idea who these apparent thugs were.

I've always been the last person to question a police officer for using what they call, "necessary force," but this case makes me start to wonder how many unnecessary killings have occurred under this carte blanche excuse. Zac didn't hit a police officer. He hit someone in plain clothes who was bullying someone he knew, who happened to be an officer. He wasn't a drug dealer, a gang member, or an alcoholic, he was an honors student who spent all his free time in Granada's music programs (marching band, concert band, orchestra...). Every person who has had the privilege of getting to know Zac has loved him, and while no one but Zac can say what really happened that night, I know that what's being told isn't the whole truth. Zac had so much left to offer the world and I'm heartbroken that he won't be able to show us what that was.

I'm not saying that he was completely in the right here, but knowing Zac, he would never run down a police officer. He was, however, someone who would come to the rescue of someone who was being bullied by a group of rednecks.

Citizenjohn, witnesses also stated the cops were not in uniform. If I see a group of men with guns I'm going to do everything possible to get away from them. If I was a cop, believe me I would NEVER stand in front of a moving vehicle in hopes to stop a suspect.

Aaah,

According to the account of the "eye witness", he and Zac had never met face-to-face. As such, how would one even know that a person being accosted by a group of apparent thugs would be someone recognizable at 9:30 at night? You'd have to be very close indeed if all could possible have had to go on might be a picture sent online. So, I don't subscribe to Zac playing the "hero". I do subscribe to Zac the human being and doing what similarly situated human beings would do if faced with the same harrowing landscape: Get out of there.

Think about it, if you're in Yellowstone and come across a bear, do you engage your cognitive brain functions and actually, rationally consider whether the hump between the shoulder blades means it's a grizzly or not? Let me see, are they the ones that can't run downhill? No, you're pretty much going on instinct for self-preservation. Now, if Zac had a child who was in that eye-witness's position being harassed. Or, it was his mom, that's a different instinct. Playing hero for one he'd never met...Forget it. It simply wouldn't be expected when faced with apparently armed thugs.

The bottom line here is unless you were physically at the crime scene & personally witnessed the actual incident occur then every last speculating j3rk off in here is wrong.

People its sad to have to deal with death among kids! no matter what race they are! Living in LA means u have to use caution! Especially with the aggressive law enforcement this city contains! If u live and actually run into them in tha streets, u know that they are nothing to play with! when they pull u over just take ure key out the ignition and put both hands out tha window! Dont go for your glove box or make any sudden movements! and definetly dont try and run them over or drive fast in their direction! I hate to say this but there is no case of misconduct on the officers behalf! the kid used his car as a lethal weapon, so they returned with lethal force! Be easy my young California children! Tickets, searches, and questioning beat a closed casket any day! RIP Mr. Champommier

cops are pigs

— tha street watcher .....
"Especially with the aggressive law enforcement this city contains! "

Dont you mean the aggressive criminals who think nothing of shooting anyone for any reason?

tha street watcher-

The police are allowed to use reasonable force, even deadly force, to repel an unjustified attack that presents an immediate threat of imminent serious bodily injury/death. That said, what imminent threat of immediate imminent bodily harm was presented to officers who ELECTED AMONG MANY OPTIONS to employ deadly force, if Zac's car and conduct were not presenting such a threat? Are you saying that because Zac's car was involved in an apparently accidental pedestrian vs. auto collision with a plainclothes officer, that deadly force as RETALIATION for being hit by the car is OKAY???
Bottom line, evidence is beginning to mount that Zac did not present an IMMINENT threat that necessitated the use of deadly force. That is our problem here. It is a problem for anyone who uses public parking lots, sits in their car, meets with friends, goes grocery shopping, or gets anywhere near law enforcement because doing so means one is entering both the TWILIGHT ZONE AND A ZONE OF DANGER.

Welcome to America.

The "COPS" were UNDERCOVER with no visible way to identify themselves fast enough. Why does everyone assume they were in uniform?

~Syscom~ Give us a BREAK!! the Police are not always in fear of their lives when they shoot to kill. You justify any and every police shooting as if they can do no wrong. The police are HUMAN under the super-hero clothes YOU dress them in- they have and will continue to shoot and kill innocent people-not to mention the people they kill who ARE breaking the law but have not put anyone in danger and does not have a weapon. I use to try to see your point of view and sometimes even agree with some of your comments--but your refusal to EVER see things any way but your way when it involves the police makes me want to skip over your comments. Maybe even stop reading the HR since you are on dam near every page. YOU have the freedom to write and I have the freedom to stop coming on this site. So see ya I'm out!!!

_A.Friend.---Thank you!!!! I feel you

— Lady Joker; in this case I do think something went wrong that night. A bad set of circumstances and reactions involving everyone.

If the police were doing their meeting in a parking lot in Compton, then they would have a reason to be paranoid. But the location they chose wasn't exactly in a high crime area.

And has been mentioned; if they were not wearing their regular uniforms, then at nighttime, that adds an element of uncertainty.

Did the conduct of the police rise to a level of criminal conduct? Probably not. But are they responsible for civil damages; hell yes. And big time.

As to criminal culpability, the relevant question remains as follows:

Did Zac's car or conduct present a reasonable fear of the threat of imminent serious bodily injury or death to officers, based of their positions relative to Zac's car, such that the use of deadly force was necessitated as the only option?

Given the layout of the parking lot and the information on the position of the shooter (i.e., facing the driver's side door), and the fact that the deputy who was hit by Zac's car was "just fine", Zac would not have presented an "immediate threat". He would have had to turn his car around to make "another pass". That never happened and, knowing Zac, never would have happened.

What ever happened to "Don't taze me bro!", spike strips, calling in the chopper, ramming/disabling the suspect's car??? Again, they managed to take one of the North Hollywood Bank Shootout suspects alive. He had a blazing AK-47, shot several people, and just held up a bank, AND was a clear and present danger of continuing to serious injure or kill others.

Everything about the officers' conduct that night suggests OVER-THE-TOP mentality.

All indications point to LASD trying to slide on by on this one.

Each and every Studio City resident should be outraged that a cold-blooded killing could occur right in the middle of a populated area like Studio City. Worse yet, that is was conducted by public servants whose job is to allegedly protect ordinary people, just like Zac.

This phenomenon whereby law enforcement officers appear to use deadly force capriciously, and with apparent immunity, may result from desensitized former military, returning to civilian life and simply maintaining the status quo: Aggressive, shoot first, cowboy tactics. I'm reminded of a similar story in Huntington Beach, CA a few years ago, when an intoxicated 16 year-old wisp of a girl presented officers with a pocket knife at thirty paces, and received 18 - 30 9 mm rounds for her poor choices. Those officers were never charged and the city wasn't even sued competently. Hopefully, the DA will file charges against these officers. It should be left to a jury to determine if their use of force was reasonable.

I am a longtime Studio City resident and grew up there, I am a business owner in the valley and I am not a police hater...but...I am tired of the police killings for everything. I was at the metro in noho last summer when the LASD tasered a guy to death for not paying the toll and now something like this...its not right! Studio City is a rich area so no one feels scared anywhere at anytime trust me.
Reading the story it sounds to me like the older guy was setting up a meeting with a younger boy to "hang out" when he already had a conviction for luring a minor for sex on the internet...hmmm interesting maybe thats why the victim was so intent on protecting his friend and getting out of there because maybe he thought some hillbillies were gay bashing his special friend. Granada Hills is a ways away from Studio City and is not alot of movie places close to there so....I think you get the picture of why they were meeting in the parking lot....but you cant kill him for it.
I am sorry for the families loss and I hope you call Greg Yates or ACLU to get justice since it was a federal agent who murdered your son and friend.

Chris-

I'm glad you touched on the irrelevance of why Zac would decide to meet someone he'd only encountered online the previous night. But, barring a beloved family member being accosted by cops at gunpoint, Zac would have never intervened. Even if it was a loved one, Zac would have stuck his head out and yelled or something. The relevant question is whether Zac presented an imminent threat of serious bodily injury/death to the officers such that it was reasonable to use deadly force. Here, we know that the fatal shot came from the side, facing the driver's side door. Others were from the rear. His car was traveling parallel to a fence to his left about 2-3 yards away. There was no danger to anyone.

From what i have heard about this, the kids friend that was initially arrested, was dropped of and looking for his friend, but didn't know what type of car he was in. this cause his to look around that parking lot (inside cars) to find his friend. during this a police/DEA officer meetingt taking place at the same parking lot had go out and they noticed the guy looking in the cars including some of the officers unmarked cars. then NON-UNIFORMED officers confronted the kid pulling there gun and pushing him to the ground. at the same time the kid that got shot had arrived to see his friend being shoved to the ground with guns in his face and he accelerated at them thinking they were robbers. at the same time another officer step infront of the car and was "struck" so they fired at him and killed him.

this reminds me of Sean Bell who was kill on the night before his wedding in NY by a undercover cops who's identity was not known or not clearly stated.

This is a growing problem.
Cops covering for Cops when there is an incident.

Even recently a unmark/off duty policeman jump out of his car with his gun drawn for a motorcyclist that was hot dogging/speeding on the freeway
the guy had it on his helmet camera and the officer later added extra wiretapping charges for recording him without his consent.
sorry but anyone can record anyone as long as they are on public land. plus wiretapping is for recording peoples voice over the phone without there knowledge.

Brian-

Again, anyone should be free to park in a public parking lot and not have the threat of being killed by "public servants". The officers used their knee-jerk alibi that they were in fear for their lives, etc. How is it that one could be in fear for one's life if the car that struck the officer is moving away and the officer is basically uninjured??? Justifiable use of deadly force requires that there be an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death presented to the officers such that they have no real choice. Basically, "it was me or him". I don't think that was even remotely the case here. These officers were simply overboard on everything they did. They sent a couple of officers, and an extra one with his gun drawn, to deal with a 165 lb. guy who was simply looking into windows of unoccupied cars. Talk about overboard! Then, as if it is unimaginable that a pedestrian versus auto collision is not foreseeable in a parking lot, they kill Zac when he simply sought to get away from what must have looked like a group of mafiosi.

Enough is enough. We are not safe from law enforcement. They thirst for "action" like they're in some video game. I want to know that decent, honest, law-abiding persons like Zac and millions of other US citizens will not be summarily shot on what appears to have been a whim.

I wonder why Zac's picture has been changed from his recent prom photo to this one?

It's strange that Zac's picture would be changed. Did the law enforcement reps ask the Times to change the photo? Was the use of Zac's recent prom picture, taken only days before his killing by law enforcement, too damning of the conduct of law enforcement?

What does that say about the Times?

The Times switched out the photo of Zachary Champommier on 08/11/10. The old image was a picture taken from a memorial sign. The new image, provided by the DMV, has a clearer view of his face. Contrary to some readers comments, the photo was not replaced due to pressure from law enforcement.

Dear LA Times, my bad. After OJ, one never knows.

Now, how about getting to the bottom of the following issues of public interest:

1. Why were law enforcement officers conducting a "debriefing" in public parking lot, creating an inherent risk to the public?
2. Why didn't law enforcement have readily identifiable garb to distinguish themselves as "law enforcement" so that the public would be adequately warned to stay away?
3. Why wasn't the area of the public parking law enforcement used for the "debriefing" cordoned off so that the public would not have interfaced with the area in use?

The aforementioned are all matters of public interest that the Times should be addressing as a matter of jounalistic duty.

The issues of what imminent threat was presented by Mr. Champommier to a shooter who appeared to be well out of harm's way when deadly force was selected from the many options available will be, apparently, left to the court/jury of public opinion.

Interesting that the LA Times would censor my comments. I thought the First Amendment was something to be treasured and protected, even if the statements being made are critical of the Times.

I will cancel my subscription to your paper due to your blatant censorship of opposing and/or critical views towards the Times, which exhibits complete disregard for the First Amendment protections upon which it is founded.

sounds like some power drunk cops decided to ruff up a would be thief. the cops where in plane clothes so what Zachary witnessed was some thugs beat up a guy, then pull a gun on someone who was only guilty of looking around. He tried to save the helpless victim, but was instead shot (in the side by someone in front of his vehicular). of course i wasn't there, but think about it. the most obvious answer is usually the correct one

Chris says:

"not alot of movie places close to there"

That big, busy, well-lit, virtually zero crime parking lot at Ventura and Laurel Canyon in Studio City would be a perfectly sensible place for somebody from Porter Ranch to arrange to meet somebody met online if they were considering going on to a movie at Universal CityWalk, where parking is something like $9 per car. It's a very respectable parking lot.

It's an extremely safe parking lot, except, apparently, when undercover agents are "debriefing" in it.

Let’s be real specific as to the legal standards regarding justifiable use of deadly force:

[[[[California law permits the use of deadly force in self-defense or in defense of others if it reasonably appears to the person claiming the right of self-defense or the defense of others that he actually and reasonably believed he or others were in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death. (People v Williams (1977) 75 Cal. App.3d 731.)

In protecting himself or another, a person may use all force which he believes reasonably necessary and which would appear to a reasonable person, in the same or similar circumstances, to be necessary to prevent injury which appears to be imminent. (California Jury Instructions-Criminal 5.30 and 5.31.)

When the peril is swift and imminent and the necessity for action immediate, the law does not weigh into nice scales the conduct of the assailed and say he shall not be justified in killing because he might have resorted to other means to secure his safety. People v Collins (1961) 189 Cal. App.2d 575.]]]]]

So, the relevant question will always be as follows: What imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death was posed by Zac’s conduct or car to shooters who stood facing his driver’s side door and from the rear of Zac’s car????????

Try as the LASD and DEA might to tweak the physics, it just doesn’t look like it’ll work. That’s exactly why it’s taking so long. It’s already been 9 weeks. Let’s hope Zac’s last name doesn’t evolve into Salazar.

Mel,

You asked some great questions...so now i have one for you. Why was Zac getting in the middle of something that wasn't any of his business? Did he really think driving up to someone with a gun was the right thing to do? What was his intention? Did he think doing that was going to stop the ineractions that he saw? Why didn't he just make a 911 call right away? He didn't even know this so called friend so how did he not know that this friend did something wrong and was being stopped? Great cause you've backed up...

Jack-

Zac appears to have been trying to get out of the immediate area. One has to know the layout of the parking lot to know that there was really only one way for him to go. Mind you, he was no Steve McQueen behind the wheel. He was only 18. Maybe if he would have put the car in reverse he could have entirely avoided the mess. But, he might have felt that was more precarious given his ability behind the wheel.

Jack, it appears, however, that you have put a great deal of faith in the official version of events. That's great, unless you knew Zac and knew him to be incapable of harming another person. Those who had the privilege of knowing Zac recognized the "official version" as nothing more than an apparent knee-jerk response to an all-too-typical occurrence these days: Officer-Involved-Shootings (OIS).

I just read in yesterday's Times that the LA County settled with the family of a man killed by sheriffs while he sat in his car in his family's driveway. Of course, the LASD claimed that he made some movement that looked as if he was reaching for something under his seat. Apparently, after he was killed, they found nothing. No drugs. No guns.

This is simply happening too much. There is something wrong if officers operate on a "shoot first" basis. Heck, the Mexican army brought in some drug lord (La Barbie) the other day ALIVE! The LAPD took one of the North Hollywood Bank of America shootout guys ALIVE. But, for some reason people sitting harmlessly in their driveways or marching band saxophone players are just too menacing to society to do likewise.

Is supporting this trend in the LASD your cause, Jack?

Jack-

By the way, next time you're confronted with armed men, indistiguishable from mafiosi, at night while sitting in your car, try lighting up your cell phone to call 911 and then hope the time between your call and law enforcement's arrival isn't longer than it would take an armed man, standing a few feet from your car, to come over and shoot.

As for Zac driving into "the middle of it", there's no evidence-other than what the officers have said in the sheriff's log- to indicate that sequence.

Don't forget, the officers are forced by circumstances to justify their actions. When was the last time you heard an officer admit to operating outside the law or unjustifiably using deadly force? Those admissions, if they come at all, happen on the stand.

That's exactly where we hope to hear this one.

Mel,

he wasn't that close...he saw something happening from a far right? So from a far and out of harms way he couldn't make a call? Give me a break, this man/child didn't know what the heck was going on drove on to a situation that he could not control and was out of his element and made a big mistake. Lay blame to all parties involved the first one being young Zac who didn't know what kind of situation he was driving into and what kind of people he was dealing with. That's why most of us live in a society of laws...taking the law into your own hands leaves one open to all kinds of stories and circumstances and yes even who to blame. Young Zac should have taken more responsiblity for his actions...and what was he going to do if this was a bad man or men and they were there to do harm? Run them all down? He had no right to take the law into his own hands and play Charles Bronson in Death Wish.

Jack-

Well, it's obvious that you didn't know Zac. He most certainly was not the type of person to "take the law into his own hands". Zac's involvement in the events that played out were no different than anybody's would have been if similarly situated. It literally could have been your mother driving into that parking lot and faced with that situation. That's why the questions need to start and stop with the wisdom of "debriefing" in a public parking lot; the wisdom of not wearing clothing that would readily identify a gun-wielding person as law enforcement to the general public, especially since stealth was no longer required at this stage of their "operation"; the wisdom of not having at least one marked car so that the public would know that law enforcement were present (even if just for purposes of knowing that the public could seek their assistance if needed). Or, the wisdom of deviating from their "debriefing mission" and, instead, morphing into "casing prevention and enforcement". That's laughable. I mean, they didn't even wait for the guy to make an action that would amount to "attempted-any crime". If those were veterans, I'd hate to see the beginners.

If any of those preventative measures had been done, Zac's picture would not be on this site. If those procedures don't change, it very could be another needless and senseless killing.

But, let's not forget the relevant point: How did Zac's car or conduct present an imminent threat of serious bodily injury to those officers at the moment they elected to use deadly force if they, apparently, stood facing the driver's door and from the rear of Zac's car?

How can an officer be allegedly "rammed" by a car that "suddenly appeared and sped into the group, throwing the officer in the air and landing on the hood"? I'm pretty sure that one who gets "rammed" by a speeding car and gets thrown into the air can only land on the hood of that car if there was 1. no speeding at all, or 2. the car was stopped.

I think all of Zac's family and friends would love for Sheriff Baca to demonstrate how all these things could have occurred so that we can believe that our public servants indeed were faced with a situation that truly justified the use of deadly force. I'm afraid that's what the delay here is all about: They're trying REAL HARD to make that square peg fit into the proverbial round hole.

The fact that there are several agencies involved only complicates matters. I think there are officers who don't want any part of that "fuzzy science".

Mel,

Are you serious? Zac had choices too. He had the choice to make a call from a far out of harms way.He had no idea what he was driving into and what he was getting himself into. He made the choice to drive into a situation that he did not know anything about! He did it not the man on the moon. He decided to take the law into his own hands. He drove up to someone using his car as a means to an end and took the responsiblity for this exact kind of thing. You want to talk about responsibility right? I mean you go on and on about what the law enforcement should do and not do but where is your equally to blame Zac? Are you telling me that he holds no responsiblity? Are you telling me that he had a right to continue to drive into someone with his car? I don't care if he just let his car move forward and no speed was readable on his odometer...(I know readable it not a word) but his car still had the ability to hurt someone right? So any hurt that Zac might have caused was perfectly ok because he was doing in his heart something he felt compaled to do? Your aguments make no sense why do you think no one has commented? Oh by the way do you think that going on and on about this is going to change the out come? I don't come to this site very often but your aguments are pointless. Stop throwing up on Zac's memroy and give it a rest. You have no better an idea what went on that night then I do. And all your aguments about where breifing and anything else should take place is not the point here...what is the point is that Zac took the law into his own hands and paid the price.

@Jack-

How do you come to the conclusion that Zac "took the law into his own hands"???
Maybe Zac was compelled to move by a parade of armed plainclothes officers. Maybe he just happened to turn into that part of the parking lot and unwittingly happened on the scene. One thing's for sure: Zac slammed on his brakes. One who slams his brakes on does so for the purposes of avoiding injury or damage. There are reports that the officer who was "struck" may have jumped in front of Zac's car because that officer might have drawn an erroneous conclusion about Zac's intentions.

So, how is Zac different from any other Studio City resident or your mother if similarly situated and faced with that scene? Zac was not a trained law enforcement officer. Zac was simply driving, apparently slowly.

Jack, you state that Zac had intent to strike the officers. That's a load of crap. Again, you didn't know Zac and are simply biting the "official" version hook, line, and sinker.

When the "official" version came out on June 25, everyone who knew Zac were absolutely, 100% sure that that story was simply law enforcement utilizing the infamous CYA Strategy (Cover your butt). What else could they do? I mean, if they don't say that Zac used his car as a weapon, what else could they say? Would they, then, have to admit to summary execution of Zac?

Unfortunately for law enforcement, their story has a lot of problems. Among them are: 1) The over-the-top response to the "casing suspect" (Oeters- Someone who was simply walking in the parking lot looking into windows of unoccupied cars. The officers' foray into "casing prevention" versus "debriefing" looks like they were just in the mood to kick someone's butt); 2) Holding a "debriefing" in a public parking lot without utilizing a method by which the public would be kept out of the area and allowing for ready identification; 3) Zac's killing- This, of course, is the most problematic because officers now have to explain how Zac's car or conduct presented an imminent threat of serious bodily injury to the officer(s). That is why this is taking so long. They have been painted into a corner by the use of their knee-jerk alibi and Zac's outstanding character. It's like a Venn diagram where the circles don't overlap.

Jack, let's not forget that accidents indeed happen, especially in parking lots. Heck, the mayor got hit while riding his bike by a taxi driver. The mayor has armed bodyguards. Why is it that the taxi driver is still alive? Why was "La Barbie" taken alive, when he is alleged to be responsible for the deaths of hundreds in Mexico? Why was the North Hollywood Bank Shootout guy taken alive when he was fleeing from a bank heist and had shot several people and was still a threat to the public??? I guess the real threat is an 18 year-old saxophone-playing honors student from Granada Hills High School, right?

Work and getting that hook, line, and sinker out of your gullet before pointing a finger at Zac.

Mel,
Are you serious? Now you want to draw in La Barbie and whatever other refrences you made? So in your head which one would Zac be? Would he be the hero or the ham? I don't want to draw any refrences to Champommier and any other person. You have no idea what was in Champommier's head the last 10 min of his life, do you? You have no idea what he was thinking or what his intentions were. So he slammed on his breaks the last foot or two. Does that make him right? So in order to get out of the way the officer jumped on the hood...are you implying that the officer should have known what Champommier was thinking? And the officer should have known that Champommier was not going to hurt him and had no intention of hurting him? Are you saying that the group of officers that were their that night had no right to be there? Since when is a lawful asembly against the law? Mr. Mel you have no idea what Champommier was thinking that night and you have no idea what his intentions were that night. But allow me to go with your thoughts for a moment. Let's just say that Champommier allowed his car to just drift into the officer. The gas peddle was never stepped on so now the officer's legs are pinned up against the car by several thousand pounds of force. So at what point do you suggest Champoimmer should have minded his own buisness? Did he really think that he was going to stop several men from hurting his "friend" with is car? Did he really think that coasting his car into a group of men holding a gun on one man was the right thing to do? Oh yeah you don't know any more then I do. One you were not there and two you have no idea what Champiommer was thinking or what he was doing. Hell the guy that goes off one day and goes to work and ends up killing several people...the same thing is said about him that you are now using for Champoimmer...he was a great guy, a wonderful friend, always helpful. Let's face it pal, you are taking character and placing that character against what? Bottom line your placing character against nothing because you have not given us character faults of those officer's that were their that night. But I'm done with this. If your intentions with this posting were to get empathy for your cause it back fired. You haven't given us anything to sink your teeth into. You keep refering to past good deeds heck we all have past good deeds. Hell last week I handed some drunk homeless man money. So the fact that I might go out to at some point in my futur and get behind the wheel and drive off after having a drink or two does that good deed done a month ago get me a get out of jail free card? Your opinion of this situation evens out my opinion of the situation we both have questions that so far have not been answered. Your opinion doesn't out wieght mine and your cause hasn't stuck a cord with the general public.

@Jack

I would think that you would certainly be aware that parking lots are associated more with automobiles than plainclothes armed officers, right?

I assume that you would know that auto vs. pedestrian accidents happen everyday, right?

I'm sure that you are aware that the reasons why one would slam on his brakes would be for the purposes of avoiding injury or damage, right? Can you think of any other reason to slam on one's brakes?

FYI, Jack, I don't need to bring Zac's outstanding character into the story at all. Everything I say goes to convincing the "reasonable person". That is the standard that is generally applied.

So, is it reasonable to believe that a shooter standing at Zac's 9:00 o'clock is in a position to receive imminent serious bodily injury or death?

Is it reasonable to believe that if Zac's car truly, I mean truly "sped" into a group of officers that the officer who was "rammed" would be "thrown in the air" and land "on the hood"??? What did you get in your physics class?

You didn't know Zac. That's obvious. But, you know even less about this case. Keep working on that hook, line, and sinker. The truth will set them free, too.

Mel,
Ok...take your spin on thigs. SO Champommier allowed his car to roll into a man...not speed not roll. So now this man's legs are pinned against a wall, car whatever he is pinned down by thousands of pounds of force. Now what should he do? What the heck does car accidents have to do with this situation? What difference does it make if parking lots are for cars and not officers? With that in mind they also are not meant for walking but that doesn't give me the right to mow someone down trying to get from the car to the building? Does it? Another reason that one would slam on his breaks...how about trying to scare someone? Or get involved in something that wasn't any of his/her business? How about getting thisclose and then at the last moment deciding maybe this isn't such a good idea after all? There are lots of reasons why someone would slam on his/her breaks. But once again we will never know the answer because you don't know what was in his head that night. As for the reasonable person...most of the pool of reasonable persons would not have taken the law into his/her own hands and pulled up on a group of men holding guns on one man. Reasonable people the standard right? Would not have thought that by driving a car in to a this group and they slammping on his/her breaks is going to stop anything. Reasonable people would not think OK JackA$$ now I'm going to hurt you for what I percived to be harm to my friend. A reasonable person (your standard) would have taken a moment looked around and then picked up a phone to make a call to 911 and then waited to be a honest, upstanding witness. A reasonable person would have questioned if the guns were real? A reasonable person would have questioned what the hell is going on and would have taken a few moments to take it all in. If Champoimmer came on to the situation towards the end when the "victim" was being cuffed or searched or questioned then what was Champiommer afraid of? If he came up on the siatuation as it was just begining then he rushed in where only fools go.

@Jack,

I appreciate your comments Jack. They are precisely what law enforcement will try and use in defense of their actions. So, let's defeat them one by one:

The outlay of the lot is such that Zac was driving parallel to a fence to his left and from the skid marks forward, there was about 20 yards before he'd have been met by another fence due north. As for the officer being "pinned", one would have to have an opposing surface. There was no opposing surface to be pinned against. Thus, there was no pinning. Eyewitness statements say they officer ran into Zac's path. That combined with the presence of skid marks indicates that Zac had no intent to strike anyone.

Moreover, Zac had never met the person the officers were accosting. One wouldn't even be able to discern the nature of what was happening to render assistance. Additionally, with plainclothes officers waving firearms, indistinguishable from mafiosi to the reasonable bystander/motorist, one would be strongly inclined toward self-preservation, not risking one's life for what would appear to have been a stranger.

In order to inflict serious bodily injury, one must have a predisposition to do so. The "defendants", for that is how they will be known, will have to show that 18 year old Zac, the saxophone playing, honors student, student leader, had a predisposition for violence. So, feel free to place all his band mates on the stand and see if you get any hint of a violent streak.

Point defeated as to "taking the law into his own hands"

Keep them coming though Jack. The bigger they are, in terms of the law enforcement's arguments, the harder they fall.

Mel,

Your agruments hold no weight. In the courts one can not put up a defense of what I intended to do. For instance: someone drinks and then drives his car...while driving he hits and kills a walker: he didn't intend to kill that walker at 5:00 pm when he started to drink. Do you have any idea how many times that defense has been used in court? I didn't mean to: I took the gun with me only to make him listen, he tried to grab the gun and then the gun just went off. I didn't mean to kill him, if he hadn't reached for the gun he would still be alive. I've never done anything like this before. But put all that aside....how once again do you know what he was thinking???? You still have not answered that question! How do you know what he was thinking at that moment? You can't even go to court and say: well "court" he was a good kid, blah blah blah...he would have never done what the "report" says. He never even raised his voice in anger or had a bad word to say about anyone! WHY because who says he drove into that situation with anger on his mind? Again another question you can't answer.

2. Zac never got a trial. His due process came at the end of a bullet. Is that how Constitution was designed? NO! It was designed to allow law enforcement just enough room to operate without impinging on our freedoms. Zac was denied LIFE and LIBERTY by a fatal gunshot delivered by a shooter who stood well out of harm's way.

Therein lies the problem for law enforcement officials who still are feverishly working to develop some plausible justification for their conduct. Again, I challenge Baca to get his butt in a car in Zac's position and put me facing the driver's door and let him try and run me down. Won't happen. We'll dosey doe untill he runs out of gas.

Just like bullfighting, Jack. Baca will have the advantage of having all that excess bull crap that he's generated over the last 11 weeks.

First, excuse my English - European.
Second, love your country - visited a bunch - LA even.

I happened to stumble over this story, and I have to say I'm discouraged by the low level of press this case as amassed.

To me this looks like something out of a movie - a kid / young man gets killed - shot - because he bumped into a person at a parking lot, who happened to be a cop - who was probably amped up after the previous drug raid. All for no reason - no one in risk of serious bodily injury at the time the shots were fired.

Jack,
applying you logic though;

he got shot behind the wheel of a motionless car (skid marks) that had assaulted an officer with a deadly weapon (automobile).

I would think the key word here was HAD; he was not in the process of "hitting" any person, the "hitting" had happened.
THEN he got shot - no imminent danger to anyone expect himself (apparently).

Had the shooting happened before he hit the person then I might have agreed with you - but, he applied breaks.

If his intent was to harm, then why would he not have accelerated and thrown the person over the hood, then kept going - not brake?

And say this intent was to harm - would there still be the risk of serious bodily injury to any person if he had accelerated out of the parking lot after bumping the person OR even after throwing the person over the hood ?

And, if so - say there is a mom with a stroller 50 feet ahead of the automobile - is it a wise decision to apply deadly force to the driver of automobile heading in the direction of the mom/stroller ?
If no, then why is it wise if there is no mom/stroller ?

Conclusion:
All high way chases should end with the
cops taking the driver out with a bullet through the skull... There, danger averted.

Btw, cops where I live do not carry firearms on their person, and they need permission from their watch commander to arm themselves (on a case by case basis).

@ Ken,

The problem in the US is the fear of government abuse over 200 years ago created the need for the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Little did our Founding Fathers know that the US would become the largest arms dealer in the world. Handguns are especially lethal but are not outlawed because they are generally used by the poor against other poor people, which leads to plenty of poor people to stock our beautifully efficient money-making prisons. Just look at how the California Prison Guards' union contributes to political campaigns and a very tidy arrangemeent becomes clear where 40 or so percent of the state budget gets siphoned into the prison system and nobody gets rehabilitated. Case in point regarding the insanity: The Three Strikes Rule. Steal a pizza and get 25-to-life!!!

Congratulations, Mel. Every single statement in your post is utter rubbish. #1: Handguns are generally less lethal than rifles or shotguns; just check the muzzle velocities and energies to understand this. #2 Handguns and firearms in general cannot be outlawed because our founding fathers had the foresight and wisdom to protect the citizenry's right to defend themselves with arms. #3 Prisons do not make money but are in fact hugely expensive and it's an outrage to those of us that do pay taxes (that's down to about 40% of us these days by the way) that we have to waste so much money on thugs and gang banging idiots who refuse to obey the laws. #4 The three strikes law says that after you commit your third violent felony, you are now considered a lost cause (not rehabilitable) by our society and you shall be removed from it. Your characterization of it as "Steal a pizza and get 25-to-life" is patently absurd and demonstrates how whacked your perspective is.

@ CitizenJohn,

So, if I understand your argument, most violent felonies are conducted with rifles versus handguns, right? Rethink that one bud.

And, as if to further assist your foot down your mouth, you suggest that the Founding Fathers were, somehow, able to foresee the violent society of the future and felt that flintlock pistols would be the deal breaker in our ability to keep the country from foundering, right?

Lockyer v. Andrade and Ewing v. California decided whether the CA's repeat offender law yielded "grossly disproportionate" sentences that violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Andrade was sentenced to 50 years to life for two felony petty theft convictions, having stolen several videotapes from two Kmart stores on two separate occasions; each theft qualified as a third strike. Ewing was sentenced to 25 years to life for grand theft after he stole three golf clubs worth $1,200. This offense also qualified as a third strike.

CitizenJohn, sounds like violent felonies to me...I think Ewing was armed with a putter.

Nice try pal.

Mel, you stated: "Handguns are especially lethal". The fact is that while they are used more often to commit murder, undoubtedly because they are easier to conceal, being shot with one is generally less lethal than being shot with the generally higher powered shotguns or rifles. They are also significantly less accurate than the long guns too which means that you are less likely to succeed in killing someone by using a handgun than a long gun. OK? Second, I didn't suggest that "the Founding Fathers were, somehow, able to foresee the violent society of the future". I said that "our founding fathers had the foresight and wisdom to protect the citizenry's right to defend themselves with arms." These are substantially different statements, right? I think given the ridiculous level of violence mostly in our inner city culture and mostly in the gang-centric part of that culture, it is especially important nowadays to have the right to protect oneself with firearms. I'll go a step further, if you don't have some kind of gun to protect yourself and your family in a worst case scenario, then you are a fool. I won't even get into an equally important role of the second amendment in protecting ourselves from our own power hungry ever expanding government. It is my belief that the founding fathers were very concerned about government tyranny but putting that aside, your statement that handguns "are not outlawed because they are generally used by the poor against other poor people" is one of the more ridiculous things I have heard regarding the whole second amendment issue. Would you care to defend that? What evidence can you show to support that silly assertion? Lastly, while it is true that CA's three strikes law does allow society to put someone away on their third felony for a lengthy prison sentence even if that third felony wasn't necessarily a violent felony, the first two felonies must have indeed been violent/serious felonies. In the case of Mr. Andrade, the jury found Andrade guilty of felony theft and then found that he had three prior convictions that qualified as serious or violent felonies. That's why they put him away and it wasn't solely because of the $150 theft of videotapes but rather that he had established by committing the first two violent felonies followed by a third and a fourth non violent felony that he was a dangerous career criminal. In the case of Mr Ewing, his first and second violent/serious felony convictions were for burglary and armed robbery (with a knife). It was these taken along with the last felony with the golf clubs that put him away. Your original comment was: "Steal a pizza and get 25-to-life!!!", which is obviously a completely loaded up distortion of the three strikes law and you damned well know it.

@ CitizenJohn,

BTW, you state that prisons are "not money-makers" but are in fact "expensive". Do you have a rudimentary understanding of the capitalist system? Somebody is making a ton of money off prisons: The companies that build them, operate them, etc. Many, in fact, are privately run enterprises that are very "for profit". The state taxpayers foot the bill, as previously stated, to the tune of about 40% of the state budget. That would be 40% of the seventh largest economy in the world, bud. Not a "money maker"???

Christian Portillo was sitting in his driveway when two sheriff's deputies approached him and killed him. They thought he was a drug dealer and claimed that he was startled by the sight of the officers and reached under his seat. So, (altogether now) 'fearing for their lives' the deputies shot Portillo in his torso, shredding his vital organs.

There was nothing found under Portillo's seat. No drugs. No weapons. They say a man's home is his castle. If you've got sheriffs around, however, you better have a moat.

As to "speculation", the question is at what point is one able to take the known facts and draw reasonable inferences? Here, Zac's entry wound was to the left arm/armpit. Since he was driving a car, it's reasonable to conclude that the shooter stood at Zac's 9:00 o'clock. Since that appears to be a reasonable inference, one has to ask the following: How could Zac's conduct or car have presented an imminent threat of delivering serious bodily injury or death to the officer standing at his 9:00 o'clock position?

I challenge Sheriff Baca to demo that for Zac's family and friends. I'll assume the position of the officer and I'll let Baca have any car short of a Transformer. Demonstrating how Zac's car and conduct presented a threat for Zac's mother might take a little more courage than the Sheriff has in the tank, if you will.

Moreover, Zac's last act on this earth was to slam on his brakes. That tells a story not only of who Zac was as a person, but it also rendered notice both auditorily and visually to the officers that he did not want to injure anyone (Why else does one slam on one's brakes?). Since Zac slammed on his brakes prior to being shot, one may reasonably ask the following: Why was this auditory and visual information ignored by officers?

One might also, then, question the version presented by the officers for its veracity if forensic evidence suggests that Zac's car was either stopped or nearly stopped.

One might also question, how is it that an officer who was allegedly rammed, thrown in the air, landing on the hood, hitting the windshield, and thrown on the ground able to get up and, apparently, fire the fatal shot? A reasonable conclusion might be that if the car wasn't moving, the officer had time to collect himself and deliberate about his intended actions. Does that sound like justifiable homicide to you??????????????????????????????

One more thing, Mel. You stated that CA spends 40% of its budget on corrections and you further stated that "That would be 40% of the seventh largest economy in the world, bud." Well, bud, the truth is CA spends 8% of their budget on corrections which translates to roughly $8 billion. Here is a link from the NYTimes to confirm: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/us/24calprisons.html. Furthermore, it's certainly not nearly 8% even of the total CA economy, just 8% of the government's portion of the economy, so your use of statistics is grossly exaggerated. With respect to your assessment of Mr. Portillo's demise, please understand that even if you're in your driveway in the front yard, if that yard/driveway is not fenced it is considered to be in 'the public' in many/most circumstances and is therefore 'policeable' without a warrant. So you can, for instance, be cited for public intoxication on your own property or as in the case of Mr. Portillo, you can be approached and questioned by police. If you suddenly reach under the seat when approached/questioned by a cop, then you're pretty much an idiot. I won't bother to go twenty laps around the track regarding what happened to Mr. Championer as it sounds like a lot of armchair sleuthing to me. To determine what really happened here it seems to me you need to thoroughly research the police reports and witness statements.

@ CitizenJohn-

First, you have the audacity to think the Second Amendment provides you with some hollow sense of protection "from our own power hungry ever expanding government". Do you realize your opposition in that scenario would be the US government, the largest arms dealer in the world? Do you realize your pea shooter would stand little chance against a B-2 Stealth Bomber (that you, incidentally, helped pay for)? So, as a practical matter, what protection is realistically offered by the Second Amendment? If you were misguided enough to take aim at any agent of the US government with your pea shooter, you would no sooner be locked up and water-boarded in Gitmo and tried by a military tribunal as a 'domestic terrorist'. Just what kind of tea do they serve at those Tea Party gatherings, hoasca???

Regarding supporting my statement of handguns not being outlawed because they are likely to be used by the poor against other poor people, consider the following:

"According to the Chicago Reporter, a monthly magazine that covers race and poverty issues, 1 in 5 Black Cook County (which contains Chicago and some of its suburbs) men in their 20s are either in prison or jail or on parole. For Cook County whites of the same gender and age, the corresponding ratio is 1 in 104." (Paul Street)

Thus, CitizenJohn, one might even go a step futher and say that handguns may not only be legal for purposes of stocking prisons with the poor, but especially poor non-anglos. Just look at the demographic and socioeconomic circumstances of the prison population (a Google search any 4th/5th grade student is capable of)

Try coffee, instead of the hoasca.

Good God man! Your argument seems to be that because there are a disproportionate number of black males in Cook
County incarcerated or on parole then it follows that handguns are kept legal to enable society to incarcerate poor non-anglos. That's a stunning piece of logic. I'm starting to think you're just kidding about all this, is that what it is? Well I'll tell you what, Mel, every man regardless of race who picks up a handgun and commits a crime does so voluntarily. If he gets caught and convicted by a jury, he goes to prison. The real problem with Cook County is that a good sized chunk of inner city black culture is heavily saturated with violence and crime. Fix the culture and the incarceration rates will drop. Citizenjohn Over and Out.

@ Sheriff Baca

Your unwillingness to release the name of Zac's killer has turned the entire department into a rather large firing squad. Only one deputy had the actual bullet, but, thanks to your paranoia, we are left to think that it could have been any deputy.

That's a great trust-builder and I'm sure it works wonders on the morale of your nonshooting deputies to know they are looked at with suspicion.

With each successive conspiracy about how terrible capitalist government thugs are out to get us, you delegitimize every good argument you make. They sound like the rantings of a lunatic.

Just saying...

Mel,
You keeping asking questions...so I'll keep asking you mine? How do you know what Champommier was thinking the last 10 min of his life? Why do you assume that he hit the breaks to avoid hitting anyone with his car? What if he hit the breaks at the last moment because he realized that eventually he was going to hit an object and that he might end up hurt? Here is your opportunity to get me on your gravy train. Make me believe what you are writting...not with all the what ifs or how comes but with real evidence? Just how long were those skid marks? How long had he been talking to this friend? How long had they been "freinds". What were they going to do that night they met? Where was he coming from? What did he do all day? And finally please enough with the thoughts in the heads of both Champommier and the officer. Neither one of us can say what anyone was intending to do or what they were thinking. Remember I am your target audience even if you don't like it. I might be on the jury that sits in judgement of the officer if you have your way.

@Jack-

The skid marks are direct evidence of Zac's intent. Therefore, it's a simple matter to determine that the primary, if not the only reason one slams on one's brakes is to avoid injury or damage. Have you ever slammed on your brakes for any other reason?

As for Zac's acquaintance, they had met online the night before and agreed to meet to "hang out". That is essentially irrelevant, however, since it was not the proximate cause of Zac's death. I mean, what would you do, Jack, hold Charles Manson's grandparents liable? Zac's reasons for being in that parking lot are too remote in the causal chain.

Mel,

You missed the whole point. I am potentially your target audiance. You have the obligation to make sure what you write items that I might take back with me to the deliberations, after all like it or not I might remeber some of the questions posed here that you could not or would not answer. So I beg to differ. The reason for Champommier being in that parking lot means a lot. Not to you I understand but it could be reason as to why the other young man was in this parking lot...which has the potential to fill in the reasons for Champommier continuing to drive into that situation! Just because he hit his breaks doesn't mean he was avoiding a person....like I asked how do you know he didn't hit his breaks to avoid hitting an object other then human and figuring he might just get hurt? I mean after all we are guessing here right? How many times have we seen in movies "chicken" being played out? The whole idea behind "chiken" is that someone is going to give in. Now how do you know he hit his breaks to avoid a human and not the car the human was standing in front of?

@ Jack,

C'mon, let's keep it real. It is utterly rediculous to think that someone would willingly drive into a area where there was a group of armed men accosting someone. It was at night and Zac turned into that part of the lot. There is a structure just opposite of the CitiBank that houses some sort of trash bin. That would have blocked Zac's view as to what might have been transpiring in the part of the lot where the man was being accosted. All evidence, with the exception of the law enforcement story, indicates that Zac was driving slowly.

Why would the deputy have placed himself in harm's way by running in front of Zac's car is a mystery that can only be answered by the deputy. Let's get him on the stand and allow him the due process Zac was deprived of.

As for "chicken", c'mon, give me a break.

Mel & Jack - Get a life! Nobody cares about your back and forth bickering and what you have to say.

"It was happenstance that detectives selected this parking lot" said L.A. sheriff's Captain Mike Parker,"But this case shows that you never know whats going to happen."

Translation:

"This parking lot was carefully chosen as the site to carry out the execution of Zac Champommier."

"This case shows that someone knew exactly what was going to happen because they planned it to happen."

The police, DEA (or whomever) is supposed to uphold the law. a person is innocent until proven guilty...isnt that how it goes? so regardless of what Zach was thinking or what happened in that parking lot, or what the cops were thinking, shouldn't they have just "stopped" the escaping suspect? shoot for the legs or tire? Did they think he was armed? He was running away wasnt he? It is not about wrong or right in my opinion, that is for a court of law... it "IS" ABOUT LIFE AND DEATH AND THE FIRST SHOT SHOULD ALWAYS BE TO STOP THE ALLEGED SUSPECT, NOT KILL THEM! I know it isnt easy out there for the Cops but it is just sickening that now, in addition to fearing the thugs, i have to fear those who i pay to protect me!

@ Another Son's Mother,

There is no corroborating evidence that Zac was an "escaping suspect". In fact, it appears that Zac had no intention of striking the officer and it may have simply been a typical pedestrian vs. auto type collision. Don't forget, the law enforcement personnel were in plainclothes. Zac would not have known that they were law enforcement.

It also looks like Zac was driving slowly when the alleged collision occurred versus the "speeding" the officers claim.

One has to give a hard look to the physics, the mechanics, and the forensics to see that the "official" version of events is extremely unlikely to have any truth in it.

It does appear that Zac was at a near standstill when he was shot. Otherwise, how could the officer have rendered a side shot after having been allegedly struck by the car? Zac did accelerate after being shot because, after all, he had no idea who these people were but probably realized, after being shot by them, that they were bad and should be avoided at all cost.

It's sad to think that all the good qualities in this young man are the very things that gave the killers their opportunity to kill (i.e., his stopping, driving slowly, etc.).

Had he acted as the official story implies or even states, Zac would probably be alive today.

Mel,

I so want to run to the roof top and yell dude get a life. But since I'm not sure how you are realated to this young man I'll ask you the same questions that you continue to aviod. The distance between the entrance and where the car came to a rest? The length of the skid marks? Then based on that information one should be able to calculate the speed that this person was driving. With those questions answered we will all get a very clear picture of what this person had in mind when he was what was going on. There's no disputing hard facts right? SO answer those questions. If this person really just wanted to stop some bad man from harming his friend then the speed that he was traving in order to make skid markd in a short distance would back that up right? So answer the questions aready this happened way back in June you coming on this blog and writting is it to convience yourself or it is to get people on your side? Just answer the questions.

@ Jack,

First things first: Would it reasonable to expect that Zac, or any 18 year old, would thrust themselves into a situation where armed men were accosting an individual?

You act as if Zac might have been "trying to save his friend". How likely is it that one would be able to recognize a person they had never physically met, at 9:30 at night, from a distance? Face it, your "spin" has no movement. Zac wouldn't have thrust himself into that situation, just as you or I wouldn't. There is no duty for one to do so and it is highly unlikely that an 18 year-old Zac Champommier would have done so.

The cowboys were the ones with the guns, pal.

As to the skid marks, they tell us precisely what Zac did: Tried to avoid injury to someone in his path. Why else does someone brake?

Jack, you need to stop asking pointless questions and start asking the hard questions: How was the law enforcement agent in a position of receiving imminent serious bodily injury or death if that agent stood facing Zac's driver's side door?

Can you just explain that one, Jack?
Come on, just one time. Just one time. How does that work?

Dude, make up your mind. When you first started to post I think you stated or insinuated that young Zac was acting to save his so called friend. Now your saying that he didn't mean to save his friend and that he was reacting to what??? He drove into a situation saw what was going on and continue to drive at a speed fast enough in a short distance that he left skid marks. If the space (as stated by you at some point)was a short distance between the entrance of the parking lot and the car coming to a rest yet he was driving fast enough to leave skid marks? The first question I would want to know is how fast was he going? Because it's not like anyone can say for sure what he saw or what he thought he saw or what he was thinking. So going back to the basic stuff...since we can't guess about what he was doing there or what he intended to do. The legnth of the parking lot? The distance between the entrance and where his car came to a stop? Were their other options for him to take before he made the stop where he did? And why in the world was he driving fast enough into a parking lot that he would have to break hard enough to leave skid marks? Also, as for thrusting himself into the situation...bottom line is Zak did just that...he put himself into this siatuation why? Well that we will never know but he thrusted himself into this story, not me or even you for that matter. You are left behind writing on this blog looking for, well only you can fill in that information.

Sorry Mel when you refuse to answer question that put into question the truth or at least your non slanted version of the truth I don't necessary feel the need to answer your questions but this time I will. Since you have no idea what Champommier was thinking the last five min of his life and what he intened to do you are in position to speculate. If the distance between to point of impact is 30 feet and there are 20 feet of skid marks then the person in the car had more on his mind then just stopping. In order for a car to have 20 feet of skid marks in a 30 foot distance means that as soon as said car entered the parking lot or location he had to have hit the gas and put the peddle to the metal. And while I'm at it what kind of car was Champommier driving that might explane quite a bit. Oh and by the way my questions are only pointless to you because you can't or won't answer them. For you see something in you realizes that you can't discount hard facts and one of those hard facts is the issue that I keep bringing up to you and will continue to bring up to you...the speed of the car, the length of the skid marks and the distance between the car entering the parking lot and where it came to rest. By the way reality checker...one last question, if I saw a car coming to me at a rate of speed high enough to then skid for several feet and I had a gun with me, you bet I would use that gun. I have no idea why that car is coming towards me a such a high rate of speed. I have no idea what kind of idiot drives towards someone who you think clearly is displaying a gun and doesn't stop to think may be I shouldn't be here? No I have answered your question so at least attempt to answer mine.

I live in Sacramento and I've been following this thread with increasing interest. Jack and Citizenjohn's arguments have been systematically demolished by Mel, who appears to have the facts on his side. I'm starting to get a little embarrassed for you gentlemen.

@M,

Thanks.

@ Whoever posted as "Mel" immediately prior to "M", get your moniker straight.

The fundamental mantra will always be how reasonable was it for the officer/agent who elected to employ deadly force when that shooter stood facing the driver's side door? How could that person have reasonably feared for his/her life, as they clearly stated they were in sheriff's log #160?

There is no adequate answer. It was unjustifiable use of deadly force. The only question that remains is was it murder?

Throughout my life I've personally heard "off-duty" cops boast about how evidence and circumstance are re-arranged to justify homicide-by-cop. The cop advantage is the social construct called "civil legitimacy" and the near unlimited resources available to government agencies. These are not available to the civilian, Joe Sixpack. Let Joe attempt to resist the vicious attack of a police dog with a screwdriver, for example, and the resistance legally justifies his on-the-spot execution. The cop was in fear of his life (wink, wink)! It is fortunate for copper well-being that the majority of civilians are themselves nothing more than whiny, untrained, ignorant tools of the elite, its "civilly legitimate" government regimes, and mercenary law enforcement personnel.

@G,

Many of Zac's young friends are learning the hard facts of life you refer to. They're learning that politicians are a heretofore unknown class of invertebrates. They're wondering how can it be anything less than an authoritarian regime when the names of those who killed Zac are kept from the public, essentially turning entire law enforcement agencies into firing squads with no one quite sure who didn't have the "blank".

I mean, as a practical matter, can there be any such thing as a "good cop" if they subscribe to a policy of keeping the names of the killers among them secret and to the inherently biased arrangement of allowing their respective agency to investigate their own as to these killings???

G, I agree, how stupid and impotent are we to accept this?

sorry Mel, It was me Jack that acidentally put in your name Mel instead of mine...mean to write Mel dude, but well you can figure out the rest.

Anyway, since you don't want to answer my questions fine. I'm done. You can have your blog for what it's worth. You haven't changed many or any minds on this blog. There are still too many questions and no answers. It been a long time...some sort of report has had to come out by now and if not why not? There isn't a leap deep enough to keep me from the truth if it was my kid. And a sonic boom wouldn't be louder then me in getting the word out of what wrong the cops did if this was my kid. But you want to keep coming on here and doing it this way and not getting any where ok. You can have your 25 min, you can write about the shooting and how unfair it was here all you want. Ever notice how little response you got? But you can have it now since I have lost interest. Good luck with what ever your agenda was or is.

M's post on Nov 20 claims: "Citizenjohn's arguments have been systematically demolished by Mel" and now twice you guys at HR have deleted my substantial and I thought clean and well thought out posts. Am I somehow violating your rules because if I am, I am not aware what the violation is. Are you removing them because you don't agree with my point of view? As I have complained previously, it is very difficult to take part in this blog, to spend the time answering folks like Mel in substance if you guys are going to delete me for completely unknown, unpredictable reasons. Thanks.

Citizenjohn - it is important for us to recognize the L.A. Times for their contributions to the cause of democracy and providing information about the workings of our governments.

The HR is a great example of the daily commitment The L.A. Times has made to building a useful information tool for residents of this region who want to stay engaged with essential issues.
HR probably hasn't gained The Times any new advertisers or subscribers, but it has become a valuable resource to many readers. No one else is doing anything close to The L.A. Times Homicide Report.

Having said that, i worry
over indications that something is going on at the L.A. Times which is successfully hindering and damaging its journalistic integrity.

Last March, The Times reported that Judge Chalfant announced a ruling to force the L.A. County Sheriff Department to provide the public with the identity of deputies involved in 3 events in South L.A. County which resulted in a suspect shot and killed.
The ruling was a win for Freedom of Press and the citizen's right to stay informed about the activities of all government agencies and agents.
The news report claimed the names of the deputies would be released within a week.
There has been no report about this case since March. It seems that Judge Chalfant never finalized the ruling.
It has been 8 months and not a single word about the case. The Times was the lead plaintiff and I personally commend them for the effort. But what happened?
The story has simply vanished without notice or explanation.

@ Paul,

I also worry about integrity of several entities that the public has entrusted with a certain degree responsibility. While the Times appears to be struggling with the economic pressures of trying to survive, some wonder how is it that the people leave the job of oversight for others. The people have been marginalized. How is it that the names of those responsible for Zac's killing have not been released? What matter of national security is at stake here? What confidence can the public have in a law enforcement organization that is cloaked in such secrecy so as to effectively turn the entire department into a huge firing squad, no one quite sure who was firing blanks?How demoralizing it must be for those non-killing cops to thrown into the mix and looked upon with suspicion by those, like myself, who wonder: Did this deputy kill an 18 year-old saxophone playing honors student? On YouTube one can find citizens that are fed up with leaving oversight to others and are taking the matter of oversight of law enforcement into their own hands. Search "cop watch" on YouTube and one will find a nationwide movement of regular folks doing the hardwork of oversight of law enforcement.

Maybe the Times can also work in earnest on getting the names of Zac's killers. According to Baca, it was DEA. How's about a little help?

Mel,

How about doing a little work on your own and sue to get this info yourself? I mean after all you keep insisting that this man was an innocent victim of cop abuse. Nothing and I mean nothing would be able to stand in my way if the dead was my son! I would move heaven and earth to find out the truth. So move a little don't make someone else or something else responsible for your information go out there at get it. Why oh why should the Times or any other organization hand you what you want?

@ Jack,

Do you mean to tell me that it's that easy for a non-relative to gain this info? The Times has to sue for the release of this info. Even then, the information seems to get squelched.

I'm sure that you would be tenacious in pursuing all means necessary if it were indeed your son whose life had been taken by plainclothes agents and officers standing facing the driver's side door and also at the rear of the vehicle under a claim that your son was, AT THAT MOMENT, using his car as a deadly weapon.

If you ever get the chance to see a bullfight, explain the threat of danger to the bullfighter presented by a bull that has just passed under his cape. Truth is, there is none (barring a kick, but we know cars don't kick, don't we?).

Jack, I would much prefer something clear cut. Even if the officer were in the car's path and claimed that his reflexes got the better of him when he saw the headlights coming, I could live with that. The problem is that there is no such scenario. The bullets fired from the rear to the front indicate that there were no people in front of the car. The bullets fired from the position of facing the driver's side door indicate that there was no one standing on the right side of the car.

The claim that Zac's car was speeding is entirely proposterous as he had about 20 yards left before he would have met with the LA River. The description of the striking of the officer is entirely implausible.

But one thing is now clear, had you or I acted in the same manner as the agent in question, we would be on trial for murder. The badge has served, once again, as a license to kill.

On the eve of the one-year anniversary since Zac's unjustified killing by DEA agent Lopresti, I'd like to reflect on the ordeal Agent Lopresti's act has created for untold hundreds of people who knew and loved Zac. From the band mates, teachers, family members, friends, all live with a gaping hole in their lives due to your disregard for life.

Lopresti, you saw Deputy Brewster get to his feet. You knew he wasn't injured. It was obvious. Yet you approached Zac's driver's side door. Why? Because Zac stopped his car because his initial reaction was to make sure the person he accidentally struck, the person who ran into the path of his car on that night, was okay. That inner act of goodness by Zac allowed you to unleash your inner evil. If you and Brewster are able to sleep at night, that's just added evidence to the evil you embody.

It's been a long year. The longest I can remember. But, we all look forward to seeing you wilt on the stand. We look forward to your "crew" throwing you under the bus. Somewhere in that pack that was present that night was at least one decent human being. We'll hope upon hope that that person has the strength to do what is right because, Agent Lopresti, you should not be walking among the free.

Destined for tourists who like less active forms of recreation in Zakopane is preparing numerous tourist attractions. Of course empty Krupówki is available with a view each and every season. On this terrace are organized numerous festivals and fairs, you can take souvenirs from Zakopane. It is, but, go out further in Zakopane, in areas such as passage Koscieliska. On the oldest street in Zakopane you can sit with old chalets, some are museums dedicated to craftsmanship and Podhale ([url=http://www.mazury-cud-natury.wgorachswietokrzyskich.pl]mazury[/url]) highlanders.

I heard that the cops were not in uniforms. They were undercover and hax unmarked cars. All you people against Zac, put yourself in a situation where you enter a parking lot at night and see someone held by a group of people in regular clothes. How would you know they are cops when they have no uniform on? Wouldn't you panic?

Hana, it's unfortunate that our judicial system is so corrupted that these cops are not going to serve a single day in jail. Zac is not the only victim who have lost their lives over above the law cops. Until cops are held accountable for their actions these types of incidents will stop!

The Los Angeles Police Department are the criminals in this case. The Crime Lord or “Sheriff” Lee Baca is an incompetent and corrupt fool. He is a disgrace to public service and should be removed from office. The two thugs who are supposedly trained in these types of situations acted in an unprofessional and malicious manner. Remove these so-called “public servants” from office or the American Public will gladly do it by force. To protect and to serve, which ONLY include themselves and the elite in America.

Get ready. This case is ready to expose how Zac was murdered. Let's hope journalistic duty prevails and the trial of Carol Champommier v. The United States of America gets proper coverage.

If everyone is saying that they know this kid would never do something like this, did they also know that he was meeting a 29 year old man off the internet for what appears to be a sexual encounter? Perhaps when he entered the parking lot, he thought twice about being identified by someone else for meeting up with a presumably older male and did not want it to be publicized. This male he was meeting is not a friend. How do you call someone you met 1 day prior a friend? Why would he risk his life or obtain bodily harm for someone he met on the internet 1 day prior? How can you trust the 29 year old male's story if he had a brush in with the law before for sexual solicitation with a minor? It's a little hard to visualize this 29 year old scuffing with police, and then the 18 year old kid comes flying into the crowd of them to the rescue. It makes no sense.

Wow, this story just popped up again? Doesn't seem like any investigation has been done. But I did learn something. If anyone asks me how to commit suicide, I'm going to skip over "jumping in front of a speeding car", since the cop only had "cuts and bruises" after being "rammed" by a vehicle travelling at "high speed". Now they can call the deputy "Robocop" because speeding vehicles can't hurt him. In our next episode, this deputy will jump out of the way of 15 bullets shot within 4 seconds before killing the gunman without spilling a drop of the coffee he had in his left hand. He doesn't fear death, death fears him! Sharks head for deeper waters when this deputy goes to the beach. When this deputy makes 2 wrongs, they equal a right. This deputy once made a fire by rubbing 2 icecubes together. He is the man! He can unscramble eggs.

Go to justiceforzac (dot) blogspot (dot) com for reports from the trial.