S1: Welcome in San Diego. It's Jade Hindman on this episode of KPBS Midday Edition. A close look at police accountability and use of deadly force. This is KPBS Midday Edition. Connecting our communities through conversation. Nine months ago , the San Diego City Council paid a historic civil settlement of $30 million to the family of Kanoa Wilson. A police officer shot and killed the 16 year old as he was running for his life. But earlier this month , the district attorney's office announced that no criminal charges will be filed against Daniel Gold , the officer who killed Kanoa. Some community members are questioning that decision. Earlier this week , I spoke with Tasha Williamson , a community advocate.
S2: They did not depend on the jury. They always depend on that is a court process. Jurors make the decision , not the DA's. The DA's provide the evidence. And in this case , with a black 16 year old child , they didn't allow it. Had that child been white , had that been a white grandmother , gold would be charged.
S1: Well , we had more questions about the discrepancy between such a large civil settlement and the absence of criminal charges , though no liability was was admitted. So I want to bring in Paul Parker. He's former director of the city's Commission on Police Practices , or CP , an oversight board for the police department. He's also former executive officer of the county's Citizens Law Enforcement Review Board , better known as Clark. Paul , welcome back to Midday Edition.
S3: Thank you for having me , Jade.
S1: Glad to have you here. So what was your initial reaction to the news that Officer Gold will face no criminal charges?
S3: Well , my initial reaction. To be honest with you , I was. I was a little shocked. But then when I read the district attorney's letter and and her rationale for doing so. I put my independent oversight hat on and my experience with oversight and understood how she came to that decision. And we can talk more about that , I'm sure.
S1: Yes , please. So , you know , I guess my my first question about that is the use of , of deadly force and why the officer deemed it necessary. How did she weigh that?
S3: Well , it looks as if she waited based basically like she was supposed to. It's a reasonable officer standard. That's number one. It's not. It's not someone who's not an officer. It's a reasonable officer standard based upon the totality of the circumstances. Now , what's listed as evidence in the letter is what Officer Gould heard the other officer say and his interpretation of that , his hearing , the gunshots , his then immediately confronting , uh , the young man as he came through the breezeway , according to what's documented in that letter from the district attorney. Those are the facts that that officer was using. That was part of the totality of the circumstances that he used , that he demonstrated , uh , enunciated when he was , uh , explaining why he used deadly force.
S1: And so do you do you think that that is , um , a a fair legal standard?
S3: Well , as far as whether it's fair or not , yeah , obviously , I believe it's fair that a law enforcement officer should only use deadly force when it is reasonable and necessary and necessary was that of a couple of years ago. I absolutely agree with that. The issue comes when , uh , you know , you look at a prosecutor and , and quite frankly , uh , this may surprise some people to hear me say this , but a prosecutor there , you know , the American Bar Association and even the California Department of Justice clearly say that a Da has to ensure before bringing charges that they believe that they can get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Now , if , Miss Stefan believed that District Attorney Stefan believed that she couldn't do that , then , therefore the charges weren't brought. But I think the real issue then becomes , was that evidence that she looked at? Was the decision internally the correct decision? Right. What's put out there publicly is correct. It makes sense. But internally , I think that's where the if there was any kind of oversight , you would look at what , you know , if that was weighed appropriately in her office to come to that decision , if that makes sense. Jade.
S1: No , it makes it makes complete sense. Also , you know , that evidence that is something I want to dig into as well. Um , you know , as a person who sat on these boards and oversight review boards , do you feel like the process of evidence collecting is one that deserves some scrutiny?
S3: Well , look , I always believe that an independent entity should look at in custody deaths and officer involved shootings. Now , I understand obviously , we all know that there's this MOU where the sheriff's department did the investigation into this shooting. Uh , again , uh , a lot of folks are not going to be happy with that because yet it's another law enforcement entity that deals directly with that district attorney every day on other cases. So I can understand the appearance of , of , uh , impropriety or not being impartial , which is why the California Department of Justice a couple of years ago , uh , there's they're supposed to be investigating deaths. Uh , I think it's AB 1506 of officers who shoot unarmed persons. Unfortunately , I think what they're doing is using the definition of unarmed , as in the law of the government code , that this young man was technically not unarmed , even though he did not brandish and he did not do anything with that firearm other than having on his person. Uh , so that's unfortunate that there's not going to be that independent state level prosecutorial review. And that's where I think , uh , that needs to be strengthened , that , uh , there has to be a way to strengthen that and also strengthen the way to have independent oversight of whether or not the evidence was evaluated appropriately inside the DA's office.
S1: And with all that , I mean , a lot of people might be in are surprised by a $30 million settlement in and no criminal charges. Different legal standards here , but help us understand those standards of proof for a civil and a criminal case.
S3: Yeah , absolutely. And it seems like it's a huge disconnect. No criminal charges yet. The city on its own , you know , they were not made to do this , but on its own decided , you know what , um , they looked at all the I'm sure that they looked at all of the facts and they looked at it , you know , really what what the optics are. But how this is going to go at trial. Uh , what will the appeals look like? How much money is going to be , uh , you know , put forward how much time this could drag on for years and quite frankly , putting the family through that after all all they've been through , um , maybe that went into the decision to settle , Deny all claims. They're not saying they did anything wrong , but to settle and and to to basically provide the family some monetary closure without having to go through the whole several year process , I'm sure , of appeals and whatnot. And , and again , they probably also didn't know what the jury was going to do and what the jury was going to come up with. Uh , as far as damages , um.
S1: You know , and as we talk about , you know , independent review of this case isn't the point of sending a case to trial to take a look at the case independently.
S3: It absolutely is. But again , I can't as someone who's a policy and procedure person and a law person , and that's the hat I wore at curb and at the DPP. Um , if the guidance for DA's is that they must that they must , and that's the guidance they must have , uh , they must believe that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt , get 12 jurors to believe that before they bring charges , if that's what the D.A. is saying , that that she didn't have or her staff didn't have , then that's that's what they use. Again , it comes back to the independent assessment. If there can be independent assessment of how was that weighed internally , what were the conversations and what evidence was looked at and how it was weighed and how that decision came forward. But again , that doesn't exist. There's no oversight on that. Hmm.
S1: Hmm. Um , the day is the DA's office. You know , says it weighed Gold's split second decision to use deadly force from I mean , from your understanding , how or so-called split second decisions evaluated from a legal perspective here , I'm going to circle back to that. Sure.
S3: Sure. It's the law says a totality of the circumstances based upon what a reasonable officer it's going to come back to that reasonable officer standard. And that's what they have to look at. And that's what a jury would have been instructed to look at it from a reasonable officer's standard. And they would have had trained they would go ahead.
S1: You use the word reasonable. And so I'm asking is is the word reasonable here or is it necessary?
S3: Well , it's it's both. Was it reasonable and necessary? And my understanding is that the Da believed that the the the. We also have to remember da Stephan did not say this was a good shooting. She did not say that it was a justified shooting for lack of a better term. She didn't say that. Matter of fact , there was verbage to indicate that they weren't going to. They couldn't get to that point , but their belief is that it was. They couldn't prove that it wasn't necessary or reasonable from that perspective of a reasonable officer. That's what they're saying. Mhm.
S1: Mhm. Um , just this morning , at least three people and a K-9 were injured in an officer involved shooting in North Park. Multiple officers fired at the man who was transported to a hospital. In that story of course is still developing. But in general , when does an officer make the decision to open fire.
S3: Whenever they believe that deadly force is necessary to protect their life or the life of someone else? That's the bottom line , and it must be reasonable and necessary. It doesn't say that there were no other options , but it must be reasonable and necessary , and it must be able to articulate that as they move forward.
S1: In these cases. And in that when that happens. I mean , do you think that the the officer's word is really what has the most weight then?
S3: My , my honest opinion is , you know , from what I've seen over the years and having been a police officer , I think so. Um , you know , I don't see why anyone would disagree with me on that. Maybe not even officers. I think officers are given their word. In many cases does carry more weight. Um , I think it does. And I'm not saying that that was the case here , but I do think that that there has been a record of that for years. Even back when I was a police officer 30 years ago. I think that was that's fair to say that the officer's opinion is , is weighed as coming from an officer , unless that person can be impeached or unless the evidence dictates something that is contradictory but when it comes to how someone felt and how they're articulating reasonable or necessary , uh , there's really no , uh , I don't know how you can go against that , if that's what they're saying , that they believe they had no other option. But.
S1: But. And I'm going to go back to it. Is it does an officer does it have to be deemed necessary? Right. I mean , are we still leaning on reasonable here or has that necessarily law changed to necessary.
S3: If necessary was added? Yes , only when necessary in the defense of life. But it comes down to the reasonable officer's standard that it's going to be judged against. Mm.
S1: Mm. Um , you made headlines a few years ago when you left your role at the county Review Board after feeling frustrated with the lack of progress and reform. When you think about the Kanoa Wilson case , because I want to bring it back to that. Um , does does this highlight similar concerns about policing structure and oversight in San Diego?
S3: What it highlights for me is that no matter what with this unfortunate situation , the Commission on Police Practices is not going to be able to independently review it. At least that's my understanding. They still , despite the fact that for six years , um , you know , they have the independent investigatory authority in the code , but they're still moving forward to try to make that happen. That's that's the concerning thing. So what is the independent oversight of the situation right now? You're going to have the the police department conducting their own internal affairs investigation , their own shooting review board. Uh , the Internal affairs will see if any policies were violated in any kind of misconduct , any training , shooting review board , systemic issues , training , whatnot. But unfortunately , if I understand it correctly with where we are , the Commission on Police Practices will only give , uh , to to take a stab at this case , for lack of a better term , when it is presented , when the Internal affairs findings against uh , in reference to it are presented to it , and then it will review the case to , to see whether or not they agree with the findings as presented. If CPP was up and running the way it should be , there would have been an independent investigation from the moment that this happened with hopefully an investigator from the independent oversight entity going out to the scene , getting briefed , you know , doing whatever they needed to do to start their investigation. That is the issue that's facing the city right now.
S1: I've been speaking with Paul Parker. He's former director of the City of San Diego's Commission on Police Practices , or CP. He's also former executive officer of the county's Citizens Law Enforcement Review Board or club for short. Paul , thank you so very much for your perspective today.
S3: Thank you. Jade.
S1: That's our show for today. I'm your host , Jade Hindman. Thanks for tuning in to Midday Edition. Be sure to have a great day on purpose , everyone.
