TexasCHLforum.com

Grayling813 wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:01 pm Another lesson on be careful what you post on social media

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

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

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

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


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