18 22 year old shot in the back by police while allegedly fleeing and brandishing weapon at 14th and Natoma


Details are still forthcoming, but the initial account has a kid running from police (his apparent transgression is unknown at this time; hopefully it’s not something as insignificant as vandalism) when he was shot three times, possibly in the back. Again, we’re still waiting on the whole story.

In the meantime, a retaliatory tag withe the word “KILLERS” decorated the Mission police station, which is currently on high alert. The neighborhood is swarming with cops right now. Everyone please be careful out there and let’s not do anything crazy, ok?

UPDATE: Now we’re hearing the kid was approached by an undercover officer and then started running, after which he was shot three times in the back. Why, we still don’t know, but please be careful out there everyone.

UPDATE 2: Mission Local has more details on the situation, but it looks like the person who was shot also allegedly pointed a gun at police officers.

69 Responses to “18 22 year old shot in the back by police while allegedly fleeing and brandishing weapon at 14th and Natoma”

  1. Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable says:

    I guess all the cops (ten cars + SUVs, with about 20 officers, some in riot gear) I saw hanging out at 21st and Guerrero at ~10:30 must have been there for some sort of a staging area or something, just in case trouble cropped up?

  2. michael says:

    how is it unknown?
    You are instigating…
    Mission Local has information: http://missionlocal.org/2012/09/man-injured-in-officer-involved-shooting/

    do research before you spark the flames of another riot.

  3. happy420 says:

    these pigs have to be put out to pasture

  4. dude says:

    fuck gang members. good riddance. these are the people that mug and pistol whip innocent people on the street.

  5. Bob Dole says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but if someone points a gun at you (much less a tech 9) then that pretty much gives LEO’s the green light to shoot you. For one thing if you don’t wish to get shot don’t carry a gun on you and don’t point one if you are carrying at a cop.

    This isn’t an outcry against injustice or police brutality, its an outcry for stupidity.

    • Bilbo says:

      Where’s the evidence that there was a gun pointed at an officer? There’s only evidence of what the officer said. No story has reported any gun being recovered from either individual, nor reported any gun being found in the vicinity of the individuals. Without more evidence, we can’t take the cop’s story at face value.

      • Grizzled Mission says:

        Nor can we discount it out of hand. There are many situations in the world where the only evidence is someone’s account of an event. Corroboration is great (and hopefully will be forthcoming), but not always available.

        Certainly, if the victim is the purported gun-haver, a gun should have been recovered. Maybe it was. The story seems very skeletal so far. Let’s see how it develops before we guess what happened!

      • Swanky says:

        If you want absolute certainty, you’re dreaming. Believe it or not, most people CAN take the cop’s story at face value.

  6. dude says:

    (assuming they actually are gang members of course), either way they are people who are likely possessing guns illegally, and you know, there’s probably a bad reason for that.

  7. Marshmallow says:

    Only in the Bay Area do people take the side of a gangbanger who pulls a semi automatic weapon at a cop. That’s just nuts.

    • Hazbeen says:

      Well, once upon a time the Hoover/FBI called a group of law-abiding activists giving children lunch in Oakland a “terrorist” organization.

      Also, please remember Oscar Grant, and the countless other victims of unjustified LETHAL force used by law-enforcement against people of color.

      • Bilbo says:

        Yup, there’s also numerous scandals involving bay area police, and specifically SF police. The SF police are well-known for using excessive violence. They hold the record for the biggest settlement for a non-weapon excessive force claim. There is a well documented history of overuse of force by SFPD detailed here: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/The-Use-of-Force-When-SFPD-officers-resort-to-2504639.php

        There’s also substantial proof that multiple SFPD officers lied on the stand – http://sfbayview.com/2011/more-videos-reveal-illegal-searches-theft-brutality-by-sfpd/

        I can go on if you’d like. Most civilians have no insight into the criminal justice system. When you work in it every day, you see that the cops can be just as deceptive, violent and dangerous as the gang members they arrest. The only difference is that it’s much harder to hold a cop accountable for the violence he or she perpetrates.

      • First sentence — you talking about the motherfucking BLACK PANTHERS there? ‘Cause as shitty as the FBI was, the Panthers were pretty shitty, too. Talk about a gang war.

        Second sentence — Oscar Grant was the victim of an incompetent, lunk-head pseudo-cop — NOT a pogrom.

      • Usher says:

        Oscar Grant was a bonafide thug. And the Black Panthers were a terrorist organization.

      • Old Mission Neighbor says:

        How about you don’t judge the police officers in this case based on any actions that were committed decades ago? They have nothing to do with that, or with Oscar Grant.

        It’s about one step from saying “You white people are all the same. There were times when white people had SLAVES you know!!!”

        Give me a break.

  8. P.D.Bird says:

    So wait… was there a gun THIS time? or is the gun gonna show up tomorrow like some other cases as of late….Maybe he shot himself in the back while running from police.Maybe they wanted to see his muni pass. if there is no gun,AGAIN,then maybe we should start asking some tough questions of ourselves and what we consider safe. And end the racist undertones,it juts makes us all sound so foolish. No one deservers to be shot in the back. If someone pulls gun on cops thats one thing,but for cop to shoot unarmed men this often in this town is getting kinda scary….

  9. edgar says:

    +1 for the cops. If this means one less gangbanger on the street, then I’m all for it. Fuck these pathetic little cowards.

    • Bilbo says:

      So, what evidence do you have that these individuals were actually in gangs? Do you have any understanding of how easy it is to be categorized as a gang member? Doubtful.

      • durp says:

        have you ever been stopped in the street by a gang member because you are wearing the wrong color? i have, and believe me. they don’t need to introduce themselves as a gang member. you start to understand what’s going on pretty f*cking fast. and then run. pretty f*cking fast.

        • Bilbo says:

          I know what it takes for the state of CA to label someone a gang member and the bar is extremely low. Like I said, without actual evidence, there’s no way to know why these individuals have been labeled gang members.

          • durp says:

            i’m not talking about what the state of california labels as a “gang member”. i’m talking about being with a friend who is wearing a red sweat shirt while walking through a dark alley near 14th and mission because it is a short cut to beer. and then being stopped by a dude in a lowered, tinted car with his driver door open while still moving slowly down the street. then hearing “why the fuck you wearin’ red”. it’s pretty fucking scary, and i wouldn’t be surprised if there was a gun being pointed at us through the car.

            despite if you or i think you can label a gang member, apparently these under cover cops were in a gang task force. i’m sure they know a lot more about neighborhood gang relations, and might even know particular gang members by their actual appearance. i’m not for police brutality (obviously), but one less gang member on the street means one less innocent person getting a gun being pulled on them. stop acting naive. there is so much gang activity in the mission. and it used to be a lot worse too. at least the sfpd is doing something about and not spending their time giving people tickets for petty crimes.

          • Bilbo says:

            I’m sorry that you were threatened, but nothing you just said sheds any light on whether or not these individuals should be labeled gang members or not. If you think because a cop is on a “gang task force” this makes them the legal authority on whether or not someone’s in a gang, then you don’t understand how the system is supposed to work. The person who was shot could be an affiliated gang member. He could be someone who has been seen with other gang members, but is not actually affiliated. He could be someone who isn’t a gang member, but has been hit with a gang enhancement at some point. You simply don’t know and it’s not smart to just take the cops at their word without any other evidence. Look at my post above about SFPD’s history of abuses, excessive violence and lying.

      • Hates Thugs says:

        I do not like those boys ages 14 to 22 that hang around 24th and Shotwell and 24th and Orange. They are clearly worthless idiots. I wish they would go away. I wish SFPD were competent and concerned. My wishes go unfulfilled. I don’t believe that in a civil society that we can exchange one form of thuggery for another. Cops are not judge, jury and executioner. When they beat down someone, tase them, pepper spray them or shoot them we should immediately question their actions. As a citizen, if I did any of those things, my actions would result in arrest. They should be held to a very high standard when using force.

        • Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable says:

          Hear, hear. Extremely well said.

        • Stu says:

          I lived there at 24th and Shotwell for years. And do you know why those thugs hang there? Because the shop owners of that liquor store sell them styrofoam cups and alcohol to put in them. They also sell them blunts and plain white XXL T-shirts so they can look indistinguishable from each other and not be identified. My biggest regret living there was never calling the BBB.

  10. P.D.Bird says:

    So a gun was recovered? or just the officer thought he had gun? I have not seen anywhere that a gun was recovered….lets see the gun. i’m sure a “Neighbor” will turn in the gun in few days if SFPD can’t seem to find one to justify this shooting.

  11. Never trust cops says:

    I’m not saying the kid didn’t have a gun, but if you believe what the cops say about anything, you are an idiot. There are about a gazillion stories out there where cops lied (under oath) and were exposed due to video of the incident. This is a simple fact: There is an epidemic of police lying in this country and instead of dealing with it, they just cover it up. Just do a google search for “cop beating up old lady” or something like that if you’re skeptical. They are almost never held accountable for anything. Fuck ‘em.

  12. moto-waki says:

    cops lie all the time. & park in bike lanes!

  13. Sweet T says:

    So, the two most vocal camps are the “Gang-Members-Deserve-To-Die-Hooray-Police” crowd and the “Pigs-Are-Always-Wrong-Regardless-Of-The-Circumstances” crowd.

    Do the police occasionally do fucked up things like shoot unarmed people and then cover up their misdeeds? Of course they do. Do they occasionally arrest or kill people who present an immediate threat to them or a general danger to the rest of us? Yes. Do gang members shoot at the police? Yeah, the stupid ones do.

    Here, the reports are pretty specific about the type of weapon the guy had, so it’s likely that it has been recovered. It’s also possible that the police called down to the station to see what they had in the evidence room that they could plant at the scene, but any halfway decent defense lawyer would tear that apart at trial. Plus, there have to be enough decent cops out there that a conspiracy like that wouldn’t be pulled off quite so easily.

    Also, this guy is still alive. And he’s expected to live. So he will actually get a trial, where the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually had possession of the weapon in question. And if the prosecution can’t prove that, this guy will have an amazing lawsuit against the City.

    And here’s the rub: if he’s convicted and goes to prison, we’ll never hear another thing about it and no one will give a shit and no one will recognize that the police most likely prevented one or more additional murders or robberies when they arrested him. But if he’s not convicted and he sues, then we’ll all know about it, and it will be another anecdote for the kind of people who will always have a knee-jerk, anti-police reaction to any story involving the use of force by law enforcement.

    Also, how fast did this protest pop up? Isn’t it amazing that there are enough people willing to react to what, at the time, were essentially rumors about an incident involving police force to form an actual demonstration. Facts be damned! They already had this narrative in their minds that the police just go around shooting innocent people in the back for no reason, and so they staged a protest about that narrative, and not about anything that happened in reality. Bizarre.

    • Bilbo says:

      The problem is that there’s no actual evidence that a gun was found. You can’t assume that one was (just like you shouldn’t assume the opposite).

      And yeah, we hold cops to a higher standard than we hold convicted gang members. Why does that surprise you or bother you?

      • Sweet T says:

        How do you know what evidence there is? I didn’t realize that the news media were a link in the chain of custody for evidence in a criminal trial.

        And the standard that the police are held to often seems to go only one way with the crowd I’m referring to. When they do their job well, they’re pigs for participating in a racist system; when they do it poorly, they’re pigs because they’re actually pigs.

        • Bilbo says:

          That’s my point – I don’t know what evidence there is and neither do you. All we know is what’s been reported – that a man was shot three times in the back and that the police who shot him claimed he brandished a weapon at them. We haven’t heard his account, what the physical evidence is, what any witnesses say, etc.

          My comment is pretty clear you can’t assume that there was a gun found and you can’t assume that one wasn’t found.

          “I didn’t realize that the news media were a link in the chain of custody for evidence in a criminal trial.” This is exactly my point- jumping to the defense of police when you haven’t seen the evidence, only read a news report, is just as problematic as saying all police are shitheads so they must have done something wrong.

          “Here, the reports are pretty specific about the type of weapon the guy had, so it’s likely that it has been recovered.” This is poor logic. The officer said he saw a Tec-9. You have no other evidence about whether or not this is true. To say that “it’s likely” the gun has been recovered is pure speculation.

          Anytime someone is shot in the back it raises questions about police conduct in the incident. This should hardly be surprising. And yes, “some people” will always be angry at the cops anytime they do anything, but that’s not really what interests me about what you wrote. You made assumptions about evidence while criticizing others for doing the same and you made broad generalizations about how police brutality court cases make big news and gang cases don’t (they actually both do, but it, of course, depends on the charge. Attempted murder of a cop will make the papers, felon in possession probably won’t).

          It also isn’t very cut and dry as to whether or not this man would have a suit against the city. If the police are accurately describing him, then he’s a known gang member and not a very sympathetic plaintiff. Civil suits are decided by a 51% evidentiary standard, so the city would need to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the cop wasn’t negligent or reckless in shooting the man, a much lower standard than reasonable doubt.

      • Old Mission Neighbor says:

        Bilbo, I commend your ability to ignore all points from a very well argued post. You’re really putting all your eggs in the basket that there was no gun on the scene. Your entire position is very fragile.

      • Jacob says:

        Following your logic, does it mean that there was never a person shot by the police because they haven’t released his name yet?

  14. No fish today says:

    fucking beaner cholos always ruining things for everyone else

  15. MrEricSir says:

    Gangs are bad. But so is opening fire in public. Seems like everyone deserves some share of blame.

  16. WB says:

    So a bit more reported. As per police spokesman:

    Suspect was recognized as being on parole for previous assault with a firearm.

    When confronted he attempted to flee and brandished a weapon. He was shot. The weapon he was carried was recovered at the scene.

    Hopefully, some 3rd party witnesses can corroborate the story and this is as it appears.

  17. dvtdl? says:


    “Department News and Updates

    larger font size
    smaller font size
    font size
    text only

    San Francisco Police Involved in Officer Involved Shooting
    Posted Date: 9/21/2012
    On Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 8:06PM, two plain clothes officers assigned to the San Francisco Police Department Gang Task Force were working with two Probation Officers from the San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department. These officers were participating in Operation Night Light which is a Juvenile Probation program designed to ensure that youth on probation are off the streets and home after curfew and as part of the Police Department’s violence prevention strategy of Interrupt, Predict and Organize (IPO) which seeks to: interrupt violent crimes, to predict where retaliation may occur and prevent additional violence and to organize community groups in an effort to plan new long term strategies for crime prevention.

    While travelling east bound on 14th Street near Natoma Street, the SFPD officers noticed a subject who they recognized as a gang member this is on parole. One of the SFPD officers got out of his unmarked vehicle and approached the suspect. That suspect ran westbound on 14th Street on the sidewalk and the officer gave chase. During the foot pursuit, the suspect produced an assault pistol. The officer ordered the suspect to drop the weapon. The suspect refused to comply with the officer’s order. Instead, the suspect turned towards the officer, with gun in hand. Fearing for his life, the officer discharged his firearm. The suspect was struck by gun fire and was transported to San Francisco General Hospital with non-life threatening injuries. The suspect’s weapon, a “Tec 9” machine pistol, which was loaded with 25 rounds of 9mm ammunition, was recovered at the scene. The second subject was also detained at the scene.

    This is an ongoing investigation in its early stages. This incident is being investigated by the San Francisco Police Department Homicide Detail which investigates officer involved shootings, the SFPD Internal Affairs Unit, the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office and the Office of Citizens Complaints.

    Any witnesses or anyone with information on this to this incident are asked to call the SFPD Homicide Detail at (415) 553-1145 or the Anonymous Tip Line at (415) 575-4444 or text-a-tip to TIP411 with SFPD in the message.

    The name of the suspect is not available at this time as he is still hospitalized with non life threatening injuries. Once he is booked into County Jail, that information will be available. Suspect is a 22 year old male who is on active parole for assault with a deadly weapon, firearm. “

    • womp womp says:


  18. moto-waki says:

    dang. i think we need a character limit on the comments section. turnin’ into fuckin’ war & peace over here.

  19. Bob says:


  20. that guy says:

    So maybe we should have some more corrections to the headline now? You know, instead of:

    “18 year old allegedly shot in the back by police while fleeing at 14th and Natoma”

    it could be

    “22 year old shot by police after drawing automatic weapon”

    Where do you get your ‘initial accounts’ from anyway?

  21. Rick says:

    You need to update the headline. It never should have been written that way in the first place. As one poster wrote – you are instigating.

  22. Swanky says:

    Shot in the back means he was running away from the cops. Which part of “freeze” didn’t he understand? Running away from the cops is, unto itself, a crime. Never run away from the cops. Statistics are against you. If you are so scared of the police where you live, move.

  23. damian says:

    some of us know what goes on because we actually live in this ,hood..an some of us have methods of communication to pass word around when something is up;an of course lets not forget the actual neighbors an passer-bys who witnessed the incident unfolding;an if the media did concoct one big lie;just to “cover” for the cops;ya would think in this day an age someone would realize it would be easy to uncover OBVIOUS lies an deception…an if you were on the corner of16th/mission..shortly after the incident..ya would have met the bar-room hipsters from another county/city/town..breathlessly stopping everyone who would listen..telling the tale that the cops shot a :”young kid”..”for no reason at all”…”he stood there with his hands in the air and they shot him four times in the back”…”all for no reason at all”!!!..”we seen it!!!”..stirring shit(trying to)..telling us residents here what the get down in our own neighborhood is..how to think.. yet THEY werent about to do anything!!!..just hoping to stir shit..an jump back on the bus to :marin;(or belmont;ect.ect. giggling an laughing up their sleeves..HEY!! thanks for all the help..thanks for all that good information(ohh!!! giggle giggle…hee-hee!!!!)

  24. damian says:

    an of course “we” forgot that another murder happened in garfield park(OH..just finding out?)over the weekend an their was tension in the;hood..which was why they were in full undercover patrol in the first place.

  25. Parker Gibbs says:

    All of you ignorant motherfuckers supporting a CONFIRMED gang member need to know one thing: I have a friend who lives near the block where this incident occurred. This piece of shit has TERRORIZED the neighborhood for years, just as gang buddies, and everyone in the neighborhood knows who he is. He was a recent parolee seeking revenge. If the cops and EVERY MEDIA OUTLET say he had a Tec9 automatic assault weapon on him, why wouldn’t you believe them? Have you not seen what gang violence has done to the Mission over the years?
    My friend is as liberal as they get and even he is saying the cops were right this time. Protest something that means something you misguided fucking morons and quit vandalizing hard working businesses property. And Mission Mission, quit fanning the flames with your cynical reporting

  26. Iced Tea says:

    This is so tragic. He was “really getting his life together”. Also was “an aspiring rapper”.