Monday, 16 February 2015 00:05 Lake County News Reports<\/p>\n
(This report originally appeared at http:\/\/www.lakeconews.com\/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=40562:district-attorney-sheriffs-deputies-justified-in-fatal-november-shooting&catid=1:latest&Itemid=197)<\/p>\n
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. \u2013 Lake County’s district attorney has ruled that two sheriff’s deputies were justified in shooting a Lucerne man last fall after he charged them with a knife.<\/p>\n
On Sunday District Attorney Don Anderson issued his report on the fatal shooting of Christopher Keith O’Neal, 57.<\/p>\n
O’Neal was shot a total of seven times by Sgt. Gary Frace and Deputy Victor Rico on the night of Nov. 9, according to Anderson’s report.<\/p>\n
Anderson’s investigation concluded that O’Neal had decided to commit \u201csuicide by cop,\u201d based on his actions and the statements of witnesses, including his wife.<\/p>\n
Frace and Rico responded to the O’Neal home on 16th Avenue in Lucerne late that night on the report of a domestic dispute.<\/p>\n
Anderson said O’Neal initiated the report \u2013 calling law enforcement under a false name from his in-laws’ home across the street \u2013 in an effort to have the deputies shoot and kill him.<\/p>\n
After making the call, O’Neal went back to his residence and told his wife that he wanted to die and wanted the police to kill him. He subsequently obtained a large kitchen knife and went to the front porch to confront the deputies.<\/p>\n
Despite being given multiple commands by the deputies to stop, O’Neal made threats against the deputies and then charged them, carrying a 10-inch kitchen knife, with Frace and Rico ultimately shooting him to death, Anderson said.<\/p>\n
O’Neal’s autopsy found he had been shot three times in the leg and four times in the body cavity, where one bullet lacerated the heart and lungs and another lacerated the liver and kidney, Anderson reported.<\/p>\n
Anderson said there were no previous domestic disturbances reported between the O’Neals.<\/p>\n
Christopher O’Neal had one previous arrest in October 1997 for wielding a knife at deputies; Anderson said deputies used pepper spray on O’Neal before taking him into custody in that instance.<\/p>\n
According to Anderson’s findings, O’Neal was suffering from depression.<\/p>\n
His state of mind was impacted by his belief \u2013 which authorities have not been able to confirm \u2013 that he had cancer, as well as the death the previous month of his last living sibling, a sister.<\/p>\n
After his sister’s death, O’Neal had begun drinking heavily, Anderson reported. On the night of the shooting, O’Neal had a very high blood alcohol level of 0.34 percent, more than four times the legal limit for driving.<\/p>\n
O’Neal also was reported to be a survivor of the November 1978 Jonestown Massacre in Jonestown, Guyana.<\/p>\n
The 36th anniversary of that event was nine days after his death, and Anderson reported that O’Neal was said to have had night terrors due to his memories of those events, and was depressed as the anniversary drew near.<\/p>\n
Anderson said the deputies believed that had O’Neal reached them, he would have killed or seriously injured them.<\/p>\n
\u201cO\u2019Neal\u2019s violent conduct, threats and ability to cause violent injury, was such that a reasonable person in the same situation would be in actual fear of their life or being inflicted with great bodily harm,\u201d Anderson wrote.<\/p>\n
With O’Neal intending to commit suicide by cop, the deputies \u201cwere immediately confronted with an imminent threat of death to not only themselves, but their fellow officer. The deputies had no other reasonable choice but to shoot their attacker.\u201d<\/p>\n
Anderson concluded, \u201cIt is the findings of the Lake County District Attorney the taking of Christopher Keith O\u2019Neal\u2019s life was justifiable homicide pursuant Penal Code Sections 196 and 197 and relevant case law.\u201d<\/p>\n
Anderson’s report is published, in its entirety, below.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
February 15, 2015<\/p>\n
LAKE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY\u2019S FINAL REPORT<\/p>\n
REGARDING OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING OF<\/p>\n
CHRISTOPHER KEITH O\u2019NEAL ON NOVEMBER 9, 2014<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
SUMMARY<\/strong><\/p>\n On November 9, 2014, Deputies Gary Frace and Victor Rico of the Lake County Sheriff\u2019s Department responded to a report of a domestic dispute in progress at 6217 Sixteenth Street, Lucerne California. The report was initiated by Christopher Keith O\u2019Neal in an effort to have the deputies shoot and kill him.<\/p>\n When the deputies arrived Christopher O\u2019Neal charged at them with a large kitchen knife with a ten inch blade. Despite orders by the deputies to drop the knife, O\u2019Neal continued to charge at them in a threatening manner. The deputies shot O\u2019Neal seven times as he entered their \u201csafety zone\u201d while still wielding the knife. O\u2019Neal was pronounced dead at the scene.<\/p>\n It is the finding of this office that the killing of Christopher Keith O\u2019Neal was justifiable homicide pursuant to California Penal Code Section 196 and 197. The death was a direct result of Christopher Keith O\u2019Neal attempt to \u201ccommit suicide by cop\u201d.<\/p>\n PROCEDURES<\/strong><\/p>\n Pursuant to the Lake County Law Enforcement Fatal Incident Protocol of 2013, the Lake County District Attorney Investigation Division conducted the investigation into the incident with the assistance and cooperation of the Lake County Sheriff\u2019s Department. This report and findings are conducted pursuant to California State law as well as the Lake County Law Enforcement Fatal Incident Protocol.<\/p>\n The below facts and findings is the product of this investigation which includes the statements of the officers and numerous witnesses to the incident; Department of Justice laboratory results; and the crime scene investigation.<\/p>\n FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n On November 9, 2014, Christopher Keith O\u2019Neal, age 57, was at his residence with his wife off and on during day. Later that evening, at about 10:00 p.m., O\u2019Neal returned to the residence and was in a very intoxicated condition.<\/p>\n O\u2019Neal told his wife that he did not have long to live because he thought he had cancer, a fact that can not be confirmed. O\u2019Neal became argumentative with his wife and started calling her names. O\u2019Neal then slapped his wife across the face. O\u2019Neal left the residence when his wife told him she was calling the police. There are no prior reports of domestic violence between the O\u2019Neal\u2019s, and Mrs. O\u2019Neal said that he has never been violent towards her.<\/p>\n O\u2019Neal went across the street to his in-laws and called the Sheriff\u2019s Department\u2019s 911 dispatcher. O\u2019Neal used a false name and reported there was a domestic disturbance at the O\u2019Neal residence. He told the dispatcher he saw Chris O\u2019Neal raise his hand and strike his wife. He was requesting the Sheriff\u2019s Department send some deputies.<\/p>\n O\u2019Neal returned to his residence and continued arguing with his wife. O\u2019Neal told his wife \u201cI\u2019m gonna make the cops kill me!\u201d, \u201cI\u2019m gonna make them shoot me\u201d and told her the police were on their way. O\u2019Neal then went into the kitchen and obtained large kitchen knife with a ten inch blade. His wife tried to talk him into putting the knife down. but he walked out the door onto the porch.<\/p>\n At approximately that time Deputies Gary Frace and Victor Rico pulled up to the residence. They heard O\u2019Neal arguing with his wife which appeared to be escalating. The deputies entered a short distance into the fenced in yard when they saw O\u2019Neal on the front porch holding the knife. The deputies told him several time to drop the knife, but O\u2019Neal refused and said a couple of times \u201cI\u2019m coming after you guys\u201d and that he was not going to drop the knife.<\/p>\n O\u2019Neal started charging the deputies in a threatening manner with the knife still in one hand and the other hand with a clinched fist. The deputies drew their firearms while he was on the porch, told him to drop the knife and took defensive positions. As O\u2019Neal continued charging at the deputies, deputy Rico backed up as far as he could until his back was against the fence. Despite orders to stop and drop the knife O\u2019Neal continued to charge at them.<\/p>\n When O\u2019Neal reached an area within the deputies\u2019 safety zone, both deputies discharged their firearms, striking O\u2019Neal seven times. Deputy Frace fired a total of six shot and deputy Rico four shots. O\u2019Neal fell to the ground on the walkway. The deputies attempted to administer life saving first aid and called for paramedics; however, O\u2019Neal was pronounced dead at the scene.<\/p>\n The above accounts of the incident have been verified by statements from Mrs. O\u2019Neal, the deputies, four independent witnesses and the 911 telephone call. Used in the investigation is the District Attorney\u2019s Office\u2019s three dimensional crime scene scanner, therefore, the below measurements, diagrams and photos are accurate and to scale.<\/p>\n The front yard to the O\u2019Neal residence is approximately 45 feet from the gate to the front porch. O\u2019Neal charged at the deputies from the front porch to the point where he fell, a total of 25.287 feet.<\/p>\n O\u2019Neal came 11.950 feet to Deputy Frace and 17.977 feet to Deputy Rico, where O\u2019Neal came to rest.<\/p>\n The knife was found 5.480 feet from O\u2019Neal\u2019s body.<\/p>\n Two witnesses to the incident were able to clearly see the events from a distance of 134.610 feet from O\u2019Neal\u2019s body and 103.383 feet to the front porch.<\/p>\n Autopsy and medical reports indicate O\u2019Neal\u2019s blood alcohol level was 0.34% which is over four time the limit to drive a motor vehicle. O\u2019Neal was shot a total of seven time. Three were in the leg and foot and four were in the body cavity. One bullet to the body cavity lacerated the heart and lungs; another lacerated the liver and kidney. The official cause of death is listed as \u201cmultiple gunshots.\u201d<\/p>\n A personal history of Christopher O\u2019Neal revealed he was suffering from depression. He had told his wife he did not have long to live and he did not want to live any longer. O\u2019Neal believed he had colon cancer and said he had watched his father die a terrible death from colon cancer and \u201cdid not want to go out that way.\u201d<\/p>\n Christopher O\u2019Neal started drinking heavily after his sister, and last living sibling, died in October of 2014. Additionally, it appears O\u2019Neal was a survivor of the November 18, 1978 Jonestown Massacre in Guyana, from which he suffered night terrors. At the time of the massacre he was 18 years old. He had to identify several of the Jonestown bodies and had appeared in many documentaries about the massacre. He appeared to be depressed about the incident which 36th anniversary was a week away.<\/p>\n LEGAL ANALYSIS<\/strong><\/p>\n The relevant California statutory and case law regarding this matter is set forth below.<\/p>\n California Penal Code Section 197 states in part:<\/p>\n \u201cHomicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:<\/p>\n The test for determining justifiable homicide is apparent necessity, i.e., an honest and reasonable belief in the apparent peril and the need for self defense is enough. The means used, whether deadly or nondeadly force, must be reasonable under the circumstances. In People v. Sonier (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 277, 278 the court held \u201cThe justification of self defense requires a double showing: that defendant was actually in fear of his life or serious bodily injury and that the conduct of the other party was such as to produce that state of mind in a reasonable person.\u201d<\/p>\n In People v. Escobar (1992), 3 Cal. 4th 740, 750 the court held that \u201cIt is well settled that the determination of great bodily injury is essentially a question of fact, not of law.” ‘Whether the harm resulting to the victim \u2026 constitutes great bodily injury is a question of fact for the jury. \u00a0[20]\u00a0 If there is sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s finding of great bodily injury, we are bound to accept it, even though the circumstances might reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.’ \u201cciting People v. Wolcott (1983) 34 Cal.3d 92, 107 quoting People v. Salas (1976) 77 Cal.App.3d 600, 606<\/p>\n California Penal Code Section 196 (Justifiable homicide by public officers) states:<\/p>\n \u201cHomicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either\u2014<\/p>\n In Munoz v. City of Union City (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1102, the court held that an officer \u201cmay use reasonable force to make an arrest, prevent escape or overcome resistance, and need not desist in the face of resistance.\u201d \u201cUnlike private citizens, police officers act under color of law to protect the public interest. They are charged with acting affirmatively and using force as part of their duties, because \u201cthe right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.\u201d Munoz, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1109. \u201c\u2018[Police officers] are, in short, not similarly situated to the ordinary battery defendant and need not be treated the \u00a0[17]\u00a0same. In these cases, then, \u201c\u2026 the defendant police officer is in the exercise of the privilege of protecting the public peace and order [and] he is entitled to the even greater use of force than might be in the same circumstances required for self-defense.<\/p>\n In Martinez v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 334, 349, the court held \u201cThe test for determining whether a homicide was justifiable under Penal Code section 196 is whether the circumstances \u2018reasonably create[d] a fear of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or to another.\u201d citing Martinez v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 334, and Brown v. Ransweiler, 171 Cal. App. 4th 516, 533<\/p>\n In this matter, Deputies Frace and Rico were dispatched to a report of a domestic disturbance between Christopher O\u2019Neal and his wife. The actual 911 call was made by Christopher O\u2019Neal. This call and Mr. O\u2019Neal\u2019s subsequent actions may have been only a cry for help; however, from the statements of Mr. O\u2019Neal and all of the evidence of the case, the evidence points to a conclusion he intended to have the deputies kill him.<\/p>\n After calling the Sheriff\u2019s Department, Mr. O\u2019Neal went back to his residence and made statements to his wife that he wanted to die and wanted the police to kill him. He obtained a large kitchen knife and went to the front porch to confront the deputies.<\/p>\n When Deputies Frace and Rico entered the fenced in yard they were confronted by O\u2019Neal from a distance of 35-40 feet. The deputies observed O\u2019Neal with the large knife and ordered him to drop the knife. At about the same time the deputies drew their service weapons. O\u2019Neal made a few threatening comments toward the deputies then charged toward them with the knife.<\/p>\n Commonly law enforcement officers are taught a \u201c21 foot rule\u201d. Simply stated, within 21 feet, an attacker wielding a knife can quickly cause immediate harm or death to a person. This theory creates a 21 foot safety zone for the officers.<\/p>\n In this matter, Deputies Frace and Rico, while ordering the charging O\u2019Neal to drop the knife, had allowed him to get within less than 12 feet of them before firing their weapons. At what was described as the \u201ccharge\u201d at the deputies, O\u2019Neal would have been within range of causing great bodily injury or death to the deputies within one to two seconds.<\/p>\n The deputies did not appear to have less lethal alternatives than the use of their firearms. Deputy Frace did not carry a taser, and even if he did, he would have not had the time to holster his weapon, draw the taser and engage it before O\u2019Neal reached him with the knife.<\/p>\n FINDINGS<\/strong><\/p>\n Deputies Frace and Rico\u2019s belief was that had Christopher Keith O\u2019Neal reached them, he would have killed them or cause great bodily injury to them. O\u2019Neal\u2019s violent conduct, threats and ability to cause violent injury, was such that a reasonable person in the same situation would be in actual fear of their life or being inflicted with great bodily harm.<\/p>\n The evidence shows that Christopher Keith O\u2019Neal intended to commit what is commonly called \u201csuicide by cop\u201d. In doing so, he charged at the offices with the large knife with the specific intent that they would kill him. The deputies, not knowing the intent of O\u2019Neal, were immediately confronted with an imminent threat of death to not only themselves, but their fellow officer. The deputies had no other reasonable choice but to shoot their attacker.<\/p>\n It is the findings of the Lake County District Attorney the taking of Christopher Keith O\u2019Neal\u2019s life was justifiable homicide pursuant Penal Code Sections 196 and 197 and relevant case law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Monday, 16 February 2015 00:05 Lake County News Reports (This report originally appeared at http:\/\/www.lakeconews.com\/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=40562:district-attorney-sheriffs-deputies-justified-in-fatal-november-shooting&catid=1:latest&Itemid=197) LAKE COUNTY, Calif. \u2013 Lake County’s district attorney has ruled that two sheriff’s deputies were justified in shooting a Lucerne man last fall after he charged them with a knife. On Sunday District Attorney Don Anderson issued his report on […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":64529,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-65252","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/65252","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=65252"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/65252\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":65253,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/65252\/revisions\/65253"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/64529"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=65252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n