Wednesday, October 20, 2010

The Shooting Of Zachary Nathan Champommier

The following is a guest article written by Joseph M. Berrellez, best friend of Zachary Nathan Champommier. Champommier, an honors student, marching band member, and Granada Hills Charter High School class of 2010 graduate, was shot and killed by police officers last July in an incident that prompted questions about officers' decision to use of deadly force against the teen and left many of Champommier's fellow students' faith in police shaken. Champommier's shooting was covered by The Los Angeles Times, LAist, and other outlets linked below.












Joseph Berellez, left, with Zac Champommier.


Zachary Nathan Champommier

By Joseph M. Berrellez


Finally eighteen years old, finally out of high school, finally have a car, finally starting life—until June 24, 2010, when all that was taken from my best friend, Zachary Nathan Champommier. Zac (no “k” at the end because Zachary doesn’t have a “k,” as Zac would say), born January 21st, 1992, was shot and killed in Studio City, California, by law enforcement officers.


Zac’s mother is Carol Champommier, an elementary school teacher who lives in Porter Ranch. Zac had just graduated from Granada Hills Charter High School in June, exploring his options to shape the rest of his life. He was an honor student, member of the orchestra (viola), and a member of the high school marching band, playing tenor saxophone all four years.


The morning of June 25, 2010, I was awakened early by a call from Carol. She was obviously hiding how hysterical she was feeling, and I could hear the shaking in her voice. She told me Zac didn’t come home last night, when he was supposed to be home by eleven o’clock. She said she knew something was wrong, that Zac never did that. Carol threatened to call the police and file a missing persons report. A few of my friends and I tried calling him and others we thought we might find him with. We all agreed that he probably fell asleep at a friend’s house. It wasn’t much longer until I got another call, this one confirming the death of my best friend of four years. Carol found out about the death of her only son only after calling the police to file a report.


I met Zac my freshman year, because I was also in the marching band as an alto saxophonist. At first our personalities conflicted; I thought he was whiney. But we quickly realized we weren’t so different. Zac and I spent a lot of time together talking, joking, laughing, sharing, driving, playing video games, and everything you except teenage friends to do. I came to realize what an amazing and dependable person Zac was. Though he sometimes showed a cold outer shell, he was one of the nicest people I knew. We stayed friends all through high school, and spent much time together even after graduation. We both planned on attending College of the Canyons together for the next coming semester. June 23rd was the last time I saw him.


Most of the articles on this shooting will say Zac “rammed” a police officer with his car, or that he sped off hitting parked cars, was an accomplice to “casing” cars, or even was there buying illegal substances. None of these are true. Let me break it down for you.


It was about 9:30 p.m.,and Zac was parked in a Chipotle and Union Bank/Citi Bank parking lot, close to Laurel Canyon and Ventura Boulevard, meeting a friend to see a movie. The friend was looking for Zac’s car, unaware that he was being watched. A group of plain clothed officers, including a Sheriff’s Deputy, DEA officer, and an LAPD officer were debriefing a warrant they had served earlier in the same parking lot. All wore plain clothes and drove unmarked cars. To the public, they looked like ordinary citizens.


When the plainclothes police saw Zac’s friend peering into their cars trying to find Zac, they assumed he was a criminal, looking to steal, and wasted no time in confronting him about the matter. It is not known what was said, only that things got “rough” between the man and the cop, and the officer pulled his gun on the suspect, ordering him to get on the ground. The other officers rushed in as well. All fine and good police work if Zac’s friend had any way of knowing they were police. But he saw no badge, no ID; nothing but guns in hand and angry faces. According to the The Los Angeles Times, Sheriff’s officials said that the officers “did not have time to identify themselves.”


Shouldn’t that be the first thing they do before confronting anyone?


At this point in time, Zac, who has been waiting in his car, witnessing the events, tried to drive away, as anyone who saw a group of men with guns and no badges would have. We don’t know exactly what happened, since Zac cannot to tell his side of the story, but Zac hit an officer with his car because he dared to escape, or maybe because dared to help a defenseless man.


The officer, who was not seriously injured, got up and fired into Zac’s car, as did, as I understand it, another officer to Zac’s left. The bullets hit Zac in the left shoulder and penetrated his body, killing him. Being struck by a bullet caused him to ram several cars before stopping. Zac Champommier was pronounced dead at the scene. It took authorities over 12 hours to report his death to his worried mother, although police had his phone, wallet, ID, and car. The only witness to this scene, Zac’s friend,, said in an interview that Zac was not speeding at all, and the police’s actions were unnecessary.


If we can’t trust the police, who can we trust? How many more times will futures be ripped away from innocent people and justice not served? The community is broken, sad, and angry over the loss of a great young person.


I am sorry for those who never had the pleasure of meeting Zac, and because now you never will. I can only tell you how many great things Zac could have accomplished before this reckless act took it all away.




Articles about Zac Champommier’s death:

JusticeForZac.blogspot.com

"The Death of Zac Champommier," WitnessLA.com

"Witness to fatal shooting of honors student says teen wasn't speeding toward deputy," Los Angeles Times

"Use of Force Unnecessary In Champommier Killing," Mayor Sam's Sister City

"Zachary Champommier was shot by a plainclothes sheriff's deputy," MyDeathSpace.com

30 comments:

  1. Not to mention, they are investigating THEMSELVES to see if they are at fault??? That's like a judge committing a murder and being the judge for his own case. We all know he won't send himself to prison.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gee and you wonder why they did NOT report that to the poor motherly promptly. COVER UP!

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's funny that you don't see much coverage about this story in the media.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Almost 100 days later... and still no official Sheriff department report has been release. Oh, and let's not forget Sheriff Baca's take on all this: "The nature of [Champommier's] aggressive actions - actually hitting the deputy - that is not someone who is without some degree of fault," Sheriff Lee Baca said.

    Like Zac asked for it. Way to cover your ass, Lee Baca.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Everyone is invited to come and visit Zac's Altar at Dia de los Muertos in Hollywood, Oct. 30 from 2:00 - Midnight. More info here: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=148920625151508

    ReplyDelete
  6. Still no full report. Still won't release the witnesses' names. And we still have NO ANSWERS!
    Why did this happen to such a great kid? Why was the officers' first reaction to shoot to kill? WHY ZAC?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Several years ago, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office maintained an officer-involved shooting team of prosecutors and DA's investigators (sworn law enforcement personnel) to review these incidents. This was in place under Ira Reiner and continued, at least for a period, under Gil Garcetti. I do not know if Steve Cooley has maintained such a team, or has one currently; however, it might be worth asking if the District Attorney's office has taken any sort of formal notice of this incident.

    If there were federal agents involved in the incident, then the US Attorney's office would be worth contacting as well.

    Best,

    Brad Smith

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry, but using Ira Reiner as an example of anything except political patronage, cronyism, and payback is like holding Antonio and the City Council up as an example of government efficiency, fiscal management, and budgetary restraint.

    But it did give me a good chuckle!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Zac's friend should have kept his mouth shut and his actions to a minimum. Cops don't pull guns on people unless they have a good reason to.

    Zack sounds like a wimp for driving away from the scene rather than stick it out with his friend.

    Also, how does Zac hit an officer while allegedly driving AWAY from the scene?

    This story sounds so fishy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Are there any law enforcement officers from the LAPD, L.A. County Sheriff, California Highway Patrol who have been charged and convicted of rape, robbery, kidnapping or murder?

    The answer to that question would be Yes.

    There are officers from each of those agencies who have in recent years been charged and convicted from that listing of the most serious criminal acts.

    So is it true that cops don't pull guns on people unless they have a good reason to?

    Yes. That is true most of the time.

    It is true, except for the times when they are pulling the gun to satisfy their own personal need for sadistic pleasure or when they are doing it to commit a crime such as rape, robbery, kidnapping or murder.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Do you realize that the sheriff department's news release which lists the official sequence of events was pulled off their website many weeks ago?

    There has been no statement of explanation or replacement report for the report which was pulled.

    Do you realize that all of the news reports of Zac's killing are from July 15 or earlier and are based on the original sheriff's report which is gone?

    Do you know that Sheriff Baca recently directed his Office of Independent Review to prepare a report on the death of L.A. Times reporter Ruben Salezar at the hands of sheriff's deputies in 1970?

    They have been directed to prepare a report on someone who they killed 40 years ago.

    When the report is finished we won't know anything.

    We won't know anything until the sheriff directs them to release the report.

    When will the concerned family and friends of Zac Champommier be able to read the sheriff's report explaining the details which led to his death?

    Be patient.

    These things take time.

    Just keep holding your place in line.

    You are right behind the family and friends waiting for the report on Ruben Salezar.

    ReplyDelete
  12. one person leaving a comment has asked:
    Why was the officer's first reaction to shoot to kill? Why Zac?

    These are very appropriate questions.

    In light of the fact that the sheriff has pulled his initial news release, we are no longer constrained in our effort to find an answer to the basic questions asked by the commenter.

    At this point, the sheriff is no longer offering any details or explanation for why Zac was shot and killed on June 24, 2010.

    The commenter would like to know why was the officer's first reaction to shoot to kill?

    But the sheriff has pulled his story and left the road wide open for us to ask why was the deputies action to shoot and kill Zac?

    Why did the sheriff murder Zac Champommier?

    Why would the sheriff have Zac lured to the parking lot behind Chipotle and murder him?

    ReplyDelete
  13. John -

    Maybe, but the fact remains, the office had the OIS roll-out program under Reiner and Gracetti and if nothing else, it at least put a second set of "official" eyes on all OIS incidents in Los Angeles County. That was worth something.

    "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" has been a question asked in civil societies since (arguably) the 4th Century BCE; it is one that should always be asked in any society.

    Best,

    Brad

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here is a list of 3 hypothetical scenarios which could explain why a person like Zac Champommier could be the target of murder by an unscrupulous law enforcement unit:

    1. Zac is a nice kid. He doesn't bear ill will towards anyone. There is no reason for anyone to be angry with him. He belongs to the high school marching band.

    One day he is an accidental witness to some prohibited activity done by another student(s).
    School officials require Zac to give them an accurate account of the behavior he witnessed.

    Zac doesn't want to get anyone in trouble or anger anyone, but school officials imply he must tell or suffer negative consequences.

    The other student(s) is a member of the football team and as a result of his involvement in prohibited activity he is held out of play for one or more football games by administrative rules.

    The football player is a senior standout being scouted by universities offering athletic scholarships.
    The football player's family has always placed an inordinate importance on excelling on the team, getting a football scholarship and continuing a trajectory towards a pro career.

    The administrative suspension comes exactly when the college scouts need to watch a display of skills. But now the player is benched and his season stats are frozen.

    Within his family this is considered a disaster and they are angry.
    That anger becomes focused on the student who told school authorities what he had witnessed, here we use Zac as an example.

    The football player's uncle is an L.A. County undercover sheriff who allows himself to get wrapped up in a revenge fantasy against Zac.

    Utilizing the resources available from his position in the sheriff dept., the uncle creates a lure and an ambush to avenge the harm committed upon his nephew.

    He feels confident that he will get away with it. Because the sheriff dept. culture is located on the furthest extreme of covering all questionable on-duty killings. The dept. spares no effort to maintain the anonymity of the killer and shield him from any negative effects to career or self.

    2. By circumstance, Zac has encountered and become involved with one or more undercover narcotic's law officers.

    They see Zac as an opportunity to facilitate their work and want to use him as a confidential informant.
    They compel him to carry out their directions and to keep their relationship secret.

    At some point they begin to worry that Zac may pose a threat to their career path.
    Maybe their supervisors have announced an audit of their C.I. activities and the narc's had knowingly violated policy in conducting themselves with Zac.

    Maybe the narcs are part of an interagency task force serving search warrants in the San Fernando Valley. While carrying out the warrant searches they have engaged in theft and robbery.

    These activities have been kept hidden from other members of the task force.

    They begin to worry that Zac may have heard that someone was robbed during a search warrant. They don't want to risk the other task force members getting wind of their misdeeds.

    They decide it will be safer for them if Zac is eliminated.

    3. Zac has been raised by and lives with his mom.
    His mother and father have been seriously estranged.
    Zac's father harbors deep anger and resentment towards his mother.
    He wishes great anguish and suffering upon her.

    This wish could be facilitated in the greatest measure by denying her the joy of her life - her only son.

    By employing a distorted interpretation of his personal religious beliefs, the father comes to see this as justifiable towards the mother and a righteous way to help his son get to a better place.

    In order to carry out the plan, the father would need to be in a position to influence or direct the actions of the sheriff's who shot Zac. Or he would need to be the actual undercover deputy and shooter himself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Has the L.A. County Sheriff department gone to far in their failure to institute management practices that help to reduce the emergence of corrupt practices by individual deputies?

    Has the department abandoned the monitoring tools which focus on red-flagging the classic markers which are found with corrupt practices?

    Have they failed to support and maintain the standards of the group whose job is to follow-up and report on items red-flagged to indicate potential corrupt practices?

    Is it possible that the culture of the sheriff department has led to individual deputies believing that they can act alone or with others to carry out a killing which will be automatically covered as the department's response?

    It appears that this may be the case.

    We have three people killed this year due to the action of sheriff's deputies which is presented as accidental or unanticipated.

    Yet a closer examination of the details seems to indicate a sequence of events with a low probability they occured together.

    Or a detail(s) of the events which logic must exclude from being possible if the other details given are to be true.

    Three people dead.

    One is given as an unanticipated O.I.S.
    That is Zac Champommier.

    The other two are presented as accidental death by impact occuring on a freeway. Because they occured on a freeway, a report is generated by the California Highway Patrol.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't feel embarrassed or ashamed or unpatriotic in having an instinctive suspicion about these deaths associated with L.A. County Sheriff deputies.

    I don't see anything harmful to our civic structure by asking for a deeper examination of the circumstances and individual deputies involved.

    The official story of why and how Zac was killed should withstand scrutiny if it is true.

    It has been pulled and we are left with nothing.

    That remains highly problematic until something plausible is offered in its place.

    Two residents of the north San Fernando Valley killed due the unanticipated action of L.A. County Sheriff deputies.

    Both events presenting one or more highly unlikely or improbable elements as part of the official narrative.

    Zachary Champommier, age 18 on June 24, 2010
    in Studio City.

    Less than 2 months before it was a 25 year old woman whose family are also our neighbors in the North S.F.V.

    We are told she died on the 405 North at Devonshire at approx. 2:00AM on May 3, 2010.

    Her name is Lisa Michelle Hylla.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Joseph M. BerrrellezOctober 25, 2010 at 11:22 PM

    Anonymous,

    I will NOT keep my mouth shut, and I will NOT keep my actions to a minimum, and neither will Zac's friend's and family. Maybe YOU should keep YOUR mouth shut until you know what you are talking about. So cops don't shoot unless absolutely necessary? Oh really? Is that a fact? That is the most naive statement I have ever heard. Do some research.
    And let me ask, would you keep your mouth shut if your best friend was killed in this situation?

    So getting away from guns is being a wimp? How about we put you in the same situation and see what you do? I'm hoping for the same outcome too.

    He hit an officer because the officer was running toward the suspect and Zac was getting out of a parking lot, not a lot of room to move. The officer probably ran out in front of him.

    The only thing that's "fishy" is the actions of the police that were present.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Joseph - they need to claim that Zac actually struck the deputy in order to make anything they did have a chance to fly through the hoops.

    You knew Zac. You know him. You said he turned out to be an unexpectedly reliable friend.
    He was solid. You could count on him.
    Friends like that are a rare find.

    You can be there for him now. You can be like a rock for him.

    If he hit someone with the car, lets see some proof.

    Lets see the medical report and photos of the injuries reviewed by an independent doctor who will conclude that it is consistent with the collision as has been accused.

    Until then, I don't buy it.

    I am not telling you what to believe Joseph.

    But I don't want anyone else trying to tell you what to think, either.

    Have the courage to go with your heart - it won't let you down.

    My heart says that Zac running down the cop, on purpose or by accident, is b.s.

    Because without that excuse they look real bad.

    It almost means that somebody had their mind made up before they even got out of bed.

    And that is as f. d. up as it gets.

    A man that can cry, that is a strong dude.
    Stay strong.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dear October 25, 2010 9:38 AM,
    Stop watching movies in your parents basement and get some fresh air. The cops aren't guilty of 1st degree murder. They didn't plan on killing Zac, but it happened, and we just want to know why. What could Zac have done to these cops that made them feel so threatened that they had to shoot first and ask questions later?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thanks so much, Joseph for your blog on Zac. This unfortunate loss has struck a deep core within me. I pray for the truth in this situation to be revealed.

    Zac seemed like such a great person and I will keep all of Zac's loved ones in my thoughts and prayers.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dear November 1, 2010 5:01PM -
    It is only natural that you are uncomfortable with the possibility of 1st Degree Murder.
    The shooting and death of Zac is very disturbing.
    Even more disturbing it would be to find evidence of planning by those involved.
    The fact remains that Zac's shooting was either planned or unplanned. Those two categories cover 100% of the possible true circumstances of ZAC'S death.
    Your ad hominem criticism is not a valid reason to end discussion of the hypothetical scenarios which offer to explain Zac's shooting as premeditated 1st degree murder.
    The reason for presenting the 3 hypotheticals is because of the possible explanations considered as "unplanned", none so far have been "rational" and "believable" enough to gain acceptance.
    We also have the situation of a young man who was known to conduct himself in a way that does not cause anger or hurt or harm to others.
    So that leaves us unable to consider anyone having a motive to premeditate his murder. That had us searching for answers only in the "unplanned" category.
    Now we have 3 scenarios each drawn from real life events. Zac was killed in real life. Each of the scenarios are possible and would sufficiently account for motive and means.

    ReplyDelete
  22. We will also continue to look for answers in the category of "unplanned". We will try to find the answer to your question of "What could Zac have done to these cops that made them feel so threatened that they had to shoot first and ask questions later?"
    I don't think you are going to like the best possible answer to that question. Because that answer contains highly disturbing descriptions of the cops.
    But that is all we are left with. The sheriff has simply walked away from this. It is almost unprecedented. There is no honorable or ethical way to justify the sheriff completely abandoning his duty to the public and to friends and family to submit a report in complete and proper format.
    We can now make the deduction that whatever explanation the sheriff could offer in the "unplanned" category will be more disturbing and bring him even more shame and dishonor and anger than he receives by just walking away.

    This is the calculation which the sheriff himself has made. We are now on our way to six months and we have nothing. There is no other way to explain this behavior.
    To the public at large it is a flashing red light that behind the wall of the sheriffs department must be an acceptance of highly unprofessional, deviant and possibly criminal practices.
    To answer your question "What could Zac have done...." must have been seen through the eyes of cops who were in a state of borderline insanity at the time.
    They must have been "out of their minds" at the time. This could be due to the presence of strong drugs and alcohol in their systems. Could be due to a heightened sense of paranoia because they are engaged in criminal activities. Such as transferring into their personal vehicles drugs and money stolen while serving search warrants. You may add to that a factor of feeling that they have complete and total immunity.
    That is what has been demonstrated to them again and again by the sheriff's efforts to protect his deputies from any outside punishment for anything.
    They have been living in a fantasy world that has decoupled them from the restraint of any serious consequences for their actions.
    The extreme measures the sheriff will take to shelter his deputies has led them to delusion.
    In fact, last December the sheriff opened his new Deputy Leadership Institute and switched to a new program of discipline.
    Deputies found violating rules are now rewarded. Thats right.
    They are rewarded. Deputies from all over the county who tend toward rule breaking are identified and brought together to meet each other. They get to leave their regular assignment for 30 days to attend a special program and bond with each other.
    Zac's killers may very well be members of the 1st Graduating Class of Sheriff Baca's Deputy Leadership Institute.
    So there you have it. Zac's killing was either premeditated 1st degree murder under some version of the hypothetical scenarios which were previously described OR it was unplanned and committed by men allowed to operate unsupervised and conduct themselves as criminals and/or intoxicated to the point of being unfit to carry the responsibilities and obligations of their jobs. A danger to themselves and anyone around them, their own families and coworkers included.
    Zac's killing can only be accounted for under some version found in the preceding paragraph.

    I know that it is disturbing. I know that it is ugly. I know that it is hard for you to accept and that you don't want to hear it.

    I am very sorry. That is what it is.

    That is all that is le

    ReplyDelete
  23. We will also continue to look for answers in the category of "unplanned". We will try to find the answer to your question of "What could Zac have done to these cops that made them feel so threatened that they had to shoot first and ask questions later?"

    I don't think you are going to like the best possible answer to that question. Because that answer contains highly disturbing descriptions of the cops.

    But that is all we are left with. The sheriff has simply walked away from this. It is almost unprecedented. There is no honorable or ethical way to justify the sheriff completely abandoning his duty to the public and to friends and family to submit a report in complete and proper format.

    We can now make the deduction that whatever explanation the sheriff could offer in the "unplanned" category will be more disturbing and bring him even more shame and dishonor and anger than he receives by just walking away.

    This is the calculation which the sheriff himself has made. We are now on our way to six months and we have nothing. There is no other way to explain this behavior.

    To the public at large it is a flashing red light that behind the wall of the sheriffs department must be an acceptance of highly unprofessional, deviant and possibly criminal practices.

    To answer your question "What could Zac have done...." must have been seen through the eyes of cops who were in a state of borderline insanity at the time.
    They must have been "out of their minds" at the time. This could be due to the presence of strong drugs and alcohol in their systems.

    Could be due to a heightened sense of paranoia because they are engaged in criminal activities. Such as transferring into their personal vehicles drugs and money stolen while serving search warrants. You may add to that a factor of feeling that they have complete and total immunity.

    That is what has been demonstrated to them again and again by the sheriff's efforts to protect his deputies from any outside punishment for anything.
    They have been living in a fantasy world that has decoupled them from the restraint of any serious consequences for their actions.
    The extreme measures the sheriff will take to shelter his deputies has led them to delusion.

    In fact, last December the sheriff opened his new Deputy Leadership Institute and switched to a new program of discipline.
    Deputies found violating rules are now rewarded. Thats right.
    They are rewarded. Deputies from all over the county who tend toward rule breaking are identified and brought together to meet each other. They get to leave their regular assignment for 30 days to attend a special program and bond with each other.

    Zac's killers may very well be members of the 1st Graduating Class of Sheriff Baca's Deputy Leadership Institute.

    ReplyDelete
  24. So there you have it.

    Zac's killing was either premeditated 1st degree murder under some version of the hypothetical scenarios which were previously described OR it was unplanned and committed by men allowed to operate unsupervised and conduct themselves as criminals and/or intoxicated to the point of being unfit to carry the responsibilities and obligations of their jobs. A danger to themselves and anyone around them, their own families and coworkers included.

    Zac's killing can only be accounted for under some version found in the preceding paragraph.

    I know that it is disturbing. I know that it is ugly. I know that it is hard for you to accept and that you don't want to hear it.

    I am very sorry. That is what it is.

    That is all that is left.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You're still an idiot. A police officer doesn't have to be a criminal, stealing drugs and weapons from a crime scene, to kill someone. I think the law enforcement officials, while "generally good people," made a horrible decision that night and need to be held accountable for those actions.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Alright, I agree with you - I am an idiot. But I offered Scenario #2 which describes deputies possibly being involved in stealing drugs and money. I didn't say anything about stealing weapons, too. But you have made a good point.
    Scenario #2 could include stealing drugs and/or money and/or weapons.

    We are now settled on that matter.

    The important issue that still remains is the killing of Zac Champommier.

    We have seen tremendous effort made to prevent the truth from being discovered.

    The friends of Zac were able to convincingly challenge the original lie the sheriff offered to explain what happened.

    The sheriff has not yet offered a new lie - that is not a reason to hold on to any part of the original story unless it has been substantiated.

    None of it has been properly substantiated.

    Only the coroners report can be effectively relied upon to contain the truth.

    We can succeed to define the area where the truth can be found by using common sense, intuition and an understanding of human behavior.

    Here is a summary with my forecast of probability.

    Unplanned killing - 10%

    Planned Killing --- 90%


    Unplanned:
    Deputies in a state of cognitive psychosis (unfit to be on-duty or out of the house that day/like a landmine waiting to blow) - 90%

    Deputies in a fit mental state, but rare and unfortunate sequence of events ------- 10%


    Planned:
    Scenario #1 - revenge due to situation with person(s) from the school. --- 25%

    Sceanario #2 - Zac already involved with situation between undercover sheriffs who need him eliminated because he knows something.
    ---------------25%

    Scenario #3 -- Zac killed due to situation between mother, father or other family member. -----------------25%

    Scenario #4 - X1 ---- all other scenarios possible which are planned.
    --------------25%


    We are looking at a 90% probability of a planned and staged murder. We also have knowledge of the original script which was published and then abandoned.

    We must consider that it was extensively planned and put into operation.

    Therefore would have been a very complete plan trying to leave nothing to chance.

    With that possibility in mind, we must admit there is a good chance Zac didn't just drive in to the parking lot completely on his own.

    He may have been following someone in another car who led him in to the parking lot.

    He may have gone to meet someone at another location where he was kidnapped and then the car and Zac were brought to the parking lot against his will.

    So what about the emails and text messages between Zac and the guy they say he was meeting?

    Faked and planted using Zac's password or hacking.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dear Anon 12/15/10,

    I'm sure glad you took a statistics class, otherwise we would all be screwed. You'd be surprised at the way probability works, especially when the odds are astronomical. No matter how big you make the odds, that doesn't mean that the other side could never happen. I once read that 89% of percentages are made up.

    Now, if you were keeping up to date with this case instead of having fun with conspiracy theories on a memoir about a couple of best friends, you would know that the police told Zac's mother that a DEA agent shot the bullet that killed Zac, and that Zac was doing absolutely nothing wrong in that parking lot. The report is currently under review for any wrong doings on the law enforcement's part.

    ReplyDelete
  28. To Anon 12/16/10,

    I do believe that we are actually in agreement.
    My allotment of probabilities for this case does not eliminate the possibility of the "the other side" ever happening.

    By "the other side" you mean - (correct me if i got your comment wrong) - the explanation which accounts for the shooting of Zac being due solely to an unintentional, unanticipated and tragic sequence of events. This is how you have chosen to comprehend what happened the night of June 24, 2010 in Studio City.

    My probabilities have clearly provided room for the scenario which you believe is correct:

    the UNPLANNED EVENT category has been given a 10% probability of the total.

    Within UNPLANNED, the category which has the deputies following all laws and proper conduct has been given a 10% probability.

    We then have 10% times 10% = 1% (one in hundred chance) that Zac's killing was due solely to a tragic unavoidable instance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    This 1% is a largely a factor of all the actions the Sheriff has taken since Zac was killed to misrepresent and conceal facts/details of what happened.

    Now that another 4 weeks have past since the probabilities were posted and the sheriff is still stonewalling - the 1% is being pulled even smaller and smaller.

    Let me assure you that I have kept up with the case. It is not news that the Sheriff stated Zac was doing absolutely nothing wrong.
    Zac's friends have always known that. That is what they have been trying to tell everyone from Day One.

    The Sheriff telling Zac's mother that a DEA squeezed out the fatal bullet also is non-news.

    He could have told us DEA was the shooter 6 months ago, so this is simply more stalling.

    I think we are looking at a one shooter one shot killing.

    I will bet the farm on it. Even if we are told there was more than one shot - I don't believe they will be able to support that claim by presenting the bullet(s)evidence with documented chain of control from recovery point to present time.

    My speculation is that they will have zero bullet evidence to show us or to show the court.

    This would be unlikely in most cases, but not so farfetched in this case - considering the shenanigans which have already transpired.

    In fact, if the coroner's medical exam includes reference to any bullet or bullet fragment recovered from the body then I predict that it is now GONE.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Joseph, Thank you for writing about Zach. I did not know him personally, but as a GHCHS mom and alumni, I listended to his beautiful music many times as the band played. I think of Zach often and after reading all of the wonderful comments from his classmates and teachers, and meeting people that new him, it is clear he was a fine young man with a promising future. While the initial reporting was terribly misleading (a wrongul shooting for sure), the community will remember him for the great young man he was thanks to the testimonies of his friends, teachers, and family. My prayers are with Carol and Zach's dad.
    GHCHS Mom, Class of '71

    ReplyDelete
  30. fuck the police they are all scumbags that are protected by the corrupt powers that be and we pay for them because we are sheep who do what their told even if it means get slaughtered

    if you can't control your system it shouldn't exist and that's what we have a complete rogue system with no accountability that's why we have these corrupt scum in costumes patrolling these streets

    ReplyDelete

There was an error in this gadget