Gunfight Analysis: The Richard Mendoza Incident

Los Angeles: With only 9 months left on probation, Richard Mendoza was not going back to prison. When the the female officer told him to get out of the car, he knew the police would discover his pistol. Mendoza also knew that surprise was on his side so he decided to take the chance.

The Los Angeles Police Department released video of an officer-involved shooting that left the suspect Richard Mendoza dead and one officer wounded in the leg. The shooting happened during a traffic stop in North Hills, California, on the night of July 27, 2018. The video shows a female officer speaking to Mendoza who appears to be cooperating and following her instructions when she tells him to step out of the car. (Click here to view the video)

Video then shows Mendoza pulling out a pistol and shooting her in the leg. He then turns to shoot at her partner, Officer Miguel Alarcon, over the car.  However, Officer Alarcon quickly fires striking Mendoza in the head and torso. Mendoza later died at a hospital. Police records show that Mendoza was a gang member and had previous convictions on drug and weapons charges. Mendoza indicated during the verbal exchange with the female officer that he had nine months left on probation at the time of the shooting. Mendoza likely attacked the officers hoping to escape rather than be arrested and returned to prison for charges of a felon in possession of a firearm.

In the video you can see Mendoza glancing at Officer Alarcon out of the corner of his eye just before he exits the car and shoots the female officer. Mendoza was likely trying to confirm the male officer’s position in preparation for engaging that officer. You can see Mendoza’s pistol on Officer Alarcon’s body cam video as Mendoza exits the vehicle. The female officer’s body cam shows Alarcon glancing away at just that moment—understandable if unfortunate. Officer Alarcon was simply maintaining situational awareness of their surroundings.

From the time the female officer could have seen Mendoza’s pistol until he shot her was approximately 0.86 seconds—far too short a time for her to react. Officer Alarcon clearly reacted an instant before Mendoza fired at the female officer and before Mendoza turned to fire at him. It is not clear from the various videos whether Officer Alarcon was reacting to Mendoza’s aggressive move toward the female officer or whether he glanced into the car just in time to see Mendoza’s pistol as Mendoza was exiting his car.*
 

I believe it was the latter. Officer Alarcon fired his first shot in 0.72 seconds after Mendoza’s shot which leads me to believe that he saw and reacted to Mendoza’s pistol. The car dashcam video shows Alarcon dip his shoulder in a manner indicative of drawing his pistol an instant before Mendoza shoots the female officer. The dashcam and Officer Alarcon’s body cam both show that he had started lateral movement to his left at the instant of Mendoza’s shot.

After he shoots the female officer, Mendoza turns and aims his pistol where he likely believed Alarcon was still standing; however, Alarcon had moved.  Video analysis does not show Mendoza firing a second shot and I believe not seeing Alarcon where he expected to see him caused momentary hesitation.  In any event, it is likely that Officer Alarcon’s first shot strikes Mendoza before he can fire. The video shows Mendoza beginning to fall 0.5 seconds after Alarcon’s first shot and Mendoza continues falling until he hits the pavement. Alarcon’s second shot ricochets off the top of the car and may not have hit Mendoza.

Officer Alarcon is positioned over the car trunk at this point, likely out of Mendoza’s immediate line of fire. Alarcon’s 3rd and 4th shots go through the car’s rear window. His 3rd shot may have struck Mendoza, his 4th shot probably did not because Mendoza had fallen out of his line of sight by this time. Officer Alarcon fires four shots in 0.90 seconds or a rate of fire of 0.30 seconds between shots. Studies show that Alarcon’s rate of fire would fall within the range of a typical police officer of 0.25 – 0.30 seconds between shots.**

What can we learn from this incident? The person who takes the initiative gets to start the fight—all they require is decisiveness, marksmanship, and the will to win. Mendoza had the initiative in this fight and his surprise attack immediately dropped the female officer.

Officer Alarcon in this incident faced a reactive event where the bad guy was already preparing to shoot him. Studies and countless officer involved shooting videos have shown that the initial reaction of many officers (and private citizens for that matter) who are facing a deadly threat is to stand flat-footed, draw, and try to return fire—this is how most departments train their officers—stand and deliver. That is also what square range practice and many “shooting courses” typically teach.

However, Officer Alarcon did not employ the typical stand and deliver tactic, but rather he dynamically moved off the “X”, drew his pistol, and fired before Mendoza could fire at him thereby ending the gunfight.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

* The Los Angeles Police have not released any accounts of the incident from the officer’s perspective; so some of my analysis is educated guess. 

** Police Officer Reaction Time to Start and Stop Shooting: The Influence of Decision-Making and Pattern Recognition, William J. Lewinski, PhD; et al.; Law Enforcement Executive Forum, Vol. 14, No. 2 • June 2014

Mindset: The Cooper Color Codes

Dominick Maldonado

“When I changed into another position, I see just the most surreal sight,” McKown said from his bed at Tacoma General Hospital "It's a young Arabic-looking boy . . . with a ball cap on and an AK in his hand. McKown drew his 9mm pistol but then had second thoughts of shooting "a kid."

McKown told Dominick Maldonado (the shooter), "I think you need to put that gun down, young man."* 

The “kid” turned and shot McKown five times, once in the leg and four times in the torso. "Every one of his shots got some part of me," McKown said. McKown’s reluctance could easily have cost him his life.

Cooper’s Color Code

The Cooper Color Code as Jeff Cooper promulgated it was not a system for describing levels of potential danger, but rather a technique to enable a law-abiding citizen (i.e. someone in McKown’s circumstance) to overcome a natural reluctance to use lawful deadly force against another. Quoting Jeff Cooper: “The color code is not a means of assessing danger or formulating a tactical solution. It is rather a psychological means of overcoming your innate reluctance to shoot a man down. Normal people have a natural and healthy mental block against delivering the irrevocable blow. This is good, but in a gunfight it may well get you killed. The color code enables you to change your state of mind by three steps, each of which enables you to overcome your mental block and take lifesaving action.” **

Cooper’s color code conditions are White, Yellow, Orange, and Red as follows:

    -- Condition White: Completely unprepared to take action. If you are attacked in Condition White you are unlikely to be able to effectively respond and you may be seriously injured or killed.

    -- Condition Yellow: In Condition Yellow although you are not aware of any specific situation which may call for immediate action, you know that you may have to defend yourself today. You understand that the world is full of hazards, many of which are human, and that your readiness to take defensive action can mitigate these threats. If you are attacked in Condition Yellow you will probably prevail if you are armed and may be able to take effective action even if unarmed. 

    -- Condition Orange: In Condition Orange you become alert to the possibility of a specific deadly threat in your immediate environment. In Condition Orange you understand that you may have to shoot that threat, right now, today. At this point your normal reluctance becomes easier to overcome because your training tells you that someone is threatening to use unlawful deadly force against you or another innocent. You begin actively looking for threat indicators and start conscious analysis and assessments of potential threats.

Although you remain cognizant of the legal and moral aspects of the situation, you focus your mind on the possible need for immediate defensive action. Looking deep—what’s in their hands? Are they looking at you or past you? Can you safely leave the area? Should you? Your hand may establish a firing grip on the pistol, you may draw the pistol at home, but probably not in the shopping mall or other crowded public place. The actions of that threat—standing right there—dictate your next moves. You wait for a trigger or take other lifesaving actions as the totality of the circumstances dictate.

    -- Condition Red: You have drawn your pistol because you are justified in taking the threat at gunpoint or you have deliberately decided to take action; you can articulate why this is so. In Condition Red you have decided to act the instant the threat’s behavior warrants an immediate response.

An addition to the Cooper Color Code: 

    -- Condition Black: The color code as many instructors currently teach: The threat has tripped a final trigger. You must immediately use proportional deadly force to defend yourself or another innocent.

Cooper contended that “Condition Black” was unnecessary and that Condition Red sufficed because in his view you have decided you are ready to use lawful deadly force when you enter Condition Red and as a result, there is no need to go beyond that condition. As stated above, many who teach Condition Black contend that there is a difference between being ready to act and deciding to act; that being in a Condition Red state of readiness does not necessarily imply immediate action.

Cooper himself alluded to this fact: “In Condition Red, you are ready to fight. You may not actually have to act on that, but your body and mind are now prepared for physical conflict. While this does not mean you instantly attack someone, you are certainly ready and waiting for a specific trigger or predetermined action that will launch the process. This state is where you have made a decision that you are ready and willing to fight back. Most people quite properly find this a difficult step, but the difficulty may be eased if it is anticipated. Thus you cannot shift any farther upscale than Red, because in Red you have already surmounted the barrier. Adding categories merely complicates the problem without achieving any useful objective.”*** 

So is Condition Black necessary? I guess it depends on how you view the problem. If the color code “conditions” describe a state of readiness as well as a mindset, then Condition Black is not necessary as Cooper contends. Once a critical trigger is tripped in Condition Red, you are no longer in a state of readiness, but rather a state of action—you are actively responding to a deadly threat. If you accept this view, black may be a decision point; however, it is not a condition.

Massad Ayoob teaches that Condition Red delineates the gunpoint situation where you have clearly identified a threat (I am ready to shoot this person) but the threat is not using unlawful deadly force at that instant (I am not going to shoot this person yet). Massad defines Condition Black as the instant an unlawful assault using deadly force is in progress upon you or other innocent people. In other words, a trigger or decision point at which we have no alternative but to use lawful deadly force to neutralize the threat. In this view, Condition Black, describes the various triggering events that cause you go from readiness to action. 

The threat does appear and you take the threat at gunpoint ready to fire. Do you need another psychological mechanism to help you pull the trigger? Jeff Cooper would have said no and I tend to agree. I don’t think we need a “Condition” Black; however, describing Black as a decision or trigger point may be useful after the event. 

This is the first of two articles on the topic. In part 2, I will provide examples of how the color code can equate to judicial standards of proof and some specific examples of the color code conditions addressing real world events such as the Tacoma Mall shooting I mentioned in the introduction. 

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed. 

* Tacoma News Tribune, https://www.thenewstribune.com 

** Jeff Cooper's Commentaries Volume Six, No 9, pg 45-46

*** Jeff Cooper's Commentaries Volume Eleven, No 12, pg 56

Thugs Partying: The Kidnapping, Rape, and Murder of Kelly Donovan

Senior Airman Kelly Donovan

August 8, 1988 Kelly Air Force Base: Senior Airman Kelly Donovan failed to report for duty. The lieutenant in charge of the flight in a misguided effort to allow SrA Donovan more time to report, did not inform me until eight hours later. Although an Army Captain, I was officer in charge of a mixed Army and Air Force organization conducting a sensitive mission and due to this sensitivity, military personnel were declared deserters after just 24 hours of unauthorized absence instead of the usual 30 days. The lieutenant had just burned eight of those hours.

I immediately dispatched her sergeant to her barracks room to see if she was there and directed several individuals to start calling the San Antonio Police, Sheriff's Department, etc. A few minutes passed and a sergeant told me that the San Antonio Police had found the body of a young woman not far from the base in a secluded area. A short time later it was my duty to identify the body of SrA Kelly Donovan at the Bexar County Morgue. She had been stabbed multiple times and the police later told us that she had been raped.

Kelly liked to walk alone and apparently decided to go for a walk the evening of 7 August 1988. From their confessions and contemporary accounts, David Cruz and his friend Jerry Kemplin, saw Kelly as they drove home from a party where they had been binge drinking and using illegal drugs. They turned around, stopped, grabbed Kelly, and forced her into their pickup. Cruz and Kemplin drove Kelly to a secluded area, told her to get out of the pick-up, and demanded that she take off her clothes. Cruz raped Kelly twice and then asked Kemplin if he wanted to rape Kelly, but he refused. As Kelly lay on the ground crying, Cruz remarked to Kemplin, "That's all I need to do is go to jail for rape." Cruz then retrieved a knife and stabbed Kelly over twenty times resulting in her death.

David Cruz

As the days passed after the murder, Kemplin told Cruz that he could not stand the knowledge of what they had done and planned to go to the police. Cruz then called police and turned himself in. Cruz also gave police a detailed statement about the murder, as did Kemplin, who corroborated Cruz's confession.

Cruz was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for Kelly’s rape and murder. The State of Texas executed David Cruz via lethal injection on 9 August 2000, twelve years and two days after he murdered SrA Kelly Donovan. His accomplice Jerry Kemplin was sentenced to 65 years imprisonment.

I had not thought about Kelly in a long time. Perhaps the recent murders of young women who were out alone prompted me to remember Kelly 30 years later. I wondered then and still do what might have happened if Kelly had fought her kidnappers. Never let someone take you to a secondary location—they are death traps. This is particularly true if you are a woman, but applies to men as well. If you are a woman and you allow someone to take you to another location, typically the absolute best that you can hope for is that you will only be raped. If being raped is the best that will happen, think about the other possible outcomes.

I absolutely agree that women (and everyone else for that matter) have a right to go about their business in the world without discrimination, harassment, or violence. Recently there has been a social media debate over supposed victim-blaming and women's right to safely travel alone. One woman’s comment after a recent murder: “Every time you say 'be safe. Be aware. Do this.' It's not just the victim blaming that makes us so mad. It's that we already do that and men still murder us. This is not our fault. We are not to blame for the violence of men.” 

No person is to blame for the violent acts of another. Kelly had a right to walk alone without being kidnapped, raped, and murdered. I get it—in a perfect world we would all be able to go about our business without fear of becoming the victim of a violent crime. Unfortunately, the world is not perfect. I tell women the same thing that I tell men. Pay attention to your surroundings, train to defend yourself—unarmed as well as armed. Be extra cautious and vigilant in transit or fringe areas, particularly if you are alone.

Criminals typically do not operate openly in a crowd and they don’t like witnesses or commotion. Too many witnesses or obvious commotion might prompt someone to interfere or notify the police. For a criminal to successfully kidnap someone they have to get close to that person and take control of them through physical force or force cooperation through intimidation and fear. If this is happening to you, your “right” to go safely about your business is no longer relevant. You have a choice to fight where you are or try to fight later when your options are going to be significantly reduced.

Someone is kidnapping you and in eyes of the law, the only crime worse than kidnapping is premeditated murder. Given that he will spend a significant part of the rest of his life in prison if caught, from the kidnapper’s perspective there is little reason for him NOT to rape and kill you. As David Cruz said: "That's all I need to do is go to jail for rape." 

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. Your information will never be distributed.

Thugs in Uniform: A Home Invasion

Thug in UPS Uniform

December 2016 Houston, Texas. A thug dressed as a UPS driver forced his way into a home followed by three other thugs. In the video you can see the robber dressed in a UPS uniform at the door. As soon as the homeowner opens it, the man rushes inside despite the homeowner’s attempts to close the door. Once inside the home, the men assaulted the victim and fired at least one shot which didn't hit anyone. Two women inside of the home grabbed children and hid. The bad guys stole jewelry and some collectible firearms. The home owner had a fractured skull, concussion, lost 6 teeth, needed stitches in his lip, and required 28 staples in his head after the brutal beating.

You can see a video of this home invasion as well as a scenario from our Short Range Match based on the incident here. 

So how do you prevent this?

If you are not expecting a package and don't recognize your regular delivery man or woman, don't open your door. Look for the delivery truck in the street if possible. If you don't see a properly labelled delivery vehicle, don't open the door. Tell the delivery person to leave the package on your doorstep and retrieve it later. If they insist on a signature, simply tell the person to leave a proper notice of attempted delivery and that you will pick the package up at the local company office.

What if the thugs decide to kick the door open? Take a quick look at this video of a thug kicking open an exterior door. That is how easy it is to kick in a normally constructed residential exterior door. You can prevent this with heavy metal doors similar to the picture below or by reinforcing your exterior door. 

Metal Exterior Door

No human could kick in the door in picture. To reinforce exterior wooden doors, I personally installed the Strikemaster II Pro on the door jam and hinges. I did this as the house was being built and asked the builder to install them so it was relatively painless. Similar products are the Door Armor Max (formerly EZ Armor) that Armor Concepts produces and Door Security Pro. There are probably others on the market that perform a similar function. As I look at product reviews however, it is clear that some people find the simple install is not quite so simple so your results may vary. You can purchase these products from a variety of vendors.

You can also use these products to reinforce your interior doors as well. In this home invasion, the two women in the home managed to grab children and hide. Wouldn’t it have been better if all concerned could have retreated to a safe room as the would-be home invaders were busy trying to kick down the exterior door?

Everyone should think through scenarios such as this now and develop a plan based on your particular circumstances. In my house, someone yelling “SAFE ROOM!” is giving the command for everyone to instantly stop what they are doing and go to a secure bedroom. A reinforced bedroom door with a dead bolt (see below) provides a safe room you can retreat to if you are in another part of the house when someone attempts to break and enter. From there you can call 911 and prepare to take other necessary action.

Reinforced Interior Door

If someone does manage to defeat your exterior door and enters your home, they now have another barrier to deal with. It is unlikely that they will stick around and try to defeat a second door. If they do, having retreated into a safe room increases your chances of survival and builds the foundation of “reasonableness” for your follow-on actions.

But I live in a good neighborhood you say? Well so do I—many of us live in neighborhoods we would characterize as safe. I live in a gated community; however, that did not stop someone that looked and acted like a home invader from showing up in my driveway once (it actually turned out not to be a home invasion). Plan now so you will be prepared if the time comes to act.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

Thugs Shoplifting: Crossing the Line

June 2017: A judge sentenced Min Sik Kim, owner of the Pacific Quick Stop in Spanaway, Washington state to eight years in prison for second-degree murder after Kim fatally shot a would-be shoplifter in the back as he attempted to flee. Kim claimed the shooting was self defense; however, a surveillance video of the shooting did not corroborate Kim’s claim.

Prosecutors charged Kim with second-degree murder in the death of Jakeel Mason. Kim was outside the store when Mason attempted to steal several packs of cigarettes from behind the counter. The video showed Kim re-enter the store with a pistol in his right hand. Kim points the pistol at Mason, grabs Mason, and forces him further into the store. Mason puts both hands up and is not resisting. Kim then holsters the pistol and begins punching Mason in the face and the two men begin to fight. Mason takes Kim to the floor and both continue to fight for several seconds.

The video shows Mason was able to free himself and attempted to flee the store. Kim stood up after clearing himself from a shelf containing merchandise, then drew his pistol and shot Mason twice in the back as Mason neared the door. Mason collapsed in the doorway and died before medical aid arrived.

Kim told investigators that he pulled his gun out and shot Mason during the struggle. But prosecutors say the store's footage shows that Mason was no longer a threat to Kim and was running away when Kim fired.

A Pierce County Sheriff’s spokesman said "This is a tough one because we can understand why the store clerk was on guard. His wife has just been shot there a month before during a robbery attempt and the whole family was upset about it.” Prosecutor Mark Lindquist said in a statement that "The defendant's frustrations are understandable, but his actions were not lawful, shop owners cannot legally shoot unarmed shoplifters attempting to flee."

Min Sik Kim confused mutual combat or fighting with self defense. Fighting is NOT self defense! Many people like Kim not realizing this, think they are “defending” themselves when in fact they are fighting. Self defense is about protecting your physical body, not your emotional well-being, nor as an excuse to vent your frustrations.

Defensive use of justifiable deadly force or "self defense" is a legal construct that requires three elements inclusively:

– Danger: Clear and present exposure

– Potential for great bodily harm – to the innocent, not the guilty; the potential for bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ

– Immediate or otherwise unavoidable: It is happening now and you cannot avoid the danger

Using deadly force in self-defense is justified only when a person reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. You must stay within these parameters. If you do not, then you are no longer legally using force to defend yourself. Why you stepped outside these parameters is not relevant—you are no longer legally using force. Mason’s actions did not represent a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm at the moment Kim fired. This is where Kim stepped over the line and killed Mason without justification.

If you carry a firearm for personal protection, it is critical that you understand where your actions stop being self defense and instead make you the aggressor. If a post incident investigation finds that you crossed the line from self defense into assault or worse, you will probably be prosecuted.

There are several reputable, time-proven courses available to teach you the difference and to help you understand self defense law including those from Massad Ayoob and Andrew Branca and graduates from their instructor courses among others. In addition to teaching the law and justifiable use of deadly force, many reputable self defense instructors will also teach you how to avoid bad situations in the first place.

I suspect that were we able to ask Mr Kim if he could turn back the clock and spend the $500.00 or so for a comprehensive use of force course, we could easily guess his answer. If you carry a firearm for personal protection, it is incumbent upon you to understand the law and difference between self defense and fighting. If you ever find yourself in a use of force situation and cross the line from self defense into something else, you will likely be prosecuted, convicted, and go to jail. Perhaps for a long time.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

Quality Control -- Examine Your Ammunition

Each and every component is made to meet and exceed the most demanding quality control and performance standards in the industry!  

This is a quote concerning quality control from a major ammunition manufacturer. A friend of mine who was attending a shooting course that only permits factory ammunition was using some factory ammo that is supplied in a white box. He had a failure to extract during a mandatory qualification that was the result of a round that clearly did not have a proper powder charge. That round at least did not meet the most demanding quality control standards.

This was not an isolated incident. A competitor in one of our recent matches opened a factory-sealed green and white box of new factory 9mm ammunition only to discover that over 3/4 of the rounds in the box had the bullet seated at different depths. The range owner speculated that the case containing the box may have been dropped during shipment causing some of the bullets to seat deeper into their case.

Always examine your ammunition and never fire ammunition that is obviously defective. In training, competition, or practice, if you have a round that sounds significantly under-powered, always stop, unload the pistol, and check to ensure the bullet exited the bore. Firing a round in a pistol with an obstructed bore can potentially cause serious injury and destroy the pistol.  The ammunition mentioned above with the rounds seated too deeply could have caused serious over pressures when fired.

Always use factory ammunition for personal protection carry. When you purchase your chosen personal-protection ammo from a reputable company try to purchase 3 boxes of the same lot. I know ammo is expensive; however, isn’t your personal protection ammunition more important than a few high-priced cups of coffee? 

Examine every round for proper primer seating, case integrity, and bullet defects. Fire a few rounds from one box to confirm your pistol’s zero and point of impact with that lot of ammunition. After you load your magazines for carry, save at least five rounds in the box. On the box's end flap write down the date you put that particular carry round into service.  

If you ever find yourself in a short range defensive situation, the forensics examiner can use the ammunition sample from the lot that you have saved to verify distances with powder testing. Large ammunition makers keep samples for each lot for exemplar testing for 10 years as well. The forensic examiner cannot verify distances with handloads because there is no un-biased sample to measure it against.

Every maker claims that they want to manufacture perfect firearms and ammunition; however, quality control costs money and there is no question that every manufacturer has an acceptable “failure” rate for their products. Often it is cheaper in the grand scheme of things to repair or replace a few defective products rather than strive for 100% perfection. Do your part by examining and testing your practice and personal protection ammunition. 

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.