Watch 3 points-of-view video of gang member shooting female cop, then getting wasted by her partner

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNp5OTtssok

Took place in North Hills, CA, which is in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles.

A 32-year-old gang member on probation inexplicably shot the female officer who pulled him over, as he got out of the car.

Fortunately her partner was on the other side of the car, and shot the guy, and then came around and put one good bullet in him for good measure.

The video is about 1:30 for each of the camera views -- the police car dashcam, the female officer, and then the male officer. At the end of the video, you can hear the suspect seemingly gurgling his own blood, as he utters "Fuck you" while being cuffed. The suspect, Richard Mendoza, died later that day. The officer who shot him dead was also Hispanic. Mendoza was not an illegal alien.

It's still not clear why Mendoza came out firing. It might be because he had a gun on him, which would have been a violation of probation and sent him to prison. However, it's not clear why he thought murdering a police officer during a traffic stop would be the way out of that.

The female officer was shot in the leg and will survive.

This occurred on July 27, 2018, but the video was just released this week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNp5OTtssok

Took place in North Hills, CA, which is in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles.

A 32-year-old gang member on probation inexplicably shot the female officer who pulled him over, as he got out of the car.

Fortunately her partner was on the other side of the car, and shot the guy, and then came around and put one good bullet in him for good measure.

The video is about 1:30 for each of the camera views -- the police car dashcam, the female officer, and then the male officer. At the end of the video, you can hear the suspect seemingly gurgling his own blood, as he utters "Fuck you" while being cuffed. The suspect, Richard Mendoza, died later that day. The officer who shot him dead was also Hispanic. Mendoza was not an illegal alien.

It's still not clear why Mendoza came out firing. It might be because he had a gun on him, which would have been a violation of probation and sent him to prison. However, it's not clear why he thought murdering a police officer during a traffic stop would be the way out of that.

The female officer was shot in the leg and will survive.

This occurred on July 27, 2018, but the video was just released this week.

---

Gives new meaning to the old baseball analogy about The Mendoza Line.. ;)

Damn, the male officer got about 10-12 too few shots off on the bastard.

:laterfag

both those cops must be fucking rookies.


edit: she made a felony traffic stop and the dude totally opened the door with both hands. however, there's no way in hell anyone should've been that close tot he guys car door. that's insane. still totally this officers fault she got shot like that. she should've been more careful.

:lol2


edit:
the other cop is lucky as well he didn't get his head blown off. classic cuff the suspect after he's dead on the ground. love that.


all in all, what we have here isn't sensational, and this video should probably be used in Law Enforcement Training classes as a way to demonstrate an easy way to die being a cop.

they should've assumed this guy had a gun if they were pulling him over and knew he was a gang banger

why would you post a snuff video on your website, much less watch it? why would you ever want this sort of energy in your life?

consider this on the tree of woe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNp5OTtssok

The video is about 1:30 for each of the camera views -- the police car dashcam, the female officer, and then the male officer. At the end of the video, you can hear the suspect seemingly gurgling his own blood, as he utters "Fuck you" while being cuffed.

---

Not that it really matters, but I'm not sure it's the suspect saying "Fuck you." The "Fuck you" is said pretty clearly and I'm not sure if the suspect would have even been capable of saying that, because he wasn't even moving at all and was choking on his blood. I think it's likely the cop said it and I wouldn't blame him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryLaffer

both those cops must be fucking rookies.


edit: she made a felony traffic stop and the dude totally opened the door with both hands. however, there's no way in hell anyone should've been that close tot he guys car door. that's insane. still totally this officers fault she got shot like that. she should've been more careful.

:lol2


edit:
the other cop is lucky as well he didn't get his head blown off. classic cuff the suspect after he's dead on the ground. love that.


all in all, what we have here isn't sensational, and this video should probably be used in Law Enforcement Training classes as a way to demonstrate an easy way to die being a cop.

they should've assumed this guy had a gun if they were pulling him over and knew he was a gang banger

---

From the conversation the female cop had with the perp, it sounded like she knew him from previous contact, and was probably lulled into a false sense of security by that familiarity, as if that ganger wouldn’t shot *her* given how they were practically ‘friends’. Heck, she even tried to help him get out of the car by opening his car door for him!

#BFF

But putting that aside, I wonder what “investigative” stop means? What is the constitutional basis for doing so? Because he’s on parole? Is stopping parolees just to check them out for possibly violating parole constitutional?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

From the conversation the female cop had with the perp, it sounded like she knew him from previous contact, and was probably lulled into a false sense of security by that familiarity, as if that ganger wouldn’t shot *her* given how they were practically ‘friends’. Heck, she even tried to help him get out of the car by opening his car door for him!

#BFF

But putting that aside, I wonder what “investigative” stop means? What is the constitutional basis for doing so? Because he’s on parole? Is stopping parolees just to check them out for possibly violating parole constitutional?

---

It means they wanted/needed to find drugs, weapons or anything else to keep him in him tied up in the probation/parole system. Unfortunately, they found a gun and an injured cop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SysOp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

From the conversation the female cop had with the perp, it sounded like she knew him from previous contact, and was probably lulled into a false sense of security by that familiarity, as if that ganger wouldn’t shot *her* given how they were practically ‘friends’. Heck, she even tried to help him get out of the car by opening his car door for him!

#BFF

But putting that aside, I wonder what “investigative” stop means? What is the constitutional basis for doing so? Because he’s on parole? Is stopping parolees just to check them out for possibly violating parole constitutional?

---

It means they wanted/needed to find drugs, weapons or anything else to keep him in him tied up in the probation/parole system. Unfortunately, they found a gun and an injured cop.

---

I understand what they *wanted*. I’m genuinely curious as to the constitutionality of that “investigative” stop. Meaning, did they have a valid reason, such as legitimate tip, that he was doing something that was in violation of his parole? Or were they unconstitutionally harassing him, which might provide the basis for a lawsuit against that police department?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SysOp

It means they wanted/needed to find drugs, weapons or anything else to keep him in him tied up in the probation/parole system. Unfortunately, they found a gun and an injured cop.

---

I understand what they *wanted*. I’m genuinely curious as to the constitutionality of that “investigative” stop. Meaning, did they have a valid reason, such as legitimate tip, that he was doing something that was in violation of his parole? Or were they unconstitutionally harassing him, which might provide the basis for a lawsuit against that police department?

---

right on as usual, Mumbles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SysOp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

I understand what they *wanted*. I’m genuinely curious as to the constitutionality of that “investigative” stop. Meaning, did they have a valid reason, such as legitimate tip, that he was doing something that was in violation of his parole? Or were they unconstitutionally harassing him, which might provide the basis for a lawsuit against that police department?

---

right on as usual, Mumbles.

---

Just found out the likely answer that is applicable in Cali, and that the cops in this case did NOT violate his constitutional rights, nor any related state law.

Can Law Enforcement Search You and Your Stuff If You're on Parole? Search-and-seizure rules are often different for people on parole or supervised release.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...on-parole.html

Quote:

---

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of many states protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures. These constitutional rules mean that a police officers typically need a specific indication of criminal activity or evidence before conducting a search. Often, they need a warrant.

But when people get out of prison on parole, they agree to comply with certain conditions. State laws often specify the conditions. And a common condition is that the parolee has to submit to searches by law enforcement.

...

Another rationale for allowing warrantless, suspicionless searches of parolees is the perspective that parole is a privilege rather than a right. Parole doesn’t come automatically: Inmates typically become eligible for it and then have to be granted it. Along these lines, most courts find that parolees have less of a right to privacy than other members of society. (U.S. v. Massey, 461 F.3d 177 (2nd Cir. 2006); Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006).)

---

Note that a Cali case is cited in that last paragraph. From this, my guess is that case precedent there allows the police to stop parolees to “investigate” without needing a specific cause regarding that parolee.

Carry on, blue shield!

I now want a Mumbles & Larry "Hot Takes" radio show while Druff is on IR with his superAIDS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SysOp

right on as usual, Mumbles.

---

Just found out the likely answer that is applicable in Cali, and that the cops in this case did NOT violate his constitutional rights, nor any related state law.

Can Law Enforcement Search You and Your Stuff If You're on Parole? Search-and-seizure rules are often different for people on parole or supervised release.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...on-parole.html

Quote:

---

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of many states protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures. These constitutional rules mean that a police officers typically need a specific indication of criminal activity or evidence before conducting a search. Often, they need a warrant.

But when people get out of prison on parole, they agree to comply with certain conditions. State laws often specify the conditions. And a common condition is that the parolee has to submit to searches by law enforcement.

...

Another rationale for allowing warrantless, suspicionless searches of parolees is the perspective that parole is a privilege rather than a right. Parole doesn’t come automatically: Inmates typically become eligible for it and then have to be granted it. Along these lines, most courts find that parolees have less of a right to privacy than other members of society. (U.S. v. Massey, 461 F.3d 177 (2nd Cir. 2006); Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006).)

---

Note that a Cali case is cited in that last paragraph. From this, my guess is that case precedent there allows the police to stop parolees to “investigate” without needing a specific cause regarding that parolee.

Carry on, blue shield!

---

I believe druff's OP said he was on probation, not parole. But maybe the same law applies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SysOp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Can Law Enforcement Search You and Your Stuff If You're on Parole? Search-and-seizure rules are often different for people on parole or supervised release.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...on-parole.html

Quote:

---

Another rationale for allowing warrantless, suspicionless searches of parolees is the perspective that parole is a privilege rather than a right. Parole doesn’t come automatically: Inmates typically become eligible for it and then have to be granted it. Along these lines, most courts find that parolees have less of a right to privacy than other members of society. (U.S. v. Massey, 461 F.3d 177 (2nd Cir. 2006); Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006).)

---

Note that a Cali case is cited in that last paragraph. From this, my guess is that case precedent there allows the police to stop parolees to “investigate” without needing a specific cause regarding that parolee.

Carry on, blue shield!

---

I believe druff's OP said he was on probation, not parole. But maybe the same law applies.

---

Good catch! Misread that. Watched the vid again to confirm. And I think, for all practical purposes even if not technically accurate, you are correct to think that a similar forfeiture of 4th Amendment civil rights usually applies with those on probation. The details are mentioned in this NOLO.com article:

Probation Search Conditions
Probationers are typically subject to warrantless searches without probable cause.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...onditions.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryLaffer

both those cops must be fucking rookies.


edit: she made a felony traffic stop and the dude totally opened the door with both hands. however, there's no way in hell anyone should've been that close tot he guys car door. that's insane. still totally this officers fault she got shot like that. she should've been more careful.

:lol2


edit:
the other cop is lucky as well he didn't get his head blown off. classic cuff the suspect after he's dead on the ground. love that.


all in all, what we have here isn't sensational, and this video should probably be used in Law Enforcement Training classes as a way to demonstrate an easy way to die being a cop.

they should've assumed this guy had a gun if they were pulling him over and knew he was a gang banger

---

Really impressed with your analysis.

Fuck Colin Kaepernick and Nike, I enjoyed watching that gang banger getting shot, but felt bad for the officer. Colin would call this a "Lawful Lynching". Nike rewarded Colin with a commercial. I'll never buy a pair of Nike shoes again.

Colin would change his tune if he spent some time as a cop. Oh, and fuck the Pittsburg Steelers who refused to come out of the tunnel for National Anthem.

MumblesBadly: You moron!!! This isn’t a case relevant to the kneeling protest!!!

They aren’t kneeling / protesting against “police brutality”? Lololol