Studio City Patch, in a story by AnnMarie Baranik, has the details.
Here’s the opening of the story:
The mother of 18-year-old Zachary Champommier filed a lawsuit Friday asking for $10 million in damages for the fatal shooting of her son by off-duty officers in the parking lot behind Chipotle Mexican Grill last June 24.
The 32-page filling, was filed by Carol Champommier, of Northridge, on behalf of her son and claims her unarmed son “was sitting in a parked vehicle waiting to meet a friend when he observed the undercover defendants’ agents and officers detain the male individual.” He began driving the car out of the lot and “they fired on him without probable cause and/or warning. Several bullets struck the vehicle and the decedent, killing him instantly.”
Find the back story here and here.
And the court filing may be accessed here.
Boy, keeping the facts straight must be the work of the readership: The entire lawsuit alleges that thoise responsible for Zac’s killing were acting as “agents within the scope of their employment”. Therefore, they were NOT “off-duty”. In fact, they were “debriefing” which is at the end stage of an operation.
The Studio City Patch story has inaccuracies: Oeters was alleged to have been “casing”, conduct that represents preparation for commission of an inchoate crime, like “attempted burglary”. Of course, most by now should now that not only was Oeters simply looking for Zac’s car, just as he or anyone could have been looking for their own car in a parking lot, but that “casing” isn’t a crime. In fact, Oeters was not charged or prosecuted for any crime.
Let’s have responsible reporting….please.
Next week I hope to have some original reporting on the story, Mel. It’s still so heartbreaking I can’t stand it.
A lot of these local micro rags are disturbingly right wing. No doubt part of the post-2000 Republicans “let’s just throw shit against the wall and see what sticks” strategy.
Actually, my guess is that the Patch reporter is newish to reporting, thus her mistake in phrasing—an easy one to make, given material the LASD put out. However, I give her lots of credit for getting the story. Nobody else had it. Moreover, she posted a PDF of the filing, plus three videos about Zach, a much more complete package than most conventional publications would have offered. Heck, I say, go, Ann Marie!
And Dallas, Patch isn’t the least right wing. They’re owned by AOL, which has a readership that skews between moderate and liberal. And AOL just bought the Huffington Post, for heaven’s sake, not exactly a bastion of right wing thought.
The Huffington post! Ha ha!!! Yeah, the voice of progressive America. I think their top story today is Lindsy Lohan’s bikini. Or maybe a video of panda bears.
No need for a long drawn out trial on this. ALL Ms. Champommier’s atty. needs to do in court is point out:
“Zac’s 12:30 to 3:00 position (relative to his car)”
and this case is over. Or then again, maybe not.
Does anybody know if the DA has cleared the cops of any criminality in this shooting?
Because the only question remaining is whether they will be charged with voluntary manslaughter or murder.
I agree, Celeste, regarding the paucity of reporting. This story, this case, however, has the potential for tectonic changes in the way law enforcement operates. A cursory reading of the complaint shows the magnitude of the subject matter. The fact that so many agencies, from federal to local, were involved is paramount to the possible impact this cause of action may have.
In addition to the demand for a jury trial, it is clear that the entire culture that has spawned these assassination squads will be properly brought into the light. Moreover, scrutiny will properly be placed on the fact that the wearing of a badge is tantamount to a license to murder, not simply kill another.
Zac’s killer is alleged to have acted with malice. The knee-jerk story initially released by law enforcement shows just how brazen their indifference is to whether anyone notices their actions.
I wholeheartedly look forward to seeing Carol’s attorney(s) moonwalk this civil action right into a criminal proceeding. The threshold where the jury of public opinion crests on the facts of Lopresti’s approaching an unarmed Zac, who undoubtedly stopped his car in response to the accidental striking of the deputy who ran into the path of his car that night in the parking lot, will launch a criminal proceeding.
Let’s hope Lopresti isn’t related to Fabian Nunez to some distant degree of kinship such that he’ll get favorable treatment of any sort.
@Answer,
What I think you mean is that Lopresti stood at Zac’s 9 o’clock position and fired the fatal shot, which entered Zac’s upper left arm and exited his upper right arm. Additionally, given that Zac’s car has bullets that entered from his 12:30 position (i.e., from the rear of his car), and that his position in the parking lot was facing north toward the LA River and parallel to a fence about 2-3 yards to his left, it is clear that any “defense of others” claim will fail miserably. Moreover, in facing Zac’s driver’s side door Lopresti was in a position of safety and cannot claim self-defense.
Thus, if defense of others and defense of self cannot fly, what’s left? Nothing but what really happened that night. The attorneys will have absolutely no problem establishing liability. There was negligence afoot before Zac even drove into the parking lot due to the failure by law enforcement to take reasonable measures to protect the public (e.g., failure to cordon off the area in use; failure to don identifying clothing, etc.)
All that is left is whether Lopresti acted as a reasonable officer would under similar circumstances and whether that reasonable officer would have felt that their life or the life of another was under threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury at the moment deadly force was used.
Lopresti will have ample opportunity to explain how his actions were not tantamount to murder of an unarmed honors student.
“Zac’s killer is alleged to have acted with malice”.
By whom have these allegations been made?
@Answer,
The complaint filed in Central District federal court is public information. You can access it at the top of this page.
I know you probably miss my always on target remarks Celeste so here’s a couple for old time’s sake.
I knew you’d be all over Father Greg’s op ed but tell the truth now, shouldn’t he have just titled it ” Give gangsters jobs or expect many more truck loads of their victims in your community soon”?
As for the gang injunction story it’s such old news, gangsters have always had the right to petition to have their name taken off injunctions and some have been. I can remember telling more than one guy to take us to court, no big deal we’re ok with it, when we refused his request. This is just the ACLU trying to show people they still matter, nothing more.
For Mel
Mel,with all the posting you did at Patch about this story why didn’t you use the term “assassination squads” there? Why nut out when you had the chance? Do you figure people here are ok with it because this site is regarded as anti-cop with many people? Didn’t want to sound to crazy on Patch considering the posting name you’re using there? You wrote this right?
Justice4Zac
11:47pm on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
The relevant question here is as follows: How was it not a breach in the duty of care to the public that members of this multi-jurisdictional task force failed to wear identifying clothing when their need for stealth had long passed? How was it not a breach in the duty of care owed to the public that members of this multi-jurisdictional task force failed to cordon off the area in use for their “debriefing” so as to not only alert the unsuspecting public to the presence of law enforcement but to also prevent an unsuspecting public from interfacing with the area they were using?
Funny how you ask..”how was it not a breach..” at Patch regarding the cops not cordoning off the area in use and being readily identifiable but here write..”There was negligence afoot before Zac even drove into the parking lot due to the failure by law enforcement to take reasonable measures to protect the public (e.g., failure to cordon off the area in use; failure to don identifying clothing, etc.)”. Man up Mel, post at Patch like you do here instead of wimping out so people can’t see the real you. Why are you attempting to hide some of that frothing at the mouth cop hate you carry around with you 24/7 instead of letting loose with all of it?
By the way Mel, from a guy who has taken part in these types of multi-jurisdictional details and is, or was I guess, one of those “assassins” you shot your mouth off about, your little tangent about this supposed duty we have to make ourselves known and alert the public doesn’t exist anywhere that I know of, and I’m pretty sure I’d know. You stretched that idiocy further than Reed Richards could have ( Fantastic Four). The crazy duty you came up with in that cop hate mind of yours, that guys like me have to protect unwary citizens that cops are in a certain area and my gosh, in plain clothes, doesn’t exist.
I won’t see your response for awhile there Mel, my visits here are very infrequent. It is sad that Zac died, but your drivel is pathetic.
Adios Celeste
Surefire, I’m always happy to hear from you, even though we disagree on many things.
About the ACLU case, you’d need to read the history of this thing. This injunction was ridiculous in the way it was handled from the gate. I reported on it a lot in 2009, and a UCI student reported even further.
Gang injunctions are like any tool, they can be used for good or ill.
About Fr. Greg’s Op Ed, I don’t think it requires retitling.
Now I’m hoping to hear from you tomorrow after I post my rundown on the 3-strikes symposium.
For the record, the comments I made in posts in 6 & 7
“Zac’s 12:30 to 3:00 position (relative to his car)”
and
“the only question remaining is whether they will be charged with voluntary manslaughter or murder.”
are statements that Mel made a year ago regarding this tragedy.
Just to put things in the proper context.
Sure Fire,
Mel types the hyperbole and slanderous things about the cops he does here for one simple reason. He’s playing to the audience. It’s obviously a different audience at Patch, whatever blog that is. I’ll have to check it out.
When Celeste ran a thread about Zac’s tragic death a year ago, Mel had already decided that the cops involved not only murdered Zac in cold blood…but they went there looking to murder somebody. He claimed it was premeditated. Over the top, inflammatory and despicable don’t begin to describe Mel’s comments.
Celeste, if you’re wanting things to go off the rails again, allowing this kind of provocative and inflammatory remarks are certainly a great way to start.
If somebody painted with such a broad brush regarding any other group of people most of your readers would be highly outraged.
“the entire culture that has spawned these assassination squads”
“the fact that the wearing of a badge is tantamount to a license to murder,”
Okay, I deleted everything from here on as, indeed it escalates in a most unpleasant fashion.
And Mel, dial it back. On the old Zac thread I stopped monitoring as the only people reading after a certain point, were the participants.
You may argue the facts of Zac’s death all you want, but you may not bash law enforcement in general, particularly in such a hateful fashion. Period. The broadbrush bashing of a single profession is loathsome and not allowed here.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Nice call. Kudos.
My mantra remains; How could LoPresti’s and Brewster’s claim to have been “fearing for their lives” be reasonable as justifying the use of deadly force when they apparently stood facing Zac’s driver’s side door and the rear of Zac’s car?
As for “bashing a single profession”, I cite page 6 of the Champommier complaint which, starting at line 4, reads: “At all material times…Defendant City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and the DEA had a policy(s)/customs(s) in place that enabled its agents/officers to use excessive and deadly force against persons and/or to tolerate misconduct by its officers/agents, encouraging misconduct by failing to adequately supervise, discipline, and train officers/agents on how to handle these types of situations.”
Thus, the culture within law enforcement, from the top on down, as it relates to the use of excessive/deadly force and misconduct will be on trial and subject to scrutiny.
My comments reflect beliefs that have been generally consistent with those mentioned in the complaint which, incidentally, is posted on this blog.
“Thus, the culture within law enforcement, from the top on down, as it relates to the use of excessive/deadly force and misconduct will be on trial and subject to scrutiny.”
************************************************************
Newsflash. It’s been on trial and subject to scrutiny since 1991.
Give gangsters jobs…but don’t expect them to work. The Diocese needs loyal servants who do not let right and wrong get in the way of dong what they are told. That is what is really going on. Most of the time, the cops shoot or jail somebody innocent, while their gangster buddies laugh about it. This is a very corrupt situation. Guilty gangsters get top rate legal assistance. Innocent poor people fill the jails for them. The Church (expert as it is) joins the State in corruption. Innocent victims suffer. If they have money, the Church can help.
The complaint is just that, a complaint. It isn’t a ruling, the facts presented haven’t been argued in court it’s a complaint like thousands of others that are debated in trial year after year. For the most part they get dismissed or juries find for law enforcement, that will happen here as well regardless of what Mel says.
By the way Mel, you coined the term “assassination squads” I just went with it. Since I have worked these types of multi-jurisdictional teams and have shot people you were attacking me as far as I was concerned. People shoot at us, run us over, attack us in any way we’re going to take care of ourselves and each other.
You’ve put some remarks up here and made claims on Patch that show you to be nothing more than a hysterical cop hating dope. Good luck with that.
Wow Celeste, one of your little gangsters gets nabbed for the Stow beating and not a word from you. curious. Thousands more coming at us thanks to SCOTUS, bet that just made your day. Very sad.
@ Misfire,
Since your claim is that Zac, an unarmed 18 year-old honors student, intentionally “rammed” Deputy Brewster leading both he and DEA Agent LoPresti to be in fear of immediately receiving serious bodily injury or death and somehow justifying the use of deadly force, as the jury will similarly be shown, you need to explain how Zac rendered said imminent threat to LoPresti, who stood facing Zac’s driver’s side door, and Brewster, who stood facing the rear of Zac’s car.
To date, you have completely avoided the essential physics by which Zac could have put these men in fear for their lives. You won’t even venture a guess. Absolutely no creativity on display on your part as to how it could have gone down. Without that discussion, any and all claims that you make on behalf of Zac’s killer have no substance.
I suggest you watch recently released video of the slaying of the Native American woodcarver in Seattle as a refresher in what a killer cop looks like.
As for commenting on “patch”, I don’t who you are referring to. Is this the ol’ ‘your shoelaces are untied’ bit? Stay focused.
@ Misfire,
Do you believe anyone should be allowed to get away with murder, even if they wear a badge? If do not, then put on your defense for LoPresti and explain how his killing of Zac was justified.
On the other hand, if you are indeed a law enforcement officer who believes that law enforcement personnel should be immune to the laws that govern murderous acts, how is that culture or thinking different from that of a gang?
As to your defense of Agent LoPresti, how do you wish to argue regarding the justification for his killing of Zachary Nathan Champommier based on the facts and circumstances present on the evening of June 24, 2010?
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. It should have been obvious that he wasn’t hurt. 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.
How do we that Deputy Brewster and Agent LoPresti were in the parking lot?
We don’t. The only evidence we have for Brewster and LoPresti is hearsay from Zac’s Mom. She claims that Sheriff Baca told her.
Zac’s mom also claims that Sheriff Baca told her that a Deputy and a DEA Agent both emptied their revolvers at Zac. She claims that Baca also told her it was the DEA Agent who fired the shot which struck and killed Zac.
How would Sheriff Baca know whose shot killed Zac, he wasn’t there when it happened?
He wouldn’t know. The report prepared by the Sheriff Dept. offered a conclusion that the officers shot in self defense. There is no report to determine which shot from whose gun killed Zac.
Why did Zac go to the parking lot in Studio City? Zac’s Mom remembers Zac telling her that he was going to a friend’s before he left that evening.
Was Zac going to the parking lot to meet Doug Oeters? Zac’s Mom found Email communication between Zac and someone calling themselves Doug Oeters, but her lawsuit simply claims Zac was there to meet a friend without giving any other information.
What about all the information from Doug Oeters? We don’t have any verifiable information from Doug Oeters. There is nobody who has offered information about Oeters who will confirm ever meeting with or speaking to Oeters. There is no one who has offered information attributed to Oeters that will confirm ever meeting with or speaking to Oeters.
O.K., but wasn’t Oeters arrested in the parking lot after Zac was shot? The Sheriff reports and statements only claim that a man was arrested for resisting and interfering – they give no identification.
O.K., isn’t there an arrest record for Doug Oeters? Yes, it seems there is a record for an arrest of Doug Oeters into West Hollywood Substation. No booking photo has been provided and no charges have been filed.
Doesn’t a large portion of what we know about that night come from Doug Oeters?
Actually, only 2-3 minutes of time involving Zac that evening is attributed to Doug Oeters. Also, there is absolutely no accounting for Doug Oeters himself outside of those 2-3 minutes and a booking into and bail out from West Hollywood Substation.
How can that be? Let’s be clear, there is absolutely no accounting for Doug Oeters before the parking lot. He comes from Ohio and then on June 24, 2010 at approx. 9pm he materializes in the middle of the parking lot and answers a phone call from Zac saying that he is sitting in a white car. Following the record of arrest and bail out Doug Oeters dematerializes.
The news report attributed to Doug Oeters as “the witness” purports only to account for the 2-3 minutes of time in the parking lot. And the reporter providing the story admits never having met with or spoken to Doug Oeters. The reporter states that his communication with “the witness” was done online. The reporter states no attempt or use of any method of verification of “the witness”.
As it stands, the newspaper report of “the witness” does not meet the minimum qualifications of a news report or a journalism report. As it stands, the report of “the witness” can only be classified as “rumour” or “propaganda”.
An objective analysis shows that almost everything we thought we knew about the night Zac was shot turns out to be unreliable.
We have seen that the authorities will not share any information or reports which they have. The authorities will not provide access to any of their individuals at the parking lot or preparing the reports.
So we are stuck at a dead end, right? There is “a need to know and why”, is there anything we can do??
Well, yes there is.
We know all the doors are locked and bolted and the shades drawn on the other side – so let’s turn to Zac’s side for information. We are still free to seek answers on Zac’s side.
Where do we start? O.K., we know that Zac’s Mom found Email communication between Zac and someone calling themselves Doug Oeters which may have initiated in a chat room.
Let’s start with the person most likely to know Zac’s Email adresses and possibly have access to passwords used by Zac. Let’s start with the person most likely to know which websites and chat rooms Zac used and when he was using them.
Let’s start with the only person among Zac’s friends who has voluntarily submitted an online posted alibi. Let’s speak with Joseph Berrellez.