Vallejo PD Takes So Long To Investigate Officers, They Often Kill Again Before Their First Investigations Are Closed

from the longer-you-delay,-the-longer-you-can-stonewall dept

The Vallejo PD kills people. That’s an undeniable fact. It does so with alarming frequency, considering the size of its force. Between 2010 and 2020, the PD’s officers killed 19 people. But the PD is uninterested in reducing the number of times its officers kill.

Vallejo police have killed 19 people since 2010, renewing calls for criminal justice reform and a request for federal oversight of the department. 

None of the officers have been charged criminally for any of these shootings in the last decade, as each case was deemed justified because officers feared for their lives. Yet, many of their families say that police have acted with excessive force and have given false accounts about why they felt the need to shoot and kill their loved ones are false. 

There may be a reason for this (beyond the obvious lack of accountability). Last March, a Vallejo PD whistleblower alleged officers were being informally rewarded for shooting citizens. A clique within the department regularly held celebratory barbecues to honor officers who’d shot people, bending the point of their badge tips to tally up killings in the line of duty..

The report, published by Open Vallejo, contained these disturbing details.

Open Vallejo cites the controversial shooting of Willie McCoy as the impetus for this anonymous whistleblowing. McCoy was shot by Vallejo police officers in a Taco Bell drive-thru, where he had apparently passed out. Restaurant employees called the PD, which sent officers to perform a wellness check. Instead of seeing whether anything was wrong with McCoy, officers surrounded the car and killed McCoy when he awoke and moved one arm towards his shoulder. Vallejo officers fired 55 rounds in less than 3.5 seconds, killing McCoy.

It wasn’t the first time Vallejo cops emptied their magazines into someone they were supposed to be arresting or helping. At the tail end of a chase involving an alleged robbery suspect, Vallejo officers shot the suspect — who was carrying a knife and slowly moving towards them — 41 times.

According to Open Vallejo’s source, one of McCoy’s killers — Officer Ryan McMahon — got a bend on his “star” for this shooting. This would be his second “bend” in less than a year.

According to the same source, nearly 40% of the department’s officers had been involved in at least one shooting.

A new investigation — published by ProPublica in conjunction with Open Vallejo — helps explain why the department is so prone to violence. A major contributor is the department itself, which shows almost no interest in holding officers accountable for excessive force deployment.

Now, Open Vallejo and ProPublica have looked at what happens inside the department after those killings occur, examining more than 15,000 pages of police, forensic, and court files related to the city’s 17 fatal police shootings since 2011. Based on records that emerged after dozens of public records requests and two lawsuits filed by Open Vallejo, the news organizations found a pattern of delayed and incomplete investigations, with dire consequences.

One of the cases cited is the killing of Ronell Foster, something that started with a stop for a minor traffic violation involving a bike, morphed into a tasing and beating of Foster, and ended with Officer Ryan McMahon shooting Foster seven times: four in the back, two in the side, and one in the head.

The department took 18 months to even get around to reviewing this case, ultimately finding only that McMahon had violated policy by escalating a minor traffic violation stop into a beating and killing. It recommended he be “punished” by attending a training course on officer safety and tactics. By that time, McMahon had already killed another person, Willie McCoy, during another controversial shooting.

Six times since 2011, an officer who has killed someone has killed again while still under investigation for the first shooting. In those six instances, the shortest investigation lasted 243 days. The longest? 1,470 days — more than four years.

Even if other officers involved in killings have refrained from killing again while under investigation, it has little to do with the department’s handling of these cases. On average, it takes the Vallejo PD 20 months to complete an investigation. In some cases, witnesses weren’t interviewed for months. In some cases, witnesses were never interviewed at all. All of this violates county policy, which states:

[D]epartment officials are responsible for “immediately” securing crime scenes, including identifying and sequestering witnesses in order to obtain their statements.

And this was not the only way foot-dragging occurred.

In 11 of the 17 cases, investigators did not meet a 30-day goal set by the county to complete their reports. Detectives often took even longer to request analysis on important evidence, such as bullets fired by officers, fingerprinting, DNA samples and weapons allegedly carried by the victims. In six investigations, Vallejo sent requests for evidence testing to a crime lab half a year or more following the killings. In most of those cases, the delayed analyses appear to have hampered the investigations or led to cases being closed by investigators before some forensic reports could be included.

Vallejo officers aren’t dumb. They know the department isn’t interested in investigating them. They know there will be no consequences for them if and when the investigations finally close. And the lack of accountability extends all the way to local prosecutors, who rely almost solely on the PD’s internal investigations and conclusions to make charging decisions.

The PD knows what it’s doing as well. Keeping investigations open means being able to deny public records requests or provide statements. The longer the investigation is open, the more likely it is that by the time it’s concluded, the public will have moved on to another outrage, even if it’s one perpetrated by a Vallejo PD officer.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Vallejo PD Takes So Long To Investigate Officers, They Often Kill Again Before Their First Investigations Are Closed”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
69 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

US police: Like homicidal organized crime but worse

To even begin to solve a problem first you have to think it is a problem, and it’s crystal clear that ‘murdering members of the public’ is not considered a problem to the Vallejo PD, so its hardly a surprise that they would be so grossly indifferent to doing anything about it beyond celebrating.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
discussitlive (profile) says:

Foxes, Henhouses, and guard schedules

Police investigating their own is like (insert common story here).

We got that.

Now what are we going to do about it? Maybe a state force tasked with nothing other than investigating other police? quis custodes ipsos custodes?

Until we stop falling for the Svengali meme that gets trotted out every time of “Civilians don’t understand the difficulty of police work!”, I don’t expect any improvement. Most of us don’t understand the complexities of building a house, but houses still get built the way we want them – mostly. One clue might be a particular segment of politicians hate unions, until it comes to police unions.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Not the only place…
I hit something talking about this sort of thing on Imgur, lost track of that post but found more information.

It took 2 years to investigate, a cop shooting a man who’s hands were handcuffed behind his back… only to not charge the cop.

Even the cop saying “You’re about to die, my friend” didn’t change things.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/07/22/west-valley-city-sergeant/

Arijirija says:

Just imagine the outrage if this were to occur in Ukraine at this moment, and the Russian Army were the ones doing the shooting … well, it has, and there was predictable outrage. But not in Vallejo, never in Vallejo, and Vallejo’s not even at war! Except the Vallejo PD appear to have declared open season on their fellow citizens.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

So the Vallejo Police are so bloodthirsty, they are killing hundreds of people every year?

No, wait, it’s fewer than one a year. No specific information on whether those criminals were shooting at police and innocent bystanders or not.

And since the left thinks police should just stand and take being shot by criminals instead of protecting themselves and the public, that number should be zero, right?, even if it means that same criminal kills others after killing the police sent to stop them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

You seem to have grasped the fine points, yes.

We, the citizenry, offer you a legal authority, good pay and benefits, implements of deadly force, and a presumed right to use them.

You, the sworn Peace Officer, agree that you are willing to die first, rather than allowing or causing the death of any innocent person(s).

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Applying that argument to any other job...

‘Look, the fire department only lets a few people burn to death every year because they don’t want to put their own safety at risk, what’s the problem?’

‘Yes the lifeguards let a few people drown to death last year because it was easier and less risky for them than swimming out to help, but come on it was only a few and it’s not like anyone expects the job to carry risks!’

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

That’s interesting. Not a valid comparison, but you do you.

Deaths in house fires every year? About 3,500.

Drownings every year? About 4,000.

Killed by police every year? About 1,000.

All of those deaths are tragic.

Are all of those deaths in house fires and drownings acceptable to you, but all of those deaths from police doing their job somehow not? Not a single criminal shooting at innocent civilians who is then killed by police is way out of bounds?

Or do you just have a ridiculous hatred of police?

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: One of these things is not like the others...

A valiant effort to conflate two very different categories, but ultimately a failed one.

When someone dies in a fire the firefighters weren’t the ones who lit the fire, though they might share some blame if they could have done something but didn’t.

When someone drowns the lifeguard wasn’t the one who threw the person into the water, though again they might share some blame if they could have helped but didn’t.

When a cop murders someone simply because they can they are the one who pulled trigger(or pulled it seven times as the case might be), and as such they hold all the blame when they decide that the only life that matters is theirs and escalate a minor or non-existent issue into one where one less person is alive at the end of it.

If firefighters or lifeguards caused the deaths in their related fields at even remotely the same level as police did and showed just as much indifference towards the resulting bodycount I’d hold them in just as much contempt, but they don’t so I don’t.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

DBA Phillip Cross says:

Re: Re: Re:

Aaaand 550k or so die per year from prescription and non-prescription drugs, alcohol, obesity, laziness, and sloth–but those things are preventable personal choices.

A coward with a badge and a bullet in your back 100% preventable too-but not a personal choice in any way–and yet no PSA’s about that.

Oxy AND moron in your case, re:

do you just have a ridiculous hatred of police

These “police” are merely gangs hired by the upper tier of society to oppress the second tier of our society–defund these “gangs,”prevent 1000 deaths per year.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Gang stalking research… ah, now I get it. ROGS finally got his head out from his ass and figured out how to parse his word salad through a grammar checker and pick a new pseudonym. But like John Smith and Hamilton, the thing about trolls is that they always give themselves away.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

DBA Phillip Cross says:

Re: Re:

The thing about lying, derailing AC’s with moronic one-liners is that only one person online defends you.

Everyone else thinks that you are 1/10th the value of someone who at least cares enough to post with a nym. Mine in this case, educational, and directed at raising awareness of how the US-FVEY’s deploys armies of AC’s online to disrupt democratic discourse.

Unlike your lies, inferences, allegations, and other deceptive hyperbole to the contrary, other mods here can easily discover that I and that establishment-defending scumbag Phillip Cross who sperged all over the Wikiedia are not the same person.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The thing about lying, derailing AC’s with moronic one-liners is that only one person online defends you.

For someone who boasts this much about “lying, derailing, moronic” ACs you sure get your panties twisted in a tight little knot over them.

Everyone else thinks that you are 1/10th the value of someone who at least cares enough to post with a nym.

Not everyone loses sleep over what anonymous people think of them – at least not at the magnitude you do.

Mine in this case, educational, and directed at raising awareness of how the US-FVEY’s deploys armies of AC’s online to disrupt democratic discourse.

Now I don’t doubt that China, at minimum, deploys their own 50 Cent Army. It’s likely that the US has paid commenters, or idiots dumb enough to do it for free. But for some reason you go from linking to a profile of Philip Cross, boasting of their role in being educational, and then move on to call them a:

establishment-defending scumbag Phillip Cross who sperged all over the Wikiedia

If there was a point you were trying to make, it certainly doesn’t establish your legitimacy.

Unlike your lies, inferences, allegations, and other deceptive hyperbole to the contrary, other mods here can easily discover that I and that establishment-defending scumbag Phillip Cross who sperged all over the Wikiedia are not the same person

ROGS, you can pick whatever common or rare pseudonym you want. You still stick out like a pin in a balloon factory with the same “organized gang stalking” spiel wherever you go. Finding you isn’t difficult. As for you begging the moderators to salvage what’s left of your tattered reputation… no dice. Maybe if you bothered signing up for an account so your record can be tracked, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

DBA Phillip Cross says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Listen—as soon as the USA went full fascist police state back in 2001, all bets were off with me registering for anything, ever–forum mods back then were feeding lists of “enemies” to the state and the agencies.

Then, along came FBI Infragard, where IT professional’s were recruited to stifle speech at every single ISP and platform, and target speakers via feeding forum posters nym’s, and IP’s directly to the police state agents–not a single terror event disrupted, not a single terrorist caught–but wow! Lot’s of AC trolls “radicalizing” people online with your exact type of trolling and hate speech.

And there’s the problem of the in-house trolls–and flawed comment systems that are actually anti-democratic and easily abused by Fusion Center goons, JTRIG, and others, designed to crush speakers and ideas at the internet switch–in this case, you there and your troll army.

It’s likely that the US has paid commenters, or idiots dumb enough to do it for free

Likely? The US has entire battalions of trolls on it’s payroll, same as other nation’s–USCYBERCOM and AFAIC, I could care less what foreign agents they target–the problem tho’, is that they targeted ME personally–and ten’s of thousands of other activists too.

That used to be a no-no, at least officially–US .mil operations were not supposed to target US citizens–but they did and they do now–not a peep about that from all of the so-called progressive bloggers et al, as it’s all [Citation Needed].

And yeah–no shortage of useful idiots parroting state agenda in any fascist police state, ever–it’s what Brownshirts do.

So, the US and it’s military internet operations (and you) wants us all to look askance at the evil commies systems–“Arrrrrgh! F1Ft33 c3NTr’s!!!” or claim terror threats that simply do not exist–so that we don’t see what evil FASCIST systems are operating in the US-FVEY’s–and how the mechanism described above has turned the first amendment clock back about 70 years.

You still stick out like a pin in a balloon factory

Again–wouldn’t it be nice if we just let agents of the state control the dialogue at all times, with one liner hate mail posted as AC’s? Not gonna happen. Democratic discourse is generally anti-mod too begin with, and you add these spergpersonating intel trolls, and what do you have then? Yup–you have zero free speech, or tightly constrained chilled speech at best.

Registration is less than trustworthy on ANY platform, because mod’s themselves are inherently part of the problem–and more-so where the AC’s routinely lie and manipulate and censor words and ideas–I am registered to exactly no platform ever–my trust level for platforms of any kind quite low, my experience with the fragility of free speech quite high.

what’s left of your tattered reputation

Since I became an intelligence target in the early aughts’, character assassination was EVERYWHERE. This COINTELPRO 2.0 is some seriously bad shit, and word is getting out (surprise!) that this is what the world is now. But only AFTER nym’d people like myself raised awareness of it, and fighting bad speech begins with MORE good speech, not less

So–moderation isn’t rocket science–anyone can read IP logs and rate limit, or Cloudflare–so, what’s your stake in urging me to register? If you can clearly state your purpose, the benefit, and your role in doing so, I might consider it. But only AFTER that–who knows who AC’s actually are? Infragard is EVEYWHERE in IT, and state-hate campaigns are quite real.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

DBA Phillip Cross says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Question: Why would you or others seek to track me? That reeks of exactly what I wrote about the police state itself. TD has active FVEY’s AC comment trolls–doesn’t that bother you in any way? These aren’t “anonymous people” these are active derailers.

And you missed the point about Cross–look above and in other recent threads, and you will find that

you go from linking to a profile of Philip Cross, boasting of their role in being educational, and then move on to call them a: establishment-defending scumbag Phillip Cross who sperged all over the Wiki[p]edia

That’s the point–all of these spergposters here at TD are in fact the Two Cent Army–I openly mock comparisons to China/Russia this way, as censorship-by-proxy is every bit as bad as censorship–maybe worse.

And if that is democracy at its finest, then democracy has died in the west.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Of all the things you could weaponize, your choice is to weaponize individuals who, until recent times, have largely been considered mentally retarded and incapable?

That’s your explanation? That everyone who has autism is a combination of faking it and induced themselves into having it? Damn, ROGS, and here I thought you couldn’t sink any lower.

DBA Phillip Cross says:

Re: Re: Re:6

That is the most misconstrued, Schismogenetic spergtroll thing I have ever imagined any spergtroll could or would say.

You “Swautistics” need medication, or other incarceration–not my end of the deal.

Please–take your bullying garbage to a retard site–it doesn’t belong on a tech blog at all:

have largely been considered mentally retarded and incapable?

Whatever you are, it doesn’t belong here. Hiding your type of schismogenetic bullying behind psychological labelling theory benefits no rational persons anywhere. Only benefits you, and your Big Pharma overlords.

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/01/serial-swatter-tyler-swautistic-barriss-charged-with-involuntary-manslaughter/

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Tyler Barriss chose of his own volition to go with an intensely inappropriate pseudonym, not because he identified as someone on the spectrum, or because was diagnosed as such. You’re the one trying to suggest everyone on the spectrum is inevitably geared towards acts of violence.

You can go peddle your sad rants against anything pharmaceutical elsewhere.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

That is the most misconstrued, Schismogenetic spergtroll thing I have ever imagined any spergtroll could or would say.

You “Swautistics” need medication, or other incarceration–not my end of the deal.

This AC has never claimed to have autism, nor is there evidence of them ever engaging in “swatting” or anything like that, so your accusation is already false.

More importantly, 1) medication is not a form of incarceration, 2) you fail to identify what—if any—part of what the AC said is wrong, and 3) neither autism nor faking autism necessarily require medication or incarceration at all.

Please–take your bullying garbage to a r&$!# site–it doesn’t belong on a tech blog at all:

have largely been considered mentally retarded and incapable?

Whatever you are, it doesn’t belong here.

  1. That’s not bullying by any stretch of the imagination. It is stating the historical fact that autistic people have been treated (falsely) as though they were mentally retarded and incapable for a long time until relatively recently. It’s not even talking about you.
  2. You’re the one who brought up mental illnesses and similar conditions in the first place, so you’re the one who pushed this off-topic in such a way to begin with.
  3. Your slurs, conspiracy theories, derailment of threads, and trolling don’t belong on a tech blog at all. Frankly, you don’t really even belong here given your bad-faith behavior and nonsense.

Hiding your type of schismogenetic bullying behind psychological labelling theory benefits no rational persons anywhere. Only benefits you, and your Big Pharma overlords.

  1. This isn’t “schismogenesis” or bullying, and you have presented no evidence or arguments to support such a claim.
  2. Again, the AC in question has not even claimed to have any psychological label on them, let alone used such a label to hide behind.
  3. I’m pretty sure that “psychological labeling theory” isn’t actually a thing.
  4. Nothing the AC said could conceivably benefit Big Pharma, and you present no evidence or arguments that they could.

As for the link, it is irrelevant. One person doesn’t indicate a trend, nor does it in any way demonstrate how the labels you keep using apply to literally anyone here. It also doesn’t disprove anything either I or the AC were saying. All it demonstrates is that some people who have claimed to have autism online have also done terrible things online, which is not a claim anyone is disputing. What is disputed is how widespread it is, the nature of it, and its relevance and applicability here, as well as the appropriateness for the terms you use to describe it and some other inferences you draw from it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

[Proof, or GTFO]

It’s literally right in the comment I was responding to.

More on that here at “schismogenesis” and the value of faking autism online for weaponized purposes.

The first says nothing about autism, so that’s irrelevant. The second is also irrelevant because no one you were replying to previously claimed to have autism, nor did the subject matter of the prior discussion involve persons who had done so.

Whether or not there may exist some people online who fake autism for weaponized purposes has nothing to do with this discussion, and that doesn’t justify using ableist slurs at all. As such, literally nothing in either article could possibly (or do in fact) address either of the things I said.

Maybe get that checked out–get a service pet or s/th–tell it your tales of online trigger-happy wordslingers being mean to you, cuz’ you, schismogenetically speaking.

This is nonsense. For one thing, I’m asking you to not use slurs because I think it is immoral, annoying, unnecessary, unhelpful, and a distraction from the actual discussion. While I do find it personally offensive as well, that is not my primary motivation. I’m expressing my opinion and requesting that you stop engaging in this behavior. I’m even (at least trying) to be polite about it.

Second, this bit about service pets only further demonstrates your utter contempt for anyone who has a mental illness or similar condition. I suggest you educate yourself more before dismissing others’ concerns.

Third, this in no way makes your argument look or actually become any stronger, nor is it relevant to anything I said.

On top of all of that, that’s only my problems with it based on what I could infer from that “sentence”, which is difficult to parse for several reasons, most obviously because the bit at the end is clearly incomplete. “[…] cuz you, schismogenetucally speaking,” what? That is not a complete thought.

Furthermore; based on the article you provided, what you’re complaining about doesn’t actually have anything to do with this “schismogenesis” you’re complaining about. If anything, you’re the one engaging in that given your tendency to derail conversations to bring up “schismogenesis”, autism, and people faking autism online (among many other things) even where such things are completely off-topic.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I have no incentive or skin in the game getting you to register. You signing up for an account to put up an agreeable persona, and then another one to shitpost, would be trivial. I just think it’s funny as hell that getting you to out yourself as ROGS was as easy as sneezing.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...