LAPD Offcier, Toni McBride, sued for OIS

[Medic218]

Many of you know Toni McBride from her presence on social media.
Now she's being sued by the 14 yr old daughter of a man she shot/killed in the line of duty following a multi vehicle accident in South Central LA where the man was approaching her with a box cutter.
Watch the video and see what you think.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/lapd-top-sho ... rzxTfZulI0

[Pawpaw]

She handled it pofessionaly and decisively.

It looked to me like a good shoot.

[Grayling813]

Another lesson on be careful what you post on social media

[SigM4]

Another lesson on be careful what you post on social media

I guess I don’t follow. From what I understand she’s being sued because they don’t believe that the use of force was justified (seems very clearly to have been). Her social media presence doesn’t seem to factor in here nor was it referenced in the suit that I saw. The Mail article references her social media posts, but again nothing in the lawsuit does. If nothing else you have a media outlet trying to persuade readers by injecting their opinion on the matter.

[Mike S]

I'm impressed at how calm & professional those officers were. Thankfully it was all clearly caught on bodycam footage, & the blade is clearly seen still in the perps hand as they approach. 'Narratives' of wrongdoing kinda fall apart when the light of truth shines through.

Sorry, I'll correct my last sentence... They 'should' fall apart...

[flechero]

And lets not forget that in the beginning of the video, the motorist was really freaked out about the guy wielding the knife... I'm betting he was threatening a lot more than just the officer that stopped him.

Is the suit against the LAPD or the officer, individually? I thought there were protections for officers, at least until they did something outside the law?

[OneGun]

I reviewed the two complaints (two lawsuits) against Officer McBride. Here are the main allegations from the lawsuit filed by the estate. I underlined and bolded some of the key allegations:

23. Without cause, Defendant TONI MCBRIDE used unlawful and excessive force against Daniel Hernandez shooting him multiple times. After her initial volley of gunfire, Defendant TONI MCBRIDE continued to shoot at Daniel Hernandez even after he fell to the ground in a fetal position. The force used was unreasonable and unjustified under the law. Daniel Hernandez was struck by the gunshot and eventually died from the gunshot injuries.

24. The shooting and killing of Daniel Hernandez was without provocation, cause or necessity as Daniel Hernandez did not pose a threat or represent a danger of any nature to anyone, including Defendant TONI MCBRIDE, at the time of the shooting. Daniel Hernandez was at least 30 feet away from Defendant TONI MCBRIDE at the time she fired the initial shots. Defendant TONI MCBRIDE continued shooting Daniel Hernandez even as he lay on the ground in a fetal position. Each and every round fired by MCBRIDE was unnecessary and the shooting of each shot constituted the use of excessive force. Accordingly, the shooting and killing of Daniel Hernandez was unjustified and this use of force was unwarranted and excessive under the circumstances.

26. Defendants LOS ANGELES and LAPD were aware that Defendant TONI MCBRIDE had racist and extremist tendencies and beliefs. Defendant TONI MCBRIDE regularly attended and was an instructor at shooting academies and firearms competitions whose founders held extremist, homophobic, racist and separatist views. Defendant TONI MCBRIDE wrote and blogged about her affiliation with these academies and firearms competitions. Defendant TONI MCBRIDE bought and read books which contained racist, separatist and extremist musings and commentary. Defendant MCBRIDE was a regular contributor to on-line shooting and firearm tactics magazines, blogs and other electronic forums promoting police officer use of firearms both on and off-duty.

Officer McBride's attorney filed an answer to the lawsuit and denies all of the allegations.

Here are the main allegations filed by the daughter in her lawsuit.

2. This action at law for money damages arises under Title 42 U.S.C. Sections, 1983, 1985 and 1988 and the United States Constitution, the laws of the State of California and common law principles to redress a deprivation under color of state law of rights, privileges and immunities secured to plaintiff by said statutes, and by the Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.


10. .... DANIEL HERNANDEZ had been injured in the accident, exited his vehicle demonstrating shock, trauma and panic. He walked a few steps from his vehicle in an unsteady gait posing no threat to anyone when Defendant MCBRIDE discharged two rounds at HERNANDEZ, taking him to the ground at which time MCBRIDE discharged 4 more rounds into HERNANDEZ’ body as he lay on the pavement. Each of MCBRIDE’s deadly rounds lacked justification and recklessly endangered multiple bystanders. The entire incident was witnessed by multiple bystanders at the scene who captured the shooting with video recordings. At the time of the discharges, MCBRIDE and HERNANDEZ were not less than 30 feet apart and shirtless HERNANDEZ posed no threat or danger to anyone and none to MCBRIDE in particular. DOE Defendants 1-5 witnessed MCBRIDE’s deadly force and did nothing to interfere with MCBRIDE’s deadly force when they could, and upon confirming HERNANDEZ was lifeless, immediately began to concoct a plausible, but false scenario conspiring to cover up MCBRIDE’s wrongful misconduct by asserting HERNANDEZ posed a threat to the police and/or public because a knife was recovered from the scene. The fabricated scenario was designed to give the false and fraudulent appearance of justification for the use of deadly force when MCBRIDE and DOES 1-10 knew none existed.

Both lawsuits assert that distance between Hernandez and McBride meant that Hernandez allegedly did not pose a threat. I believe the McBride will be able to provide suitable use of force evidence that a person with a knife at that distance is still dangerous.

The lawsuit that mentions racist and extremist tendencies and beliefs did not provide any specific examples of such associations and beliefs.

As one attorney friend once told me, "You can beat the rap, but not the ride."