Cops Not Guilty Of Unreasonable Force In Mistaken Killing Of Child Hostage: Appeals Court

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

An internationally publicized case of a tragic shooting in which Force Science testimony was given has been decided by a California appellate court in favor of the involved officers.

Controversial from the beginning, the headline-grabbing case concerned a tense standoff between LAPD SWAT and a drug-deranged father who was holding his 19-month-old daughter in his arm as a hostage and human shield. In a desperate showdown, officers killed the offender in a fusillade of bullets—but also, inadvertently, killed the child.

The girl’s mother filed suit, claiming the operators’ reckless and unreasonable use of force and negligent disregard of proper police tactics caused her daughter’s wrongful death. At trial, Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, testified on the officers’ behalf, describing in realistic terms the death scene’s chaotic climax.

A Superior Court judge ruled that the plaintiff’s arguments had no documented merit and tossed the case. Now the California Court of Appeal has upheld that decision, in an opinion written by Justice Madeleine Flier. Click here to read it in full.


On a balmy Sunday in July, 2005, 34-year-old Jose Raul Pena, drunk, coked up and meth-addled, depressed over financial problems, and “emotionally unstable,” turned deadly. After threatening to kill himself and members of his family, he grabbed his baby daughter Suzie and stormed off to the garage/shop of a small used car lot he owned around the corner from his home in Watts, where a standoff with responding police officers shortly ensued. Pena claimed to have access to 2 handguns, a 12 ga. shotgun, and extra ammunition.

“Four times, Pena stood outside the auto shop and shot at officers [with a 9mm Beretta] as he held Suzie in his right arm as a shield,” the appellate decision recounted. Raving that he was Tony Montana from the movie Scarface, he yelled “over 10 times” that he was going to “kill Suzie” and take her “to hell with me,” a phrase from the film. According to an investigative report later, he “told the officers to go ahead and shoot him.”

“I’m going to kill my baby before I leave my baby to my wife, that whore,” the appellate decision quoted him as threatening. He said he’d been in the “Salvadoran military” and knew “how to kill.” He also said he’d been in jail and “wasn’t going back.” Extensive attempts across nearly 3 hours that late afternoon to negotiate a surrender of the child, of Pena or of his weapons were unsuccessful because the hostage-taker “was not being rational and was making constant threats.”


Five minutes after breaking off communication by disconnecting his phone, Pena again “exited the auto shop, holding Suzie in his right arm.” A SWAT sniper tracked him via rifle scope from inside a Bear Cat parked outside.

“[H]e saw Pena move his hand as if he were about to remove his gun from his waistband,” the appellate decision stated. “[H]e believed Pena was going to shoot Suzie.” The sniper fired; Pena flinched “as if struck” and stumbled back inside.

Immediately, the SWAT team leader ordered 4 operators, specially trained in hostage rescue, to enter the building as a rapid-deployment Emergency Assault Element under his direction and bring the baby to safety.

“When they entered the auto shop, the officers expected Pena to be on the floor as a result of [the sniper’s] shot,” Justice Flier wrote. “[I]nstead he was positioned in an interior office,” still alarmingly alive and alarmingly deadly. Quickly he fired “at least six shots through the drywall” in the officers’ direction. One round hit one of the rescue team in the shoulder.

The operators said later they did not retreat because their “mission was to separate Suzie from Pena” and they considered her to be in “imminent peril.” Retreating, their commander said, “would have been a dereliction” of their duty. Instead, the wounded oprator tossed in a flashbang and the stack surged in.

Consider the pandemonium. The office was a tight 8 X 12 feet, filled with smoke and the echoing boom of the grenade. Pena, moving rapidly, continued shooting at officers while still holding his infant daughter as a shield. All 4 officers simultaneously fired back, defending their own lives and, they thought, saving Suzie.

At least 1 of the officers said he was “blinded by muzzle flashes from Pena’s weapon” a few feet from his face, so he could not actually see the child. All concentrated their fire on their assailant’s left side, aware he had consistently held the baby on his right throughout the standoff. “Together the officers fired 50-55 shots inside the office within 3.5 to 6 seconds,” the appellate decision said. In all that fateful Sunday, Pena had himself fired at least 39 rounds before his fatal takedown.

When the smoke cleared, the officers discovered that the baby had been killed, along with her father. Just who fired the fatal round to her head was never determined, although the court said the shooter was 1 of 3 members of the entry team. All carried Colt M4 carbines, according to an investigative report.


The sole basis for the mother’s inevitable lawsuit claiming “negligence and wrongful death” was her allegation that “the officers used unreasonable force” in confronting Pena’s deadly threats, the appellate decision noted. Her only expert witness—a retired LAPD commander who admitted to having no experience, training, or familiarity in SWAT tactics and protocol—opined that retreat and more negotiation would have been preferable to lethal assault.

During the initial 2-week trial in the Superior Court of Judge Rolf Treu in 2009, Bill Lewinski was asked to explain, among other things, how multiple rounds could have missed the suspect in such tight quarters, including the one that struck and killed the child. (An autopsy revealed that Pena had been hit just 6 times.)

That was not a matter of recklessness, Lewinski told the jury, but instead a common dynamic of sudden, life-threatening confrontations of high stress, rapid dynamic movement, and short duration.

Drawing on studies by the Force Science Institute and other research groups, for instance, he documented the typical time required for officers in a shooting to perceive a given threat, interpret its meaning, decide on a response, and perform a reaction. That all can occur within mere micro-seconds, he explained. Yet within that brief timeframe, the scenario they’re confronting can change radically because of split-second movements by the targeted suspect. Officers might not be able to detect the change in enough time to alter the rapid-fire action they’ve initiated.

Unexpected movement by Pena, who was highly agitated and animated, would account for the failure of the highly trained sniper to deliver an effective head shot outside the shop and of the operators who stormed the inner office to put all rounds on their target, despite the close distances. Pena shifting the little girl from one arm to the other could have brought her into the line of fire unexpectedly and unavoidably.

“These were elite officers,” Lewinski told Force Science News. “If LAPD had a Delta team, it would be these guys. Yet they still couldn’t shoot with total accuracy in that difficult situation, not because they were recklessly out of control but because of immutable human limitations.

“Force Science has measured what an ‘instant’ is in a high-stress encounter and what people can and can’t do in that time. My job was to help clarify for the jury how our research on human behavior related to what happened in the confrontations with Pena.”

After attorneys for both sides had rested their case and minutes before closing arguments were to start, Judge Treu abruptly called a halt to the trial. In response to a defense motion, he found that “reasonable jurors here could only draw one conclusion from the evidence presented, and that was that the officers’ use of force was reasonable.” In short, the matter was a “nonsuit,” and he issued a directed verdict aborting the case.

It was this ruling, challenged by the plaintiff, that the appellate court upheld.


In the appeal, the plaintiff’s attorneys argued that Treu’s nonsuit ruling was improper because no probable cause had existed either for the sniper’s initial use of deadly force against Pena or for the rescue team’s use of lethal force during its final assault.

The appellate decision characterized this claim as a “nonsensical interpretation of the evidence.”

The evidence was “overwhelming,” Justice Flier wrote, “that Pena posed a danger to Suzie,” even though he did not point his gun directly at her. He had made numerous verbal threats to kill her, and the sniper was “not required to wait” until Pena pointed his gun at her and actually “pulled the trigger to conclude that [the] threats were real and exposed Suzie to great risk.”

As for the final shootout, the appellate panel agreed with the trial court that the operators “had probable cause and rights within their discretion to go in after Pena, particularly since there were shots fired from inside the room out and the officers could reasonably have believed [these] may involve Suzie.”

Addressing the multitude of rounds fired, the officers’ “concurrent shooting multiple times at Pena cannot constitute excessive force under an objective standard,” the appellate decision stated. Case law has established that the “number of shots by itself cannot be determinative as to whether the force used was reasonable. That multiple shots were fired does not suggest the officers shot mindlessly as much as it indicates that they sought to ensure the elimination of a deadly threat.”

Any belief by the plaintiff “that the officers should have stopped after each shot and assessed its effect” when Pena was shooting directly at them was unrealistic from “the perspective of [a] reasonable officer at the scene,” the court declared.

Tragic as the unintended death of the child was, the decision concluded, “retreating when Suzie remained in danger would have been a dereliction of duty…. [C]onsidering the exigency of the circumstances,” the officers acted properly in pursuing the father who threatened her life and “used reasonable care in employing deadly force.”

Leave a Reply


  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.


We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: support@forcescience.org
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.